QVectorman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Southern Africa temps way below normal, 15-20°C over large area Looks like south African country of Lesotho seeing its worst winter ever, the most snow, coldest temps due to record Antarctic ice & cold-Ryan Maue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Look out all of the AGW alarmists are going to scream out that this is caused by Global Warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Look out all of the AGW alarmists are going to scream out that this is caused by Global Warming I suggest you read about atmospheric wave dynamics. You'd see that stronger waves (meaning stronger warm and cold temperature anomalies) would be well supported in a world with increased baroclinicity. To answer the likely reply in advance, I'm not saying that this event happened because of our changing climate. However, as an argument against GW, it's a lousy strawman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Look out all of the AGW alarmists are going to scream out that this is caused by Global Warming From the Washington Post: South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007. Hmmm, 2007 - I seem to recall that there was a lot of arctic melting that year, too. Nah, there can't be a connection. So tell us, why do you believe that highly unusual weather is counter to AGW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bobbutts Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Love the Lion pic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 From the Washington Post: South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007. Hmmm, 2007 - I seem to recall that there was a lot of arctic melting that year, too. Nah, there can't be a connection. So tell us, why do you believe that highly unusual weather is counter to AGW? QV starts a worthless thread meant only to bait people like you and you completely fall for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 From the Washington Post: South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007. Hmmm, 2007 - I seem to recall that there was a lot of arctic melting that year, too. Nah, there can't be a connection. So tell us, why do you believe that highly unusual weather is counter to AGW? So tell me Philip, why do you think everything strange wx event is caused by AGW? And also out of curiosity, do you believe that the winter Olympics will become extinct because of AGW? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ORH_wxman Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I suggest you read about atmospheric wave dynamics. You'd see that stronger waves (meaning stronger warm and cold temperature anomalies) would be well supported in a world with increased baroclinicity. To answer the likely reply in advance, I'm not saying that this event happened because of our changing climate. However, as an argument against GW, it's a lousy strawman. Yes, this part is true... But wouldn't a warming world argue for less baroclinicity with polar amplification? (I.e. Jets retreat poleward and become weaker due to the decreased temp gradient) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 QV starts a worthless thread meant only to bait people like you and you completely fall for it. Why is it a worthless thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Why is it a worthless thread? Because a single isolated weather event says virtually nothing about climate change. This applies to any event. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BNAwx Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 From the Washington Post: South African Weather Service records show it has snowed in Johannesburg on only 22 other days in the last 103 years. The last snow fell there in June 2007. Hmmm, 2007 - I seem to recall that there was a lot of arctic melting that year, too. Nah, there can't be a connection. So tell us, why do you believe that highly unusual weather is counter to AGW? Good grief. The lowest temp in Johannesburg was recorded in 1979 and it snowed there in 1981 (the cryosphere was burgeoning at that time by-the-way) as well as a few times in the 50's and 60's. I think you're reaching at bit.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
toronto blizzard Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Because a single isolated weather event says virtually nothing about climate change. This applies to any event. Hmmm sounds like you're contradicting yourself when you say an isolated wx event doesn't prove GW Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Yes, this part is true... But wouldn't a warming world argue for less baroclinicity with polar amplification? (I.e. Jets retreat poleward and become weaker due to the decreased temp gradient) I'd agree in the northern hemisphere, where I'd imagine any change in the energy potential of a storm would be mitigated by the poleward shift and general weakening of temperature gradients. But in the southern hemisphere, my understanding is that the temperature gradient is somewhat insensitive due to the ACC and related wind patterns aloft. So I'd guess that increased latent energy could support stronger wave dynamics in the SH. Still, I've often brought up your contention to my climate researcher friends and have never really heard a satisfying argument for increased mid-latitude storm strength. My personal opinion is that we'll see weaker mid-latitude cyclones as the planet warms. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Yes, this part is true... But wouldn't a warming world argue for less baroclinicity with polar amplification? (I.e. Jets retreat poleward and become weaker due to the decreased temp gradient) AGW supports increasing odds for unusual heat waves and DECREASING odds for unusual cold waves. This is cited repeatedly on this forum. Look at the comments about how record highs are outnumbering record lows. So no, there is no logical reason to connect unusual cold waves like this to AGW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Hmmm sounds like you're contradicting yourself when you say an isolated wx event doesn't prove GW Can you point to where I ever said that a single weather event proved global warming? I'll await your proof that I've said something contradictory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Oh that's right, AGW means the whole world warms slowly in a linear fashion exactly at the same rate, EVERYWHERE. Thanks for clearing that up for me guys. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vandy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So no, there is no logical reason to connect unusual cold waves like this to AGW. Perhaps you meant to quote me here? In either event, I agree that the odds of cold snaps such as this should decrease as the climate warms. My post was more just providing a hypothetical mechanism for increasing the strength of a cold snap if it does happen. Regardless, the above point is all that needs to be said in this thread. Individual weather events cannot prove or disprove a climate trend. Furthermore, there already is a thread on this topic in the weather section, where it belongs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
friedmators Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Can you point to where I ever said that a single weather event proved global warming? I'll await your proof that I've said something contradictory. I don't see anything in the original post related to an agenda. Just looks like a weather story. Not sure why you decided to try and label it as one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sundog Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I don't see anything in the original post related to an agenda. Just looks like a weather story. Not sure why you decided to try and label it as one. If it's just a weather story then he should have posted it in the weather forum. What was the reason for posting it in the Climate Change forum? I can think of only one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 If it's just a weather story then he should have posted it in the weather forum. What was the reason for posting it in the Climate Change forum? I can think of only one. The problem is, we have increasingly seen weather events cited as examples of (or in connection to) AGW on this forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I don't see anything in the original post related to an agenda. Just looks like a weather story. Not sure why you decided to try and label it as one. What forum are you in? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Msalgado Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 The problem is, we have increasingly seen weather events cited as examples of (or in connection to) AGW on this forum. Thats a problem, sure. My mother taught me at a young age that two wrongs didn't make a right. Has that changed? The fact that other people make mistakes doesn't magically make this a good thread who's intent wasn't incredibly transparent. Why do so many people in this forum have so much trouble debating and discussing things in a serious adult manner? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Thats a problem, sure. My mother taught me at a young age that two wrongs didn't make a right. Has that changed? The fact that other people make mistakes doesn't magically make this a good thread who's intent wasn't incredibly transparent. Why do so many people in this forum have so much trouble debating and discussing things in a serious adult manner? I agree. I'm just saying that there seems to be more acceptance by some on here to associate some weather events with AGW, and yet insist that any weather event like this doesn't belong in the climate change forum. This is why I say some alarmists like to cherry-pick events to support their views. Just as some skeptics do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Why is this thread in the climate change forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 This is why I say some alarmists like to cherry-pick events to support their views. Just as some skeptics do. "Alarmists" and "Skeptics" aren't opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm a skeptic because I'm a scientist, and yet I def don't agree with many who call themselves "skeptics" re: climate change. "Alarmists" and "Denialists" are opposite ends of the spectrum. And though there are a couple on this board, they make up the minority. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhillipS Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 So tell me Philip, why do you think everything strange wx event is caused by AGW? And also out of curiosity, do you believe that the winter Olympics will become extinct because of AGW? I wouldn't use the word "caused", I prefer the word "influenced". And, yes, I feel that today's weather, both good and bad, is influenced to some extent by AGW. How could it not be? Global temperatures are warmer than they were in the past, there is more water vapor, jet stream behavior is changing - I think it is safe to say that today's weather occurs in conditions far different than, say, fifty or a hundred years ago. Do you agree that conditions are different today? Weather events don't have innate guidelines for when they occur or how severe they are - that's determined by the existing conditions. Isn't it? It is just as illogical to claim that AGW was solely responsible for a given event as it is to say that AGW had no influence at all. The reality is somewhere between those extremes. That being said, I feel that many people take an overly simplistic approach to attributing events to AGW. Hurricanes are an example - on one hand higher SSTs should increase the number of tropical storms but on the other hand higher wind shear should prevent many tropical disturbances from growing into hurricanes. The net effect of AGW depends on both processes. It is my understanding that the record for recent years shows a slight decrease in TCs globally, but a slight increase in strength and longevity for TCs in the Atlantic. What will the situation be with increased AGW in future decades? I have no idea. AGW is just the consequence of the long, unplanned geoengineering experiment we call Business As Usual (BAU) We have altered the Earth's energy balance by burning fossil fuels (and other activities, of course) so how can you believe that additional energy will have no effect on weather? As we continue BAU and continue to dump gigatons of GHGs into the atmosphere every year the climate and weather will contiue to move further away from what we knew in the past. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ben4vols Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I wonder if a picture of the lion covered in snow will be in Al Gore's next movie. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Entropy Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 I don't see anything in the original post related to an agenda. Just looks like a weather story. Not sure why you decided to try and label it as one. Maybe the very fact that it was posted in the Climate Change forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mallow Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 Maybe the very fact that it was posted in the Climate Change forum? This times ten thousand. It's a troll post. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tacoman25 Posted August 8, 2012 Share Posted August 8, 2012 "Alarmists" and "Skeptics" aren't opposite ends of the spectrum. I'm a skeptic because I'm a scientist, and yet I def don't agree with many who call themselves "skeptics" re: climate change. "Alarmists" and "Denialists" are opposite ends of the spectrum. And though there are a couple on this board, they make up the minority. Did I say they were opposite ends of the spectrum? I was specifically referring to alarmists as those that interpret everything AGW-related through catastrophe-tinted glasses. Skeptics being anyone who is skeptical of AGW (or at least how it is presented), in one way or another. That spectrum has a wide range, and would include denialists at the far end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.