"Bundle up, It's Global warming"

[mdwx]

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=2&ref=opinion

[Alpha5]

I stopped reading after

"Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling"

[LakeEffectKing]

I stopped reading after

"Annual cycles like El Niño/Southern Oscillation, solar variability and global ocean currents cannot account for recent winter cooling"

I suspect even the "warmists" would come out against such nonsense....I mean our global temperature is currently sitting around .25 to .50 warmer wrt the last 30 or so years.....and this article makes it sound as if this is: A.) Unprecedented B.) Such a relatively small factor overrides all well studied correlation with indecies that have historical precedence. Complete and utter rubish statement.

[bobbutts]

I did read the whole article and it seems to flow like:

warming increases water vapor

increased water vapor snows on siberia

albedo effect causes cold air above snow cover

cold air buckles jet

buckled jet dumps arctic air on major cities

This chain of effects makes logical sense to me, but is it really true?

[Analog96]

I did read the whole article and it seems to flow like:

warming increases water vapor

increased water vapor snows on siberia

albedo effect causes cold air above snow cover

cold air buckles jet

buckled jet dumps arctic air on major cities

This chain of effects makes logical sense to me, but is it really true?

Well if it was really true, then there would be no need for us to try to do anything about global warming, as GW would effectively end itself!

[LocoAko]

Well if it was really true, then there would be no need for us to try to do anything about global warming, as GW would effectively end itself!

Maybe if that was the only feedback known about....

[bobbutts]

There's some reaction to that article posted on

http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/12/27/wintry-weather-and-global-warming/?partner=rss&emc=rss

And I found that the op-ed author works for http://www.aer.com/

[bobbutts]

Well if it was really true, then there would be no need for us to try to do anything about global warming, as GW would effectively end itself!

Well I've long suspected that AGW proponents miss, underestimate, or entirely dismiss feedbacks that refute runaway warming. It goes along with the argument that the atmosphere is too difficult to accurately predict and/or researcher bias, both of which I believe have merit.

[Analog96]

Maybe if that was the only feedback known about....

Then again this article is 90% BS anyway.

[cpickett79]

Then again this article is 90% BS anyway.

just like MM GW. The power of poltical forces to shape lies damn lies and statistics is underestimated. Any political movement should be scrutinized to the highest ....especially in democratic country's. The reason i say the last part is in communist country's they don't have to mislead you for fear you will become upset at the $$ motives behind an agenda. if you don't like the corruption there....you are jailed. Also let me add that enviornmentalists realized early on as they are empassioned/emotional toward the enviornement.....that GW was too big an issue NOT to have on their side....and thus they were biased to lap up any evidence as concrete otherwise their enviornmental concerns would continue to fall on deaf ears. I don't care either way ...i just learned from human behavior and political history that any scientific movement infused with poltical leverage....$$ (grants going to scientists with pro MMGW findings) that it was likely trumped up as well as something that takes care of it's self (i.e sun induced and happened before i.e 1600's) . Now because you don't understand how getting popular media behind a politcal agenda can skew how many "experts" agree with MMGW and thus people's individual opinions...does not make this assertion less likely in the real world...in your own opinion yes....but not in the big picture....which most prolly don't care about anyway. i don't dub this a big conspiracy....just politics at work with human emotion.

[LakeEffectKing]

I did read the whole article and it seems to flow like:

warming increases water vapor

increased water vapor snows on siberia

albedo effect causes cold air above snow cover

cold air buckles jet

buckled jet dumps arctic air on major cities

This chain of effects makes logical sense to me, but is it really true?

But why is this NOW only being explained to us??? Maybe, just maybe because it is WHAT is happening?? Did the Inconvienient Truth mention harsher winters? Nope. Only a chance that snowy winters were to end.

This on the fly "rule making" by the hypothesis creators/believers is making their hole into a crater, which, at it's base lies quicksand. They can't even admit that their first "thoughts" about how "it" was going to all transpire (shorter, warmer winters) were wrong!! Nope....just readjust their prognostications on a wing and a prayer....throw in some technical wizardry in and hope they can hold their followers, and convince some fence sitters that everything is going according to script.....Pathetic!

[ArtRosen]

I suspect even the "warmists" would come out against such nonsense....I mean our global temperature is currently sitting around .25 to .50 warmer wrt the last 30 or so years.....and this article makes it sound as if this is: A.) Unprecedented B.) Such a relatively small factor overrides all well studied correlation with indecies that have historical precedence. Complete and utter rubish statement.

Where can I find this data to show it to other people?

[nzucker]

Where can I find this data to show it to other people?

UAH global temperatures:

[LakeEffectKing]

Where can I find this data to show it to other people?

[LakeEffectKing]

I would give you the GISS record, but I find it unreliable, because it is constantly being changed!!!!

[Saggy]

How come the chart is different from the original post? And am I looking at that right? Are we nearing global temps from 1998?

[nzucker]

How come the chart is different from the original post? And am I looking at that right? Are we nearing global temps from 1998?

Yeah, this year was slightly cooler than 1998 on the satellites. Both were strong El Niños.

[LakeEffectKing]

How come the chart is different from the original post? And am I looking at that right? Are we nearing global temps from 1998?

Zuc's went to '09....mine is up to date. If many of the "natural variability" scientists are correct, this is the last of the upticks in the decadal temp. increases for many years. The low solar min. coupled with the PDO flip, and we should see a flattening (which we are currently) and then an eventual gradual decrease in global temps.....(smoothing out any volcanic activity or ENSO phases). This, in my mind would be quite a blow to the AGW hypothesis...well, at least the initial hypothesis....not the one that changes as the weather changes!

[ArtRosen]

Can you please provide me with the source you downloaded this graph from?

[LakeEffectKing]

Can you please provide me with the source you downloaded this graph from?

I'm not sure (I didn't look....google or bing it) where the entire record is posted, but here is the last year:

http://www.drroyspen...ate-0-38-deg-c/

Edit: Oh, I reread your request....you just want the link....well the graph is in the link I provided ^^

[Saggy]

Zuc's went to '09....mine is up to date. If many of the "natural variability" scientists are correct, this is the last of the upticks in the decadal temp. increases for many years. The low solar min. coupled with the PDO flip, and we should see a flattening (which we are currently) and then an eventual gradual decrease in global temps.....(smoothing out any volcanic activity or ENSO phases). This, in my mind would be quite a blow to the AGW hypothesis...well, at least the initial hypothesis....not the one that changes as the weather changes!

I saw that yours was the updated version a minute after my post. It was too late to delete the question.

I am one of the fence sitters you mentioned earlier. It's mainly due to the constantly moving goal post. The AGW side would do itself a huge favor by limiting the number of people making predictions.

[ArtRosen]

I'm not sure (I didn't look....google or bing it) where the entire record is posted, but here is the last year:

http://www.drroyspen...ate-0-38-deg-c/

Edit: Oh, I reread your request....you just want the link....well the graph is in the link I provided ^^

Thank you!

[LakeEffectKing]

I saw that yours was the updated version a minute after my post. It was too late to delete the question.

I am one of the fence sitters you mentioned earlier. It's mainly due to the constantly moving goal post. The AGW side would do itself a huge favor by limiting the number of people making predictions.

I am skeptical....not of CO2 increasing and potentially creating an independent forcing of temperatures in the + direction. I'm skeptical of the supposed science being done, the extreme solutions that are mysteriously never quelled by the more moderate AGW "experts", and the incredible laundry list of effects that a modestly warmer planet is going to "doom" us into. No mention of potential benefits that may somewhat counter the extreme doom (red flag that indicates agenda and not objective conclusions) and to your point, a lack of a cohesive message (ie the experts are quick to "pounce" on anyone that raises a few questions ....ie luke warmers Judith Curry, Dr. Spencer, etc.) but have no such critiques of activist groups sneaking purported "peer reviewed" research into IPCC reports (Himilayan demise....Amazon drought...etc...)

We are ALL manipulatable...and the point when an individual deems themselves immune from this fact is the point at which that individual has lost objectivity regarding the topic/subject in question. Critical/skeptical thinking is never bad...especially when we know that politics has become intertwined with the subject matter. When critical thinking is attacked in science, or stereotyped into "he/she isn't an expert ('not as smart as me')" or "he represents Big Oil (because his brother's uncle used to manage a gas station) a red flag is to be raised as to why. Because throughout history, science has benefitted tremendously (through rigorous scrutiny (tough tests for hypotheses)) and creates STRONG theory that scientists can confidently announce to the general public. AGW isn't even close.

[beneficii]

Well if it was really true, then there would be no need for us to try to do anything about global warming, as GW would effectively end itself!

I don't think that scientists are arguing that global warming is going to end itself like that. Increased snowfall in the wintertime in areas already prone to getting it =\= no global warming.

[nzucker]

The funny thing is that when the Earth was warming most (1978-1998), we had little high-latitude blocking with a strong +NAO/+AO pattern.

When the Earth was cooling (1948-1978), we had lots of blocking with a powerful -NAO/-AO pattern.

So how can we say that a warming Earth is causing more blocking in the jet stream, and thus colder winters for the mid-latitude cities, if the opposite tendency has been true in the past 50 years? Didn't global warming activists say just a few years ago that the +NAO regime in the 90s was caused by the warmer Indian Ocean? Are we moving the goalposts again?

[BethesdaWX]

The funny thing is that when the Earth was warming most (1978-1998), we had little high-latitude blocking with a strong +NAO/+AO pattern.

When the Earth was cooling (1948-1978), we had lots of blocking with a powerful -NAO/-AO pattern.

So how can we say that a warming Earth is causing more blocking in the jet stream, and thus colder winters for the mid-latitude cities, if the opposite tendency has been true in the past 50 years? Didn't global warming activists say just a few years ago that the +NAO regime in the 90s was caused by the warmer Indian Ocean? Are we moving the goalposts again?

Get used to it bro, they'll keep changing the (pseudo)science around to fit their bullsh*t

[skierinvermont]

What a silly article. I'm sure AGW has some small effect on snowcover in Siberia and in turn snowcover in Siberia has some small effect on global winter weather patterns, but the article greatly exaggerates both causal links. Their role in winter weather patterns is dwarfed by ENSO, solar, QBO, PDO, AMO, IO etc.

[bobbutts]

if instead of runaway warming, human co2 ouptut causes colder and more amplified winters.....

I'm going out to start my grill, my 1980 snowmobile and jet-ski, hummer, right after I send money to coal and oil lobby.

j/k (sort of)

[superjames1992]

The funny thing is that when the Earth was warming most (1978-1998), we had little high-latitude blocking with a strong +NAO/+AO pattern.

When the Earth was cooling (1948-1978), we had lots of blocking with a powerful -NAO/-AO pattern.

So how can we say that a warming Earth is causing more blocking in the jet stream, and thus colder winters for the mid-latitude cities, if the opposite tendency has been true in the past 50 years? Didn't global warming activists say just a few years ago that the +NAO regime in the 90s was caused by the warmer Indian Ocean? Are we moving the goalposts again?

The goalposts always move to fit the theory.

I don't necessarily doubt the extreme weather being more common in a warmer world. However, with the way some AGW activists spin things nowadays, every single weather event is now in some way caused by global warming and has created a situation in which they can never be wrong.

[BethesdaWX]

The goalposts always move to fit the theory.

I don't necessarily doubt the extreme weather being more common in a warmer world. However, with the way some AGW activists spin things nowadays, every single weather event is now in some way caused by global warming and has created a situation in which they can never be wrong.

The article would have been more believable had they not forgot what happened in the late 90's......alot of snow up there, but the US was torching all winter.