E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Stuard McDill / Reuters
Arctic sea ice is a key focus for climate scientists, including this expedition last fall on drift ice some 500 miles from the North Pole.
Remember New York City's 2011 blizzard? Or Florida's 2010 hard freeze? Blame them on the summer.
According to a new study, those are the type of extreme cold events in the northern hemisphere's winter that appear tied to warmer Arctic summers.
It's certainly counterintuitive, the authors acknowledge, and that could be why climate models haven't picked up on the trend identified in the study: The warmer Arctic, along with melting sea ice, create more moisture in the Arctic and that typically leads to more snowfall across northern Eurasia in October -- a key factor in this entire dynamic. That extra snowfall, in turn, alters what's known as the Arctic Oscillation, sending cold blasts down south.
"I don't think you can point to a single event and attribute it to a climate signal," lead author Judah Cohen tells msnbc.com, "but I would say that the warm Arctic probably helped tip the odds" for the 2011 New York City blizzard. "And when you start to consider that five of the largest snowstorms for NYC occurred over the past 10 years ... that becomes harder to explain by chance alone. Instead there must be a reason and the reason we propose is the warm Arctic and the subsequent increase in fall snow cover."
The Arctic sea ice has melted to near-record levels, scientists say, and it could shrink even more. NBC's Brian Williams reports.
The study would seem to be upended by this mild winter, which follows a warm Arctic. So what gives?
"The paper does not claim that every winter will be cold," says Cohen, the director of seasonal forecasting at Atmospheric and Environmental Research, a for-profit weather service.
It turns out Eurasia snow cover in October was low. Why?
The reason "has remained elusive," Cohen says. "All I can say is that the atmospheric pattern was less conducive to the advance of snow cover this October compared to the last two Octobers.
"The snow cover did advance rapidly in November this year," he adds, "however our research has shown that October is the key month; rapid advances in snow cover the other months does not have the same impact."
There is a caveat to the warm summer/cold winter theory.
"If it continues to get much warmer in the fall," Cohen says, "precipitation that currently falls as snow will fall as rain instead, eliminating the winter cooling."
The study was published Friday in the peer-reviewed Environmental Research Letters. Scientists at the University of Massachusetts and University of Alaska contributed as well.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News:
Leave a Comment:
To bad the climate change deniers won't be able to see the reasoning in this.
Har har Al Snore's at it again!
Colder winters? Then why is it so dang hot down in Brazil? Huh? Got ya thar didn't i Al Snore?!
Har Har har
[This message was paid for by the Democratic Union Maligning Brains (D.U.M.B.)]
When have they needed to see reasoning in any of their contrarian beliefs? If their preacher tells them so it must be so..... trust your bible not your (hokus pokus) science books.
Boom, please consult a map, Brazil is very near the equator, and since it's in the southern hemisphere, it's currently SUMMER there!
Yes trust your bible... where babies are born of virgins, bushes and snakes talk, a man builds an ark for two of every species on the planet for a worldwide flood that never happened, women are "hokus pokus" made from a man's rib, and people are instantly intelligent after eating an apple.
This makes total sense to me... Well it would... maybe if I ate a pound of psychedelic mushrooms!
Our planet is still coming out of an ice age. Of course it is getting warmer!
@Nick, yes, trust your Bible instead, the book that tells me the world is flat; that snakes can talk; that the entire world can be flooded, even inundating the peaks of Mount Everest; that Noah fit two of all the 30 million animal species on a single boat; that he could find a pair of kangaroos and polar bears in Mesopotamia; that the universe was created in a week; that people can turn to salt, walk on water, turn water into wine, and spend days hanging out inside the body of a fish. Yeah, the Bible, that's the ticket! Forget about thinking. Who needs all that ridiculous science anyway?
Pardon me, Nick, my comment should have been addressed to Andrew. Or is he being sarcastic?
Looks sarcastic to me.
@Rob- Seattle:
Son, I am disappoint.
Thanks Nick and Rick for keeping religious bigotry alive and well. The next time you point out some conservative is a bigot because he/she has faith or follows a religious doctrine, just remember it takes one to know one.
It sounds like desparate reasoning, actually. Cold winters are a big problem for the propagandists who want to rule the world in the name of climate control. So here's a desperate solution. Heck if it gets any warmer at the pole, we'll go back into an ice age. "It rained all night the day I left, the weather it was dry, the sun so hot I froze to death, Suzanna don't you cry..." That was written in jest. Now they want us to believe it just because they say so. Proof? You don't need to see any proof. The word of the scientific elite should suffice. So shut up, and obey.
What part of 'warm summers increases the amount of water that evaporates, which increases precipitation later' is confusing you, Krakondack?
How long have you been studying the Arctic Oscillation?
Armchair 'scientists'. Do you analyze the potential impacts of various medications you might be taking, too? Or do you listen to the experts who do it for a living?
All the Al Gore'ite's! You are the ones that ask me and many others to prove there is a God. Well, prove to me it's not Cold some years and Hot others. Your idiots, Cyclical... Look it up. When Al Gore gets asked about the Cyclical Nature of the Weather, He has the asker of the question to be Thrown out of his meetings. Happened more than once. Why, Cause if you keep giving someone money they can pay people to make something "Look True".
Really, Study the weather and you may actually find God!!! We can Hope!
IMO if humans are warming the earth it is through increased urbanization, not CO2 increase. Urban areas are definitely warmer than rural areas as they form serious heat sinks - same goes for all paved roads. If you add more CO2 to a greenhouse you will not increase it's temperature. But if you pave the greenhouse with blacktop the temperature will skyrocket. The globalists are peddling the anthropogenic GW theory simply to tax global energy use.
Oh, I believe in Climate Change... Cause it Changes Every Day of Every Year...Come on, Study Cyclical Weather and Grow up!
boom!reason: "Son, I am disappoint."
=========
............Say what? You be here dis country much long time?
Perchance boom!reason = misnomer!
The "heat island" effect has been thoroughly studied, too. It has a negligible effect on global warming. The biggest player by far are the collective "greenhouse gases," primarily CO2 and not from human respiration but the massive daily combustion of fossil fuels.
Lassen - once you have a greenhouse, no amount of additional gas will have effect on temperature. Try to prove it by showing that greenhouse warms up when you increase CO2 levels in it. Commercial greenhouse operators know very well that this trick does not work because CO2 levels are often monitored and enhanced to improve growth.
Al Gore is a politician. Hell, if I were a politician and kept receiving the same nonsense questions I wouldn't answer them over and over and over. All the information is out there for you, should you choose to read it. That the climate is getting warmer is not in dispute -- the evidence is overwhelming, and encompasses multiple fields of science; rather people like to dispute how much human activity has influenced it.
I cannot understand what you wrote, since it is not English. Were you a "Child Left Behind" or just a mountain man who just entered civilization?
Max, I think you're a bit confused about what the term "greenhouse gas" means, and it really has little if anything to do with what goes on in greenhouses. In fact, the atmosphere in greenhouses would be deficient in CO2 as you alluded to in your last sentence. Plants use up CO2 and release O2 which is not a greenhouse gas. The term greenhouse came from the ability of CO2 and methane to absorb infrared (heat) radiation therefore raising the temperature of of the atmosphere which contains them. Adding CO2 to plant growing houses would serve two purposes: supply the plants their basic building block substrate and warming the greenhouse, both of which would be conducive to plant growth. Your first statement that at some point addition of more CO2 to a confined space would no longer raise the temperature might be correct, but hardly relevant since the temperature that would be required to reach that equilibrium would (now speaking of the earth as the "enclosure") would likely be far to warm for most of the life in existence now.
Lassen - here is a good read for you: http://slayingtheskydragon.com/en/blog/133-debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-in-three-simple-steps
Btw. Earth's 'greenhouse gas' is primarily water vapor. Water vapor concentration changes a lot, with no impact on temperature.
I have no problem with religion as long as it is kept in your own home and not shoved in my face, and you don't try to cram it into our laws.
Sorry, max, first your link is blocked to me from where I am because it's a blog. A blog is really your best source for your science denial? That's pretty suspect. Your point about water vapor is true and irrelevant. It seems irrelevancy is your go-to argument.
Isn't it a great experience to see the outright idiocy being spewed out by the reichwing deniers? Makes me feel so much more secure in my conclusions on this issue.
"Water vapor concentration changes a lot, with no impact on temperature."
Both parts untrue.
In a commercial plant-growing greenhouse, glass is the primary heat-trapping material, and CO2 has a negligible effect on warming. (After all, a typical glass-enclosed greenhouse is perhaps 10 feet high compared to the 25,000+ feet effective thickness of the Earth's atmosphere.)
The way I understand the effect of water vapor is that while it can act as a greenhouse gas, its fluctuations are often so extreme and rapid, depending on geography and prevailing weather and temperature, that it doesn't have nearly the sustained impact of the other gases.
Bittter winter cold in MN-ND where I live is always linked to warmer weather up north (we call the cold blasts Alberta Clippers) and vice versa. I hope this year the cold up north will protect the Arctic a bit this summer.
Love those clippers coming across the Lake and dumpin' the snow here in NW PA. It's those syberian expresses with the 3 days of -20 that suck. Been very warm this winter so far, but not something we haven't seen before. Usually a 20 yr pattern.
Boom!reason = misnomer.
Temps hit the 60s in the Dakotas earlier this month. This has never happened in these states since recording of temperatures began .
LP: If YOUR god Al Gore is so concerned about saving the planet and stopping Man Mad"e" GW. Ask him about this:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VV309lbB8c
I have several friends in the private jet industry and AG is a normal flyer. Actually owns TWO Jets himself and leases all the time, even more so since this 2007 report. AG burns more fossil fuel in TWO flights than you do in a year. He is SOOOOOOOOO Concerned... Come ON!
Follow your god and I'll follow MY GOD!
You're making a ridiculous spectacle of yourself, gouge. But, I'm sure I'm not the first one to point that out to you so I doubt you can help it.
Wow LP:
I live in TN where Al Gore Sr. sold Cattle for votes for years. Actually, my friends father sold and then took back cattle from AG Sr. several times. Not different cattle, the SAME Cattle...several times. It's called PAY FOR $$$$$$$
You, and those who believe in what you believe will always Hate! Sorry, I don't! I just want people who tell the truth. At this point I've met Bill Clinton twice, and AL Gore once. Both are Not Telling The Truth!
Gosh, gouge, I don't hate you. I pity you. You're pitiful.
LP:
Don't pity me. You will be one of the Millions who will deny they Believed and Argued MMGW, sorry Climate Change, when you get older.
Mark Mine and many other scientists words... MMGW/Climate Change "Is the Biggest Money Making Scheme Played On Mankind in the History of "Mother Earth"
Done with you and all that won't look at any site that Al doesn't send you to! Sad
Not to mention pathetic and don't know @!$%# about science. You're a scientist like I'm the King of France.
Its all about the ability to tax and control people.Its a scam for the simple minded.
The increased moisture in Arctic air is likely a factor in snowfall to the south: what goes up, must come down. As to the temperature differences and trends - that is much harder to pin down.
Except that the moisture for snowfall comes from the south, and mixes with cold air from the north to make storms. It's Gulf air for the eastern half of N. Am. And near the great lakes, it's moisture from the lakes, hit by cold air that makes snow, called "lake effect". Arctic moisture is miniscule in comparison. But hey, they needed an explanation for cold winters that worked with the propaganda story, so they came up with one. Everyone obeying the propaganda will now spout this nonsense.
Krakondak,
You have a lot of opinions about this study - which it seems you haven't had time to even read yet.
That high-latitude moisture is not coming 'from the south'.
Read the study. And refute the science. A knee-jerk reaction labelling it propaganda is not science. It's just a knee-jerk - and is every bit as meaningful as one.
Krak, I do believe the Earth's climate is currently warming, but I'm not sure how much of that is caused by us. Climate fluctuates all the time and a 30-50 year trend is a pretty minuscule proof of anything. I also see GW as a good thing. I do not see much data showing that winters in the Northern Hemisphere are colder than they used to be so the theory they propose above seems bogus to me.
IMO if humans are warming the earth it is through increased urbanization, not CO2 increase. Urban areas are definitely warmer than rural areas as they form serious heat sinks - same goes for all paved roads. If you add more CO2 to a greenhouse you will not increase it's temperature. But if you pave the greenhouse with blacktop the temperature will skyrocket. The globalists are peddling the anthropogenic GW theory simply to tax global energy use.
As I pointed out above, a glass-enclosed greenhouse is warm because of the glass, not because of the small amount of CO2 present. And warming is only a good thing up to a point. If warming reaches 5 to 10 deg F by the end of the century as predicted, the negative consequences (rising sea levels, more intense storms, etc.) will likely be very severe.
It doesnt matter what you can explain. They want to attribute this to "act of God" not climate change. That's an insurance language, but it's quickly becoming the extremist's mantra to justify their belief.
Whatever, tired of the explanations regarding climate change....... Ever hear of the Ice Age? How about the next one coming..... Planet on fire? Just a thought.
Ice ages are well-understood. The natural cycles that cause them will likely not be an issue for at least another several thousand years. Plenty of time to take action if needed. The issue for this century is warming due to greenhouse gases.
I often wonder if HARRP has anything to do with the weather??
The radio frequency energy emitted by HAARP (High Frequency Active Auroral Research Program) is only 3.6 megawatts, the same as 3,600 homes using 1,000 watts of electricity each (once the energy is dissipated as heat in the atmosphere). Not likely to have much effect on weather.
Thermodynamics! Your friend and mine.
If Matthew, Luke, Paul and John didn't write about it it's only an invention by the devil to steer us away from the "word of gawd".
Seriously? This is your retort? Also in scripture, it tells us to think...examine...and push it all up against the word of God to validate it's truth (ref. Lam 3:40 please). There is nothing that debunks the laws of thermodynamics or science for that matter. This whole concept that if the writers of the Bible didn't put it in the Bible, then these things don't truly exist - or are all creations of the devil - is what 1) turns many people off to turn their lives to Christ for salvation and 2) spreads ignorance beyond measure. God didn't create us to be mindless drones following *just* what is written in His word and going to extremes...He created us to accept Him, love Him, follow Him, and *think* in the process of life considering the vast amount of world that smacks upside the head to get us to think about Him (rather than this world or ourselves).
Please, please, please...I urge you...quit giving every Christian a bad name by spreading these kinds of mindsets. It only makes it more difficult for God to move in this world.
Completely agree saw it best when the Catholic Church explained on a PBS documentary....
Science is not a Religion and Religion is not a science. That doesn't mean the 2 can't coexist. They are contantly trying to figure things out in Science and climate change is no different. Global Warming does NOT state that it will no longer get cold. You can't deny though that growing seasons are getting longer, Tropical Species are moving north, and sea levels are rising. These are all bad things in moderation but fast changes are what should worry people We don't need to worry about saving the earth it's been here before people and will be after we are gone, now humanity the verdict is still out.
Finally....somebody in this business admits that we don't know a lot about how climate works, and even when we collect a lot of data and try to make sense of it, other factors come into play that we don't know how to measure or predict, or relate to the observed data. It's perplexing to all of us since climate change will impact us in many ways...most of which have nothing to do with either the climate doomsayers or those that think they know the answers...like Al Gore. I hope we learn soon to interpret climate data in a scientifically reliable way so we can determine what actions, if any, will help us survive over the long term.....clearly, to date, we have no real idea what the causes are or what the remedies, if any, are. Keep up the good work until we have some actual answers.....
Fortunately, we don't have to know exactly how the climate "works" in order to understand the observable data about the climate (warming) and the trend (warming) and the reason (CO2 and other man made "greenhouse" gases). We still don't know how gravitational forces work but I suspect even most climate science deniers accept that it exists.
Well put, LP. I imagine there will be all sorts of scientific surprises as changes unfold. People should not expect the answers to be readily available as it is a system in flux with all sorts of variables that have not been accounted for.All we have is educated guesses ...
In fact, bigmama, global warming predicts just this kind of radical and "random" (in the scientific sense) weather changes. Reduced predictability of weather is at the very core of the climate change that's taking place.
Lassen - but we do have to understand how it works, if we want to accurately predict how things will change, and by how much, in the future.
That said, there are tons of things we could be doing to prepare in anticipation of a continued warming earth. Many of the things that should be done, wont be done though...because a lack of understanding of the data, leaves the door open for just enough people with power to deny anything is happening here, let alone anything that could impact us soon.
I suspect, IF the oceans begin to rise, it'll be too late to move the coastal populations back that will be affected - in a good time frame, with a reasonable cost.
Try convincing folks with coastal properities they should abandon them, and lose all they have invested in it? Not gonna happen until the ocean is ripping their home to shreds.
Human nature isnt as hard to figure out...we are reactive, not proactive.
Jessica, I didn't mean to say that we don't know how the climate works at all. There's a lot already known and more understanding will come as nature's imperative law of entropy is once again taught to us, this time in a global and possibly disastrous way. But one can't get too deep into this with the deniers because they're already so closed off to the scientific world that if you actually try to explain some of it to them, they just dig in deeper into their bunker mentality.
Jessica -
It's already happening. Bangkok, capitol of Thailand, is located on a river delta that has seen water levels rise due to the oceans rising. Hundreds of thousands of people are being displaced by the loss of land.
Evidence, right there, that sea levels are rising. Hasn't seemed to mean much to people on this side of the world. I suppose they figure they can build a 20 ft. high sea wall with their Bibles in order to keep the waters out. They may have enough to do that, seeing how everytime I try to raise any scientific points, they wave one in my face.
We don't know how gravity works... Sooooo, when we don't know who something works we just Stop all research, and/or manipulate the data to keep our beliefs intact...? Funny thing is, Gravity can be Proven... Man Made Global Warming... Not yet! So, we should keep trying to prove the hypothesis of MMGW, just as we still study Gravity, Right?
OK, Now you are being Ridiculous! Take a Glass, Fill it with Ice then Pour water in it till the water is Right At The Rim of the glass... Next, let it Sit, wait and when it melts, what happens. The water level goes DOWN! We did this in 7th grade Biology.
You saying that Ice Melts in the Poles and Water rises somewhere else CAN BE PROVEN WRONG IN ONE HOUR!
Do the above then explain how YOUR Rising Seas can happen...
Gouge,
You really are stupid. It's the ice on the land masses that when melted will add to the ocean's level. To use your analogy put a 20 lb. block of ice in a funnel above your glass full of ice and let it all melt. Hope you have your mop ready.
alsophia,
Funny analogy, 20lbs. That against a Glass of water would be 100's of times bigger than then Ice NOt Over Land Mass...Idiot!
I am a land mass Scientest you idiot! IF and I say "IF" you knew Anything about the earth and it's land and water mass you would know, as you don't, ALL THE WATER THAT HAS EVER EXISTED IS ALL THE WATER WE HAVE & WILL EVER HAVE, Salt, Fresh and mixed. ALL water, even if melted in the polar regions, could Not and would Not flood the Earth... Cause...? When water melts in one region (all ice covered regions only acct for 10% of the Worlds landmass) it is then push by CYCLICAL Weather to the next region thru Rain, Snow or just some form of evaporation. Grow up and study!!!!!! Idiot Defined is... Never Mind... You Look It Up... Sophia...?
We know ice is present in space. A large proportion of the content of comets is ice that is continually breaking off. The earth's atmosphere is constantly being hit by bits of ice which brings a new source of water, albeit an infinitessimal amount, onto the planet continuously. I'm really surprised the even a "land mass scientist" didn't know that.
Past sea levels have been as much as 200 to 300 feet higher or lower than they are today due to freezing/melting (involving ice sheets on land) as well as thermal expansion and contraction of water. These changes are extremely clear in the geological record.
Al - . What is a land mass scientist?? If you were a scientist I would expect you to at least make reasoned intelligent arguments. As it is, you come across as barely literate.
Gouge,
Really? You're a land mass scientist? Then why are you being so stupid? Al's analogy was valid. The water that would overflow your glass would be coming from melting ice outside of the glass. So just what kind of land science do you do? Playing in your sandbox with the other kiddies?
Al Gouge -
Since we're conducting table-top science experiements, why don't we take that glass of water you put the ice in as a starting point. Now, when the ice melts, it becomes more dense (ice is less dense that water, which is why it floats), and since overall density of the water in the glass has increased, it takes less volume of water to hold that same mass.
Now, try sticking that water in the microwave. Before you do that, you need to raise the atmosphere of the microwave to 100% relative humidity (this is to reduce the effects of evaporation). Heat that sucker up by 3 degF. Remeasure.
Now, try getting a large tub of water. Fill the water to the top, and then put in a large, flattish chunk of ice. Is the ice over the top of the tub? It had better be. Then, for added bonus points, you can add a bunch of ice on a chute that is being held in place by the ice on the tub. Watch the ice melt. Any spillover? Because that is a way better analogy than your little glass.
Expansion/contraction of just about any substance during temperature differences has been noted and observed for thousands of years. Even young-earth creationists don't doubt that property of materials. Why do you?
The reason "has remained elusive," Cohen says. "All I can say is that the atmospheric pattern was less conducive to the advance of snow cover this October compared to the last two Octobers.
I thought this was a link not a "has remained elusive,"
They did find a link:
Warmer Arctic summer -> more snowfall in Siberia.
Siberian snowfall in October -> cold, snowy winters in Northern US.
However, like everything else in life, it is not a 1:1 relationship. But the correlation and causation aspects have been worked out. We just need to know what else is affecting this particular phenomenon, and why it did not snow in Siberia so much in October.
You see, science is not in the business of saying "I know everything." That's for religion to do.
What's funny is that the dew point in Alaska last winter was higher (more moisture in the air) than it is this year. But last winter Alaska had less snow with that higher moisture than it is getting this year with a lower dew point (less moisture in the air).
http://www.real-science.com/anchorage-water-vapour-year
Oops.
weather is not climate
Moisture in the air is not the only thing that determines precipitation and snowfall. For example, there's also winds and convection of moisture upward from near the surface to higher levels in the atmosphere where snow usually forms before it falls.
My father worked for the Weather Bureau long before they got the specialized training they now have. He claimed that if the summer was especially hot, the winter would be mild. If the winter was especially cold, the summer would be mild. Considering the vagaries of weather, that theory works as well as any.
First, if the weather in alaska is crazy, think about the things migratory animals whose home base is in alaska must do to stay alive. Mamy aren't. Secondly, if people are causing this, what about people who have 7 children. To increase population from 7B to 300B by 2090.
Let's face it they don't know, they throw theories out according to what is currently going on tomorrow they will change their mind
.
Don't count on it.
Some things are known much better than others. The fact that warming (on average) is happening is now accepted even by many skeptics (although they dispute the cause). The details of how warming will affect weather patterns is less certain.
Climate science deniars are the product of the Republican goal to dumb down America.
Absolutely.
So the fact that there have been numerous warming and cooling periods throughout history make those of us who are skeptic stupid? That this warming, which is nothing more than a continuation of the trend from the last ice age is somehow now cause by a different mechanism? Who are the stupid people again?
Please explain how a warming rate of 0.16 deg C per decade (since the 1970s) can just be a continuation of the trend from an ice age that ended about 10,000 years ago. If that rate were constant for 10,000 years (1,000 decades), water would be boiling by now.
Tax and control people.Simple minded people beleave anything.People beleaved Hitler also.
Ummmm, no, "they" (i.e. climate scientists don't); it probably helps you to continue to deny the science to believe that but the data is consistent and this kind of "randomness" is exactly what has been predicted from global warming all along. But, hey, don't let any fact get in the way of your ideology.
They just don't know. They can keep saying they don't know and the reason that they don't know is due to climate change. Everytime a prediction is wrong it's because of climate change. There were (after Katrina) going to be an increased number of hurricanes because of climate change> When that didn't happen it was because of climate change. I am starting to think that maybe everthing that occurs is because of climate change. Housing bubble burst=climate change...Obama gets elected=climate change...Guy backed into my car in a parking lot=climate change. (I don't think I'm covered). No insurance coverage=climate change.
It's just this kind of hysteria of the deniers that makes "discussions" like this so much fun. It's almost impossible to make fun of them any better than they do themselves.
At what point in the history of the Earth did the climate NOT change?
It's not that climate has never changed before, Rj. It's that now the change is man-made. And that's never happened before.
LassenPark
So because of a few years (relative to the age of the planet) of incomplete data you are willing to say a continually changing environment is not what we should expect? Because if climate change is now all mans fault then wouldn't that be the case.
And since that is what you believe please explain to me the ice ages?
Pirana,
The only reason that you even know about the ice ages is because scientists discovered them while studying the climate (past and present).
Your stance seem to be that they got the past completely right, but are getting the present completely wrong.
Sorry - either the scientists know what they're talking about of they don't. You can't have it both ways.
Scientists have measured ice core samples for CO2 going back several hundred thousand years and there is no period in that past that comes close to the levels in our atmosphere now. If you deniers even had a tiny bit of knowledge about the massive amount of data that has been collected on this subject maybe you wouldn't get humiliated so often and so easily. But, of course, no amount of information or data is ever going to change your belief that man-made global warming couldn't be true, right?
Lassen,
Highest levels of CO2 in the world's history is what I've read. Now picture the vast amounts of methane locked in frozen tundras and deep ocean beds that might be suddenly released. Methane is much more of a greenhouse gas than CO2.
My stance is simple, that yes the climate does vary, however, the fact that "man" is the cause is not proven in my opinion, since there are clear signs of past change, which date well before the industrial revolution.
Believe me when I say I am a firm believer in being friendly to mother nature, but I think there are much larger things at play with our little planet than what are often blamed. We need to be able to adapt to change not try to constantly prevent it.
Woolly Bear Caterpillars and Groundhogs take exception to latest climate study--challenge scientists to accuracy contest. Climatologists hesitate. Details at 11 p.m.
Siberian reindeer rancher pokes hole into melting tundra with a stick. Fart-fires a three meter flame of methane (really neat video). Anybody got any clues as to how much methane has been frozen in up there? Anybody have any clues as to what would happen if it all bubbled out at once? Plato's uncle was told by Egyptian priests that "God" cleanses the world alternatively with water, and then fire, and then water, etc. Anybody have any clues as to what he used the last time? I know this sounds kinda silly to people whose main concern at the moment is working their way through rush hour traffic to get to work and pay their bills, but it might be saying something. The priests went on to say that when God destroyed the world with water the only survivors were at the tallest mountain peaks or had some big boats. When he destroyed the world with fire the only survivors were on the seacoasts or in the swamps. Those cajuns down there don't care. Shoot your best shot and they'll still survive.
Anyway, the world is warming. Things are changing. It could get critical. It has in the past. And probably will get critical in the future.
The climate on the planet has been changing since it developed an atmosphere. There is nothing in the cosmos that isn't always changing in some way, that is the nature of space and time. To deny that our climate is changing here is ingnorant, and to say that it is because of humans is arrogant.
carlson,
It might be more arrogant to say humans are not effecting this change. Especially when it is a known fact that CO2 and methane are greenhouse gases, and we are dumping CO2 into the atmosphere more rapidly than any time in history. Even dinosaur history, although I can imagine all those brontosaurus farts adding a lot of methane into the atmosphere.
There you are Sophia! Not Sure But... CO2 is What YOU AND EVERY LIVING BEING BREATHE OUT... So the Planet can Live!
Idiot
You certainly are.
Planetary warming has also been observed on Mars, Jupiter, Pluto, and on Neptune's largest moon Triton during the decades following the peak of the "Solar Grand Maximum" - wonder why - there are no humans there! And Pluto is moving further from the sun in its orbit, thus it should be cooling, but instead it is warming. This is but one indicator that suggests that the climate change on Earth is due to solar changes and our intersellar environment rather than mere human antics. More importantly, the Sun is now changing from its Solar Grand Maximum to its Solar Grand Minimum. The Earth heats up after a Solar Grand Maximum, lagging a bit after the peak. With a Solar Grand Minimum now on its way, a "global cooling" may be on the horizon--a natural oscillation occurring in much longer solar cycles.
Latest science reveals that sharp increases in global warming "precede" sharp increases in CO2--not the other way around. Global warming causes more CO2 to be released from the oceans. Current research also shows that Earth's oceans are now beginning to cool. It is also now clear that temperatures over the last century correlate far better with cycles in oceans than they do with carbon dioxide; and, the temperature cycles in oceans are caused by cycles of the sun. Yet the AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming) advocates, as well as the media, continue to ignore all of this, perpetuating fear and advocating spending billions of dollars on non-solutions for global warming. Although humans contribute to greenhouse gases, the overall effect is a tiny fraction compared to natural causes. To say humans are the cause of global warming; and to also make predictions that global warming will continue to increase is simply inaccurate. This is not to ignore the silver lining of the global warming scare, as humanity must certainly learn to participate in harmony with nature, with the breath of the Earth, with her land and oceans; and with the cycles of the Sun, Moon, planets, and stars. So let us act and change from knowledge about what is really going on rather than from misinformation fueled by mass-hysteria.
The "Solar Grand Maximum" has ended - a science most often not considered by the advocates who profess that Global Warming is caused by man-made CO2" -- those who perpetuate the global warming media scare.
Rj, all of that "data" you're using came from the propaganda mills created to try to convince people that the real science was faulty. None of it happens to be true. It's old, frayed and false. Give it up, already.
The problem with your arguement is the current solar cycle is opposite of your claim. We are currently (hopefully) at the end of an extended beyond 11 year, deep solar minimum. Activity and output of the sun has been at the lowest level in decades.
And yes, I saw the exact webpage you copied and I find no support or confirmation of it from reputable science organizations.
Ha ha ha Lassen maybe all your data is from the Climate Hysteria propaganda mills created to falsey convince people that the sky is falling. Give it up, already.
ok RJ I found what you refer to ( in a picture, so I understand:) )
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Sunspot_Numbers.png
It's very speculative to say we're headed into a 'grand minimum', there's just insufficient evidence to infer any such cycle.
And how do sunspots increase the acidity of the oceans?
less CO2 in the oceans would cause them to be more alkaline
Yeah, like NASA, NOAA, the National Science Foundation, Science, Nature and hundreds of peer-reviewed climate science journal articles. Your source, Glenn: the oil and gas cartel (or at least they paid for all the propaganda you rely on). If you trust that, you can be fooled by anything.
it seems the multi-billion dollar global warming religion can be adapted to any such idea that helps support it and bring in more money.
It seems that funding climate change deniers will save our industries multi-billions........if they can get away with the demaguery, that is.
Sophia:
Your the 99%, Gore is at the top of the 1%.
Huh!
You Idiot
I don't know about Alsophia, but most of us could give a ratsass where Al Gore is. What does his wealth have to do with whether the world is warming or not? Ummmmm. Conversation overheard between the weather/climate gods..... "Gore's bank account took a sharp spike upwards so I guess we better move the Gulf Stream a little further east?"
Do not try to apply logic to climate change. The supporters believe that the earth has always been stable; until the industrial revolution and they want to get back to a consistent 72 degrees year round and a frozen arctic. The mini-iceage from 1700 to 1900 didn't happen and the super heating of 1400 to 1600 didn't happen either. It's all those f a r t i n g cows fault.
The Eath's atmosphere at one point was mostly CO2 before any animal lived here. It didn't come from farting cows. The best thing to do to reduce CO2 levels is to stop eliminating the planet's rain forests. Climate is change is like any other science: apply logic and the scientific method to understand it, not random guesses and ignorant comments.
There was no "super heating" from 1400 to 1600; instead it was actually the beginning of the Little Ice Age. Perhaps you're referring to the earlier Medieval Warm Period (about 900 to 1300 AD), which was moderately warmer than average and may simply have been due to the lack of any major cooling influences, such as an extended sunspot minimum or major volcanic eruptions.
here is what the article says"And when you start to consider that five of the largest snowstorms for NYC occurred over the past 10 years ... that becomes harder to explain by chance alone" 5 of the largest ever? when did this happen? what are the largest snowstorms ever? please list them so we can see facts not your opinion. I've grown up in ny my whole life and we had alot more snow in the 70's and 80's then now. We had no snow so far this winter. This is not science, it is pure opinion with no facts. give facts! not over the last 10 years but over the last 100 years.
The ship requiring an ice breaker and drone to get across the arctic ocean to Alaska is all propaganda. The arctic ocean is ice free; according to the Climate change supporters.
Ummm, again, no. The Arctic ocean still ices over in Winter, only not nearly as much as much area as 20, 50 or 100 years ago. It is shrinking at about .3% per year. The amount of ice during the Summer has dwindled to almost the point where it's possible to cross it without encountering ice. No climate scientist has claimed that the arctic is ice free. This is more of the many silly falsehoods created by you deniers. I guess you need it to protect yourselves from the facts.
Similar arguments could be made about your god, proamerica. There's no proof, therefore he/she/it doesn't exist, right? Could all be just a bunch of stories, just like climate change and global warming, right?
dman, science denying is connected to ideology rather than fact. Often, but not always, the same people who are fundamentalist in their religious beliefs refuse to accept scientific data of any kind since so much of it is in conflict with what they believe. So, your point is right on the mark.
LP: I am 1st: a Christian and 2nd: a Land Mass Scientist, ...You?
I have so much scientific data that backs up not only Christian beliefs but also many *"fundamental" scientific scholars beliefs, but slams your god, AL!
*Note: fundamental:
(a basic principle, rule, law, or the like, that serves as the groundwork of a system;essential part:
to master the fundamentals of a trade.)
Try not to show your zeal for saving the world as Your hate for religion... Try!
Too bad you haven't figured out the difference between belief and fact yet, then.
It's just so erratic. The one sure thing is that change is inevitable. One day it can be 50 and a night or two later it can be 0. That's the midwest for you.