PEOPLE UNDER 35 HAVE NEVER SEEN NORMAL GLOBAL TEMPERATURES

[Jonger]

I'll play

Galt Ontario Canada

1946-1963 (moved to California)

I'd be particularly interested in any records you can locate referencing the freeze/thaw of the Grand River as a local contest guessing the moment the ice broke up was a huge local obsession during the winter. I recall the tail end of a hurricane coming through in the mid 50s, but very little other spectacular weather. Hamilton (40 min east of here) recently upgraded some city systems claiming that winter months have been experiencing much larger climatic shifts than the global average,

Be interesting if you can find any instances of snowless New Years, let alone snowless Ground Hog Days.

Have Fun!

I'll get on this later today... My first thought is warm water discharge in that river. Detroit and Toronto arent that far apart so I'm coming into this with similar numbers. Detroit has a bad urban heat island, but the area just outside the city hasnt seen any temp variation.

[Jonger]

Natural disasters have quadrupled.

http://www.fema.gov/...nual.fema#markS

>4 meter floods have tripled, >6 meter floods have quadrupled.

Tropical storms are up by 50%. The world climate has changed significantly. Of course a average change of less than 1C is hard to notice, but the frequency of strong storms is not. While this activity is not local, in the television age, we all hear the world and national news.

I'm really wondering what happened in 1990 to show the sharp rise. Makes me wonder if we really monitored tropical activity with as much scruntiny as we do today. Natural disasters are declared only in locations with people. With a doubling or tripling of the world population it pretty much answers itself.

[The_Global_Warmer]

How do we do it. We have never seen normal temperatures. How do we survive? it's amazing!

Just one thing, and this is very basic and it is already a failure.

Let's assume this is a reality for all 7 billion humans on average.

Let's assume between all 7 billion humans that they need this on a daily basis for optimal survival.

2000 Calories x 7 bil = 14,000,000,000,000 trillion calories per day to feed every living homo sapien. Now if we make that a year that is 5,110,000,000,000,000 quadrillion calories per year.

If we are at 10 billion homo sapiens then it moves to: 20,000,000,000 trillion per day & 7,300,000,000,000,000 quadrillion per year.

Right now an estimated 925,000,000 million living breathing humans do not have food today.

An Estimated 2,000,000,000 billion do not have food secure threw out the next two days.

While there is a smidge of hunger in the United States. I can see why people on these boards coming from privilege don't think wrecking the worlds ability to make and maintain a food supply for a species as populated as ours is a big deal.

Can't see it, cant believe it. And if you say different, then think about the arctic warming out of control. Can't see that either, and you ignore it too.

I am guilty, you are too.

How long before the dominoes start to fall? You have come here and scoffed at 1C of warming. The arctic has warmed 2C since the 1980s and 2C has crippled 2/3rds+ of ice volume. And has sent the ice decline spiraling down.

We are now seeing reports of increased methane release.

Do you expect this to stop? what will happen at 3C, 4C, 5C?

Did you know since the 1990s, bottom ice melt in the arctic has increased 4-6x, and 8-10x since the 80s? this is from solar radiation.

If the arctic went down 2C since the 1980s, we would be seeing record max extents and min extents and incredible cold.

I bet that would get peoples attention.

[bluewave]

Most people of the world are not as fortunate as you to share in all that technology.

I think that clean drinking water and other sanitation issues rank much higher for them than any climate change issues.

Those are mainly the result of a global political and economic system that doesn't serve their needs.

[Jonger]

Just one thing, and this is very basic and it is already a failure.

Let's assume this is a reality for all 7 billion humans on average.

Let's assume between all 7 billion humans that they need this on a daily basis for optimal survival.

2000 Calories x 7 bil = 14,000,000,000,000 trillion calories per day to feed every living homo sapien. Now if we make that a year that is 5,110,000,000,000,000 quadrillion calories per year.

If we are at 10 billion homo sapiens then it moves to: 20,000,000,000 trillion per day & 7,300,000,000,000,000 quadrillion per year.

Right now an estimated 925,000,000 million living breathing humans do not have food today.

An Estimated 2,000,000,000 billion do not have food secure threw out the next two days.

While there is a smidge of hunger in the United States. I can see why people on these boards coming from privilege don't think wrecking the worlds ability to make and maintain a food supply for a species as populated as ours is a big deal.

Can't see it, cant believe it. And if you say different, then think about the arctic warming out of control. Can't see that either, and you ignore it too.

I am guilty, you are too.

How long before the dominoes start to fall? You have come here and scoffed at 1C of warming. The arctic has warmed 2C since the 1980s and 2C has crippled 2/3rds+ of ice volume. And has sent the ice decline spiraling down.

We are now seeing reports of increased methane release.

Do you expect this to stop? what will happen at 3C, 4C, 5C?

Did you know since the 1990s, bottom ice melt in the arctic has increased 4-6x, and 8-10x since the 80s? this is from solar radiation.

If the arctic went down 2C since the 1980s, we would be seeing record max extents and min extents and incredible cold.

I bet that would get peoples attention.

This my friends is the extreme end of the specturm. Be a steward to your environment, look for alternative long term sustaining energy and keep your families size down to a reasonable level (I have 2). Beyond that... This horse has been beaten to death.

[Jonger]

I think that clean drinking water and sanitation issues rank much higher for them than any climate change issues.

Those are manly the result of a global political and economic system that don't serve their needs.

Sub Saharian African children have been starving to death since the dawn of time. People continue to procreate at unsustainable levels in a desert. its pitiful.

[BeastFromTheEast]

Right now an estimated 925,000,000 million living breathing humans do not have food today.

An Estimated 2,000,000,000 billion do not have food secure threw out the next two days.

While there is a smidge of hunger in the United States. I can see why people on these boards coming from privilege don't think wrecking the worlds ability to make and maintain a food supply for a species as populated as ours is a big deal.

Funny you mention this I was just thinking about this issue today..

Using alternative fuels which many of you guys support out of a crapload of corn and other grains that can be consumed by those poor people who are hungry isn't right either..

Use corn to make gas for the Average American fatso? Or use use those grains for helping the starving children around the world? hmmm.... tough decision...

http://www.scienceda...00419172855.htm

[LithiaWx]

The FEMA disaster charts are completely meaningless to this discussion and AGW. I can't believe you posted it more than once without someone debunking this garbage. I'm going to explain very simply why the charts prove nothing.

1. Many of the disasters are based on where they occur not necessarily frequency. If a tornado hit a corn field in Iowa there is not going to be a Federal declaration of a disaster. If it hits a major town like say Joplin then it's a different story. It's about where they are happening not necessarily how many times. Also it's highly dependent on population growth which ties into my previous sentences.

2. Hurricanes also fall under point number 1.

3. Fires also number 1.

4. Floods, guess what point number 1 can possibly explain that too.

[BeastFromTheEast]

The FEMA disaster charts are completely meaningless to this discussion and AGW. I can't believe you posted it more than once without someone debunking this garbage. I'm going to explain very simply why the charts prove nothing.

1. Many of the disasters are based on where they occur not necessarily frequency. If a tornado hit a corn field in Iowa there is not going to be a Federal declaration of a disaster. If it hits a major town like say Joplin then it's a different story. It's about where they are happening not necessarily how many times. Also it's highly dependent on population growth which ties into my previous sentences.

2. Hurricanes also fall under point number 1.

3. Fires also number 1.

4. Floods, guess what point number 1 can possibly explain that too.

Yep and also factor in the infrastructure development issue.. So many more businesses, homes, and buildings have been made since the early 1900's to today..

A Cat 5 in NYC in 1900 vs a Cat 5 in NYC today would have a big big damage cost difference..

And also I had a big time at the Tropical Storm map that dated back to the early 1900's.. As if satellites were around back then to count the handful of fish storms that happen every year lololololol...

[bluewave]

The question isn't whether we survive.. it is what is the best social political and economic outcome. Do you know the damage that past climate changes have done to our species? And those changes were much MUCH smaller than those expected due to AGW which will literally raise the oceans.

Yeah, but any sea level change will be gradual enough to allow for adaptation. It won't be sudden like a tidal

surge or tsunami that catch people by surprise.

[Vergent]

I'm really wondering what happened in 1990 to show the sharp rise. Makes me wonder if we really monitored tropical activity with as much scruntiny as we do today. Natural disasters are declared only in locations with people. With a doubling or tripling of the world population it pretty much answers itself.

The middle graph, global flooding is from satellite altimetry measurements.

Don't think they were missing much.

[Jonger]

The middle graph, global flooding is from satellite altimetry measurements.

Don't think they were missing much.

Not sure what I'm supposed to extract from this. Looks like flooding in populated areas. Compared to what else exactly?

[Jonger]

if it's so meaningless why were there so many panels on climate change and extreme weather at the AMS meeting last week?

Funding strategies for 2012?

[TerryM]

I'll get on this later today... My first thought is warm water discharge in that river. Detroit and Toronto arent that far apart so I'm coming into this with similar numbers. Detroit has a bad urban heat island, but the area just outside the city hasnt seen any temp variation.

Can't wait!!

Galt may have grown 20/25% since my youth, hard to ascertain as it amalgamated with two other towns and a village sometime after I left, but we're talking Amish and Mennonite farmers in this area. Not a lot of urban heat island. The area was settled at the opening of the 19th century and farmers kept a fairly close eye on the weather (some documentation of the year that Krakatoa exploded are extant), also outdoor curling associations could be counted on to comment on abnormal ice conditions that would disrupt seasonal bonspiels.

I'm quite willing to accept that my memory may be faulty, but I'd really like to have it pointed out to me.

BTW I did run into a wiki sight that enumerated all the tornadoes in Ontario, the only time I heard of a local one "back then" was when the hurricane came through.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This my friends is the extreme end of the specturm. Be a steward to your environment, look for alternative long term sustaining energy and keep your families size down to a reasonable level (I have 2). Beyond that... This horse has been beaten to death.

It's happening, right now, as we speak.

Right now, Arctic basin sea ice is lowest ever recorded on this date. Kara Sea ice is the lowest ever recorded on this date. Both are completely unprecedented. The pattern helping drive this is not unprecedented.

The levels of CH4 and Co2 in the arctic are at record highs, arctic temps are at record highs, arctic ssts are at record highs, arctic sea ice is at record lows at this point by every measure.

it's happening, and you have the choice to pretend it's not. That is your choice.

[Alpha5]

Fine by me.

Warm temps = more bikinis

[michsnowfreak]

I'll play

Galt Ontario Canada

1946-1963 (moved to California)

I'd be particularly interested in any records you can locate referencing the freeze/thaw of the Grand River as a local contest guessing the moment the ice broke up was a huge local obsession during the winter. I recall the tail end of a hurricane coming through in the mid 50s, but very little other spectacular weather. Hamilton (40 min east of here) recently upgraded some city systems claiming that winter months have been experiencing much larger climatic shifts than the global average,

Be interesting if you can find any instances of snowless New Years, let alone snowless Ground Hog Days.

Have Fun!

Sites that are loaded with US climate data have very sparse info for Canada. I also see that Cambridge is much closer to Toronto than Detroit. Toronto does seem to be some sort of minority in that winters have been getting less snowy over the years per some of our Toronto posters (still very variable from year to year, 2007-08 probably saw more snow at Toronto than any winter in the 1950s).

Since the 1950s were the main decade of your youth, I can tell you that the decade of the 1950s averages nearly 8 inches less of snow per season than the 2000s at Detroit, and also the 1950s averages about 7 days less per winter with 1"+ snowcover. Weather in this region has never been what you would call stable though. It always varies from year to year. There were some very mild, snowless winters in the 1950s as a matter of fact (see 1952-53).

[bluewave]

how much time will be enough lead time to relocate all of the people living along the coasts? who is going to pay for the massive infrastructure that will be required to relocate so many people? where do you put the new Manhattan? or San Francisco?

Who is talking about the need to move Manhattan or San Francisco in our lifetimes?

Some of the figures that I have seen were around a 1 meter rise by 2100.

[michsnowfreak]

I'll get on this later today... My first thought is warm water discharge in that river. Detroit and Toronto arent that far apart so I'm coming into this with similar numbers. Detroit has a bad urban heat island, but the area just outside the city hasnt seen any temp variation.

It might be hard to find data, I can never find weather data for Canada, and the stuff you can find from EC needs a lot of recalculating for inches, degrees F, etc.

The reason Im talking more about snow is because, take the science and 0.7 of a degree and all that stuff out of it, and every thread on this subforum turns into the same people posting the same graphs, data, and AGW novels that they post in every single other thread on this subforum. Im honing in on one aspect, and that is the assertions from some that they can tell from experiencing them that winters were colder, snowier, more stable, whatever back in the day. Go back to 1950. First of all, unless you were a meteorologist working at the Weather Bureau you certainly didnt have the access to all of this data we do now. You didnt care whether it was 26 or 28 degrees outside. The general feel of winter is what you would take from it. And just like we experience year to year variances in winter today (last year at this time we had over a foot of snow on the ground, today the ground is bare), so did we back in the day. And they noticed it at the time. There were "open winters" as they called them, and harsh ones. But as people age, many of their weather memories morph from reality into embellished and colored up stories of walking uphill in the snow and stuff. There were several mild and "open" winters in the 1950s (1958-59 was the ONLY winter of the decade here without significant periods of bare ground at some time in DJF). And you want to talk about temperatures? You know firsthand by living in Howell how temperatures can vary some 10 degrees from rural area to metro area a few miles away.

While Detroit data is the only data I know like the back of my hand, I have browsed many other areas data as well, and big surprise, they had harsh winters and easy winters, hot summers and cool ones. But whatever, this is why I stay out of this forum most of the time. You can name a thread whatever you want, it turns into the same thing.

[LithiaWx]

if it's so meaningless why were there so many panels on climate change and extreme weather at the AMS meeting last week?

You know better than that. I said meaningless to this topic and discussion(which it is). It is also not proof of AGW at all. Perhaps it could be used in support of Climate Change but it's a very weak piece of the puzzle and you know that. There are way too many variables to use it in an argument to suggest that there are more disasters due to AGW. It's meaningless in the way he was using it.

[The_Global_Warmer]

It might be hard to find data, I can never find weather data for Canada, and the stuff you can find from EC needs a lot of recalculating for inches, degrees F, etc.

The reason Im talking more about snow is because, take the science and 0.7 of a degree and all that stuff out of it, and every thread on this subforum turns into the same people posting the same graphs, data, and AGW novels that they post in every single other thread on this subforum. Im honing in on one aspect, and that is the assertions from some that they can tell from experiencing them that winters were colder, snowier, more stable, whatever back in the day. Go back to 1950. First of all, unless you were a meteorologist working at the Weather Bureau you certainly didnt have the access to all of this data we do now. You didnt care whether it was 26 or 28 degrees outside. The general feel of winter is what you would take from it. And just like we experience year to year variances in winter today (last year at this time we had over a foot of snow on the ground, today the ground is bare), so did we back in the day. And they noticed it at the time. There were "open winters" as they called them, and harsh ones. But as people age, many of their weather memories morph from reality into embellished and colored up stories of walking uphill in the snow and stuff. There were several mild and "open" winters in the 1950s (1958-59 was the ONLY winter of the decade here without significant periods of bare ground at some time in DJF). And you want to talk about temperatures? You know firsthand by living in Howell how temperatures can vary some 10 degrees from rural area to metro area a few miles away.

While Detroit data is the only data I know like the back of my hand, I have browsed many other areas data as well, and big surprise, they had harsh winters and easy winters, hot summers and cool ones. But whatever, this is why I stay out of this forum most of the time. You can name a thread whatever you want, it turns into the same thing.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/display_climate.php?file=coldwinter.htm

I don't know it like the back of my hand. But in the top 20 coldest winters, The most recent in Detroit was 1985/86 at 20th.

Before that 1981/82 which was 30 years ago. So over a 29 year period, Detroit has one top 20 coldest winter.

That is the longest period on that list.

there are 4 of the top 20 since 1992.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/display_climate.php?file=coldyear.htm

The last coldest year for Detroit was 1980 on the top 20, 31 years ago.

9 of the top 20 warmest in Detroit are since 1990.

I can see why you keep focusing on Snow in Detroit and not the rise in Temperature.

[Jonger]

Sites that are loaded with US climate data have very sparse info for Canada. I also see that Cambridge is much closer to Toronto than Detroit. Toronto does seem to be some sort of minority in that winters have been getting less snowy over the years per some of our Toronto posters (still very variable from year to year, 2007-08 probably saw more snow at Toronto than any winter in the 1950s).

Since the 1950s were the main decade of your youth, I can tell you that the decade of the 1950s averages nearly 8 inches less of snow per season than the 2000s at Detroit, and also the 1950s averages about 7 days less per winter with 1"+ snowcover. Weather in this region has never been what you would call stable though. It always varies from year to year. There were some very mild, snowless winters in the 1950s as a matter of fact (see 1952-53).

It seems Toronto area has suffered since 2008 with below normal snowfall.

[cheetah440]

This is consistent with natural variability.

No, the climate is supposed to stay the same and never change. It should only get colder, never warmer and never change. If it was snowy in the 50's it should be snowy now or it's dire. 50 yrs is all one needs to measure the climate and conclude significant change. It's not like our planet is that old or anything. It's dire, have you seen our snow totals in the Northeast this year? Geesh.

[cheetah440]

We will run out of petroleum soon enough.

In terms of the Earth's life span, true enough. But it won't be for hundreds of years or longer.

Ever hear of Alberta Canada? Take a look at what's going on up there. And that is just the tip of the tar sand iceberg so to speak. The planet has plenty of petroleum and regardless of what the doomsayers prattle on about, we will be burning it. Good luck telling the developing world that can't partake in the good life. LOL, good luck with that.

[Jonger]

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/display_climate.php?file=coldwinter.htm

I don't know it like the back of my hand. But in the top 20 coldest winters, The most recent in Detroit was 1985/86 at 20th.

Before that 1981/82 which was 30 years ago. So over a 29 year period, Detroit has one top 20 coldest winter.

That is the longest period on that list.

there are 4 of the top 20 since 1992.

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/dtx/display_climate.php?file=coldyear.htm

The last coldest year for Detroit was 1980 on the top 20, 31 years ago.

9 of the top 20 warmest in Detroit are since 1990.

I can see why you keep focusing on Snow in Detroit and not the rise in Temperature.

With the urban heat island effect being rampant in the city this doesn't surprise me one bit. You can probably remove 3-5 degrees per day on sunny days in Detroit to get a real idea of the climate.

[BeastFromTheEast]

In terms of the Earth's life span, true enough. But it won't be for hundreds of years or longer.

Ever hear of Alberta Canada? Take a look at what's going on up there. And that is just the tip of the tar sand iceberg so to speak. The planet has plenty of petroleum and regardless of what the doomsayers prattle on about, we will be burning it. Good luck telling the developing world that can't partake in the good life. LOL, good luck with that.

This..

Unless if you want all those kids in developing nations to starve to death you have to let them use whatever that gets them ahead be it coal or whatever. You can't honestly expect those nations to use alternative fuels and and energy and "go green"right now when its an all out struggle to live to your teens in those places..

Regarding this issue of hunger its just not right to use food(corn and other grains) as alternative fuels when you have millions of starving kids across the planet..

Not only is it inefficient but would you rather use the fuel from that food to provide energy for the average american Fatso? Or give that food to the starving kid across the pond? Hmmmmm.. Tough Question...

http://www.scienceda...00419172855.htm

[JoMo]

This thread sucks. Actually most threads suck in this forum. That's too bad there are such extreme views and very few people that are level headed on this subject.

[The_Global_Warmer]

This thread sucks. Actually most threads suck in this forum. That's too bad there are such extreme views and very few people that are level headed on this subject.

Your post above helps none because it's completely untrue, what are the extreme views? There is mainstream science that uses all of the available data to decipher this. Then there is the other half you give credence too.

[Jonger]

Meanwhile

http://pafc.arh.noaa.gov/papers/THE%20COLD%20FACTS.pdf

[The_Global_Warmer]

With the urban heat island effect being rampant in the city this doesn't surprise me one bit. You can probably remove 3-5 degrees per day on sunny days in Detroit to get a real idea of the climate.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=42.2125,-83.353333&spn=0.03,0.03&t=m&q=42.2125,-83.353333

Yeah?

So your telling me the heat island affect causes a 3-5F rise in Detroit temps give the airports location?

Rank Value Ending Date 1 105 7/24/1934 2 104 6/25/1988, 7/14/1936, 7/8/1936, 6/28/1934, 8/6/1918 7 102 7/16/1988, 7/15/1977, 7/13/1936, 7/10/1936

That is extremely unlikely.

Of the top 10 Warmest days in Detroit. Two have been in the last 34 years. So your telling me that Detroit has really only been. Those top ten are 102-104F.

That means taking your 3-5F Heat Island affect. Detroit gets to 93-98F anytime they are 96-101F it's heat Island?