By Tom Yulsman
With astonishingly high temperatures for this time of year persisting over the Central and Eastern United States — including nighttime “low” temperatures that exceed the normal highs — it’s only natural to wonder what role climate change might be playing.
As Andrew Freedman of Climate Central put it Tuesday:
“In a long-term trend that has been found to be inconsistent with natural variability alone, daily record-high temperatures have recently been outpacing daily record-lows by an average of 2-to-1, and this imbalance is expected to grow as the climate continues to warm. According to a 2009 study, if the climate were not warming, this ratio would be expected to be even.”
Of course, it shouldn’t be any surprise that the blogosphere has lit up with denials that any such link between the record-breaking warmth and climate change exists. And in one very narrow sense, they’re right. That’s because the immediate cause is a huge north-to-south kink in the normally west-to-east flowing jet stream. This kink in turn has caused a large ridge of high pressure to become stuck over the Midwest and East, bringing unprecedented warmth.
The weather pattern responsible for the heatwave in the Midwest and Eastern U.S. (Credit/National Weather Service)
As Jeff Masters, a meteorologist with Wunderground.com, reports in his blog, northern Michigan has recorded temperatures in the 80s — about 40 degrees above average for this time of year. International Falls Minnesota, sometimes called the “Nation’s Icebox,” has experienced unheard of temperatures pushing 80 degrees during the day, and lows that have failed to dip below 60 at night.
A balmy March evening in northern Minnesota? Really?
“I’ve never seen a station with a century-long data record have its low temperature for the date match the previous record high for the date,” Masters wrote in his blog.
But beyond the immediate cause, the rising concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere are raising the odds of such extreme warm events occurring. The situation is akin to a baseball player on steroids, as a now renowned video from the National Center for Atmospheric Research has demonstrated so convincingly.
But if the headlines in Marc Morano’s Climate Depot aggregation website this past Monday were any indication, that’s not at all how climate skeptics are seeing it.
2012 is 0.6C Cooler than 2010 So Far, shouted one headline.
Global Temperatures have plunged .56°F since An Inconvenient Truth was released, said another.
No Warming For 17 Years, still another claimed.
The overall argument of these and other posts is that despite a toasty spell in parts of the United States, warming has stopped globally — and lately, the globe has actually been cooling.
Well, if you love cherry pie, take a nice big bite of these claims, because you can find evidence to support them. But if what you want is a full course of the truth, the claims simply are not warranted by the evidence. Not even close.
The interactive web site, Woodfortrees.org, is an excellent tool for testing out claims about global temperature trends. As described on the home page, “This site hosts some C++ software tools for analysis and graphing of time series data, and an interactive graph generator where you can play with different ways of analyzing data.”
And when you play with the data on the site, it becomes evident that it is quite easy to show, as Paul Clark, Woodfortrees’ creator puts it, that the global average temperature is falling, or static, or rising, or “rising really fast!” All you have to do is pick your cherries — meaning your starting and ending dates — appropriately.
Here’s a chart he created that demonstrates this quite clearly. The y-axis is a measure of how temperatures (measured in C) have departed from the long-term average.
The graph shows how global average temperatures have departed from the long-term average since 1978. (Source: WoodForTrees.org).
The chart uses satellite data on the temperature of the lower portion of the atmosphere compiled by researchers at the University of Alabama, Hunstville. Of the four global temperature series that are typically used to keep track of how the climate is changing, this one tends to return the lowest temperature anomalies. That makes it a favorite of climate change skeptics. And what does it show?
From 1978 (when this satellite record began) to the present, warming is unequivocally evident (the green trend line). But if you choose other starting and ending points, you can make a case for different trends. In other words, if you do some cherry picking, you can pretty much show whatever you want.
And that’s precisely what those skeptical headlines represent: cherry picking.
What difference does it make if 2012 has been cooler than 2010? In the chart above, it’s also evident that 2011 — an exceedingly warm year on average — was nevertheless cooler than 1998. Who cares? What does any of this have to say about long-term climate change? Your guess is as good as mine.
What of the claim in one of the stories mentioned on Marc Morano’s site that there has been no warming for 17 years? Putting aside that rather strange time span for a minute, the gently rising green trend line of temperature change over the past 17 years in the chart below shows this is not true.
The graphs shows temperature change since 1992. (Source: WoodforTrees.org)
Even more important, though: Watts up with that 17-year period? If it seems awfully arbitrary, that’s because it is. Were I to choose, say, 1992 — the year that countries first joined in the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change — I would get a completely different result: a warming trend that is pretty obvious (the magenta line in the graph).
As for cooling since 2005, another of the skeptics’ claims, it is actually true for all but one of the main global temperature series. But this is just another case of seeking out the sweetest cherries for making a tasty argument pie — not to find out what’s actually going on with the climate.
It may well be true that warming of the lower atmosphere has slowed or paused for a spell. But that does not necessarily mean warming of the entire Earth system — oceans included — has stopped.
Recent research has been filling in details of how the oceans are actually continuing to sop up some of the heat produced under the greenhouse conditions we humans have enhanced. And the research helps to explain “hiatus” periods in the warming of the atmosphere.
Moreover, Norman Loeb of NASA’s Langley Research Center, and a group of colleagues, were recently able to complete a more accurate accounting than previously possible of just where solar energy was winding up in the Earth system — including the large portion known to get socked away in the oceans. In a paper published in Nature Geoscience, they concluded that over the past decade, the overall Earth system has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of about half a watt per square meter.* A significant portion has been getting socked away in the oceans. And while that may sound like a good thing, that heat isn’t simply disappearing; over time it will contribute to warming of the atmosphere.
It’s also important to realize that natural variation in the climate system hasn’t simply stopped. It still exercises a powerful influence — which is a significant reason why graphs of temperature change over the course of decades are jagged and irregular. There are few if any doubts that human activities are pushing strongly on the climate system, causing the trend-line of global average temperature to rise, overall, in the long run. At the same time, however, that system is quite complex, and so it should be no surprise that natural variation can push back quite effectively at times.
But over the very long run, the picture has been pretty clear: Humans are winning — as this March’s extraordinary weather suggests.
*Correction: The original version of this post mistakenly stated that this was a rate of about five watts per square meter. Updated March 25 at 7:00 p.m.
27 comments
Skip to comment form ↓
Steven Goddard
Mar 24 at 8:57 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Tom,
Here is some cherry picking for you. USHCN shows that temperatures in Boulder have been declining since the 1950s.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/cgi-bin/broker?id=050848&_PROGRAM=prog.gplot_meanclim_mon_yr2010.sas&_SERVICE=default¶m=TMEANRAW&minyear=1895&maxyear=2010
I’m sure you are also aware that GISTEMP is running far below Hansen’s zero-emissions Scenario C.
Joe Bastardi
Mar 24 at 9:19 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Just what is so mysterious about the Change in the Pacific ocean cycle to cold 3 years ago and this response globally:
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
so is the satellite lying
Now let me ask you this.. If this is global warming, why is the March temp globally below normal
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_anom.png
The temp is above the red heat wave in the US
and since the year began why is it below normal
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_ytd_anom.png
IF YOU WERE IN ASIA, WOULD YOU BE TOUTING GLOBAL WARMING?
Okay lets look at this.. the correlation between temps and the oceanic cycles, we just cam out of the warm PDO and are going into the cycle we were in during the 60s and 70s
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/09/amopdoustemp.jpg
now contrast that with the co2 charts vs temps during the leveling, and now the recent cooling
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/08/Bastardi-10-years.gif
where is the IPCC trapping hot spot that was supposed to lead to the feedback that was supposed to cause the explosive warming? Educate yourself, dont be lead to the slaughter like sheep READ THIS
http://sciencespeak.com/MissingSignature.pdf
finally the IPCC 3 scenarios, co2, and the actual temps.. Its below their mid point, below their bottom point and heading the other way
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2011/06/overlayco2.png
So how the heck can you say its cherry picking when it fits perfectly with climate cycle theory that say the ocean cools, the air then cools above ( much like turning down a thermostat, the air in your house cools before surfaces do) THEN THE LOWEST LEVELS COOL. This is right on target with forecasts made by Bill Gray years ago, since you are close to where Dr Gray is, why dont you ask him, My forecast stands, made 4 years ago, that the cooling would start ( it has as you can see on the observed objective data) and by 2030 we are back to where we were in the late 1970s WHEN THE PACIFIC WAS ENDING ITS COLD CYCLE. Look for yourself at the PDO values below
http://notrickszone.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/PDO_latest.gif
we started objective measuring of temps via satellite in 1978, at the END OF THE COLD CYCLE. Just what do you think is going to happen globally when the worlds number one source of energy, the tropical pacific, warms? And when the atlantic does to, it means the global temp rises as heat is a measure of energy. The continents warm and that in turn warms the arctic. However the turn to the opposite is starting now.. it is intuitive that the drop starts and it is. There is no tipping point, the IPCC panic forecast is busting and we are causing untold misery by tying up the life line of our economy over a ghost that will be proven to be a scam
The idea that there is a well oiled machine is nonsense. I dont ask anyone to trust me, just take an hour out of your day to read the other side of this issue and you will understand that people that are pushing this want you to believe its complex. Well its not. The sun, the oceans and to some extent, volcanic activity, far outstrip the ability of a “greenhouse” gas that is 400 times LESS PREVALENT than the number one greenhouse gas, water vapor, that occupies only .04% of the atmosphere, has a heavier specific gravity than air (1.5 to 1.) heats and COOLS faster than air and has different radiative properties. Do you understand how small the odds of this having anything to do with the climate is. And the screams or derision are coming because with the change in the ocean and even solar cycles, the major disconnect has started, showing co2s relationship to temperature is coincidental and all we need do, since we are no where near the tipping point, since RECORD COLD has been occurring in the very places the IPCC were going to be warm with the trapping hot spots, is watch the data, WITHOUT ADJUSTMENT, just the pure satellite data that I showed you above, that you can watch every day.
Going forward, the global temp will RISE back to above normal for a time over the next 3 months, but the drop will start again against the normals and when we look at this chart next year
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
it will have had a lower spike down than this year.
That is the difference between me and these folks pushing this issue. I will make a forecast that you can see, right or wrong, over a definable period of time. I will ask you to read for yourself and test the ideas I have. Not simply ask you to follow like sheep to the slaughter.
Its your life, your country. At least look at the issues from all angles
Chris Smith
Mar 25 at 3:34 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
The LAST person I would listen to is Joe Bastardi. Look at his Arctic Ice “call” over the last few years when he stated ON AIR that the arctic ice would be INCREASING over the last few years. He was ABSOLUTELY WRONG. He NEVER did say why “his models” were wrong. What gives Joe?
Nerd
Mar 25 at 2:01 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Chris,
Umm… You did not provide cites. Fail.
http://www.real-science.com/record-low-arctic-ice-has-gained-23000-manhattans-over-the-last-five-years
Tom Yulsman
Mar 25 at 12:12 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Mr. Bastardi,
Why should the readers of The Boulder Stand take anything you say seriously in light of this statement you made on Fox News?:
Saying that CO2 could affect the climate “contradicts what we call the first law of thermodynamics: energy can never be created nor destroyed. So, to look for an input of energy into the atmosphere you have to come from a foreign source.”
I’m wondering whether you also think all of us should simply cast off our clothing. After all, by your reasoning, saying that clothing can help keep us warm would contradict the very same physics. (Never mind that in either case, no energy is actually being created or destroyed.)
Joe Bastardi
Mar 25 at 7:25 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
There is a growing number of scientists that believe co2 can not affect the earths climate. Energy can neither be created nor destroyed, and co2 is part of the entire system already. There may be distortions from time to time, but you have to understand that a one degree drop in the tropical pacific as far as the earths total energy budget is concerned far outweighs a 10 degree rise over the arctic! You should know and understand that… the globe is not built for a perfect climate but constantly balances itself and that is why we have weather, including extremes. This article may shed some light on it, since you obviously have not read it, and you know that if it is proven co2 CAN NOT BE A DRIVER, the game is really up
please read
http://co2insanity.com/2011/09/04/top-scientists-in-heated-debate-over-‘-slaying-of-greenhouse-gas-theory/
Now as far as heat capacity to the entire system, lets look at that
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/atmosphere-vs-ocean-heat-capacity.jpg
So you are asking us to believe that the change in a gas of 1.5 ppm a year up, with it being 1/400th of the greenhouse gases, and not being able to mix well with the atmosphere anyway, and the air being so small as far as the entire earth/ocean energy systems is driving the climate.
Your readers can decide who is in denial
joe bastardi
Mar 25 at 7:32 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
By the way, here is the defense of my Fox Statements, which of course after the left wing media blogs attacked me, would not show
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Joe_Bastardi_is_Correct.pdf
again, have your readers actually read the other side of the issue please
if that is allowable in your world
Tom Yulsman
Mar 25 at 8:43 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Mr. Bastardi,
Nasif Nahle, author of the self-published paper you claim vindicates your statement, is a biologist. His claims as a non-expert in this field must be evaluated in the context of more than 100 years of physics, and an entire scientific community of experts, who have not simply claimed things, but have supported them with evidence. So I’m sorry, but a long series of equations written out in support of an idea that almost no expert gives credence to is not going to rescue you on this issue.
As to the question of considering different facets of scientific issues, I actually do pay attention to what some skeptical scientists say. With that in mind, here is a link to an informative piece about the greenhouse effect by Roy Spencer, no doubt someone whom you would regard as a credible scientific skeptic on climate change:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/08/help-back-radiation-has-invaded-my-backyard/
As you’ll note, with a simple backyard experiment, he shows that energy is indeed retained in the system thanks to the radiative properties of greenhouse gases.
– Tom
Joe Bastardi
Mar 25 at 9:49 am (UTC -6) Link to this comment
As for what you said above, it does not invalidate Nasifs physics as biologists, just like meteorologists, have to take physics. But people argue over different aspects of these things every day, not just with co2, but for instance in developing ratios of different substances in medicine. In addition There are plenty of people that can forecast the weather for instance, that are not degreed meteorologists, and you see alot of them on TV in many places. For the record I am a degreed meteorologist, from PSU 1978. As for Dr Roy who is a good friend of mine, as of 2 years ago I was in his camp,, but the more I dig in, the more I am where i am now, It might interest you to know that in the 90s, I was more or less neutral, so this stance has evolved as I dug in looking for what actually drove the large scale weather patterns, and it is not unlike Aristotles theory of the deity ( taken up by Aquinas at a later date).. “the unmoved mover” Basically the co2 argument states that it is the unmoved mover of the weather and climate, and I simply dont believe that and think this will become clear in the coming years , It will be interesting to see where Roy is 2 years from now. My argument is that the sheer numbers are stacked against co2, and the evidence will become more clear from the data that as the earth cools as I believe and co2 keeps going up it will become obvious. Tom, ever wonder why the earths temps spike after el ninos and fall after la ninas. Because it RESPONDS TO THE the source of the variation in energy within the whole system, the tropical Pacific. You have to see that. Why do you think part of the IPCC forecast was for an almost constant el nino, and Hansen keeps calling for super Ninos, cause he knows he will get a spike. Lets all calm down and see if the cooling pacific in the longer term does what I say. Certainly if co2 is supposed to do all this, we should not be going the other way
I came back in one more time because of what I wrote below this before and copy and pasted in, a personal note of thanks to you and your readers for at least allowing me a chance to visit with them and show my side of the argument. So read below, and I will leave you alone now
Tom:
Thank you for having the decency to publish my response here. I am impressed with the fact you are at least letting your readers know what I am looking at and giving them the chance to see that information. This is very unlike many of the blogs I will challenge, who wont let their readers see the reasons for my argument.
I want to put down the sword here and let your readers know some things about why I stand where I do.
To me it is all about the weather. I have made a forecast for the US and global temperatures in the coming years. 4 years ago, when I introduced the triple crown of cooling it was met with derision and vitriolic attacks, yet what I said would start to happen globally is.. there is no denying the trend of the temperatures since that. So to me this is a big forecast, and as someone who has his own company and has to forecast every day, I watch the weather every day. As someone who was taught by his father, also a degreed meteorologist, that the way to the future is knowledge of past and present, the climate aspect of this was drilled into me even before I went to college! All history is fascinating, even more so the weather.
But I knew I hit a target when I saw the reaction 4 years ago bringing to light the oceans and solar cycle and the wild card volcanic activity because the reaction was so intense, and since the flip of the PDO, the weather has gone the way it was in the 1950s, after that PDO flip. And of course the 60s through 70s an into the 80s were colder than the past 20 years, so you can see where I am standing there.. As for the co2 as a driver argument, I think a lot of this is like theologians arguing over how many angels one can stick on the head of a needle. It gets in the way of the question:
Is it or isn’t it? When I see IPCC forecasts that made no mention of natural variation when they issued what was a scary scenario, and them now busting badly, and them running to natural variability for a shield, my take is that
they fear even more natural variation, BECAUSE ITS NATURE THAT IS IN CONTROL. My forecast stands as is and given current climate modeling forecasting global temperatures after leveling off , to drop yet again to lower levels this fall and winter, it comes down to who is right and who is wrong.
Now about the fossil fuel economics myth. I WOULD BE MORE PROFITABLE FORECASTING FOR SOLAR AND WIND COMPANIES THAN FOSSIL FUEL. Why?
Because short of a hurricane the fossil fuel company is concerned mainly with the long term temps. A 5 mph vs a 15 mph wind, a cloudy day vs a sunny day means nothing to them as for as operations go. But to a wind company or solar company it has to do with production on every given day! It is a boon to me. For they would have to pay for much more service. So I should be dancing in the streets pushing these alternative energy ideas. In addition, it is something I should want simply because I want our nation to be self sufficient. Who wants to be fed by someone else, when you can pick and choose yourself?
And guess what? I do believe in alternative energy, but here is how I would do it. now. I would want it on an individual level, that you have wind devices or solar devices on your house or business that can switch on for instance and cut the energy uses from the outside source. Again that is not profitable to me, but it would go along way to a) cutting costs and b) empowering individuals to control their own fate, not simply swapping one outside control for another. So I see the potential there, but until such time as we have a way to do so, if as I am saying , there is no worry about co2, why cant we use what we have to get us to where we want to go? That is what I cant understand. People are starving the streets of this country and we are fighting a ghost that may not be there tomorrow, while letting our demons engulf us today.
Here is another problem. I believe man, and our nation, are fundamentally good. We are good, not God, but good. The stronger and more profitable people are, they more likely they are to share their good fortune, but in a way of their choosing, not something that is forced upon them. So this is another problem with me. By forcing people to do something because of what may be proven to be wrong.. or as I think a hoax, you are killing the incentive for people to reach beyond themselves in the first place.
But in this is not about your answer or my answer.. its about the right answer. I believe and have showed your readers some of the reasons I do, that co2 has nothing to do with the earths climate. I believe there are ways to actually use a more profitable and generous society to fuel the innovation needed to advance to the levels we are both seeking, making for a better life for all of us, and for the world itself. I believe that if we put this to an objective test via satellite era temperatures, with no readjustments made for pre satellite era or some of the tomfoolery that is going on now ( its like the fox guarding the henhouse) we will see a larger and more obvious disconnect in the coming 20-30 years. And I believe a lot of the people fighting me know it. I think I hit another target with the co2 is nothing argument, and you will be seeing that argument come to the front more and more over the coming years. All this being said, I did want to say thank you..as I am impressed that someone with an obviously differential stand with me allowed me a forum to air this issue.
In the end it may come down to a favorite quote of mine from Thoreau …. The sum of all our fictions add up to a joint reality.
I will bother you no more. thanks again
Tomwys
Mar 25 at 12:36 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Joe! A thankfully erudite and cogent reply! Even there is no way to cover all the bases in a single post, you did well here!
Tom Y.: Math knows no discipline, whether sourced from a biologist, physicist, mathematician or High School dropout. 1 + 1 are still going to equal 2 irrespective of who writes the equation.
Cherry picking should be done with some rationale. The reason I rely on very recent temperature data is that current events (record opening/re-closing/re-opening of the Summer Arctic) change the paradigms that were relied upon previously. Thus, Arctic Ocean sourced NH early fall and late spring albedo both have a “chilling” effect on global temperatures, especially when augmented by more southerly oceanic moisture falling into now much colder air.
The CO2/temperature disconnect is real, and not just recent. “Real Science” has a nice piece on it too, as does my webpage.
Sooner or later, Joe’s viewpoints will become mainstream, as the retrospective temperature altering crowd is exposed for what amounts to subterfuge, if not perjury when testifying to Congress.
You deserve credit for maintaining an open discussion!!!
Tom
rher and
Bob B
Mar 25 at 2:51 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Tom, I am sorry but it is you whom is cherry picking. We have had some of the coldest months on the planet in decades/ You choose to cherry pick over North America:
http://policlimate.com/climate/ncep_cfsr_t2m_ytd_anom.png
http://policlimate.com/climate/cfsr_t2m_2011.png
BrianCarter
Mar 25 at 3:26 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Tom Yulsman,
Respectfully sir, your comments here offer little more than logical fallacies. Ad hominems, arguments to popularity and authority are poor counters to scientific arguments.
This is precisely why there has never been a debate in traditional scientific forums and certainly not in public. The theory is indefensible and quickly unravels under proper scrutiny. The debate happened regardless.
The interest in climate science has been made very personal to every human being alive. For activists and some scientists, it’s become a very lucrative enterprise. For politicians and social planners, it means greater power, justification for controlling people and curtailing freedoms.
For the population at large it does portend the apocalypse. For some, a climate crisis, for others a freedom crisis. Because of this, people have taken a very strong interest in sorting out the truth.
The greatly under estimated populace at large has examined the evidence presented by each side and public opinion continues to swell against the scientists whose stories and data keeps changing to fit the theory.
Even a dog knows the difference between being tripped over and being kicked.
Dr. Killpatient
Mar 25 at 3:35 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
A reindeer herd in Northern Europe just reported that it’s so freaking cold, their snot is now forming dangerous icicles.
On the bright side, the blood-sucking insects are relatively under control. So they’ve got that going for them…which is nice.
Russell
Mar 25 at 4:27 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
There is another , more plausible explanation of Joe’s inability to cope with the elementary physics of climate”
Shub
Mar 25 at 4:37 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Hi Tom
You might recollect me from the collide-a-scape website.
Regarding Figure 3 in your post (the one with RSS temperatures from 1992):
Let us say, just hypothetically, that temperatures neither rise nor fall from today’s levels and continue flatly for a whole hundred years, ie., all the way to 2092.
And then, you draw the same Woodfortrees straight trend magenta line from 1992 to 2092, just as you have done here.
What do you think the trend would be? Positive or negative?
In fact, take it another step further. Let us say temperatures stand flat for another thousand years. The magenta temperature trend line would still be positive.
So your conclusion:
is meaningless.
Graphite
Mar 25 at 5:18 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
I guess if you live in a country where the winners of national sporting championships are automatically labelled “world champion” then, yes, a heatwave in Minnesota could be interpreted as gold-plated proof of global warming.
I can tell you, though, that here in New Zealand (where, when we run world championships, we invite other countries to take part) summer ended some time ago and it looks like we’re heading into winter with just the merest nod toward autumn.
So, if Tom Yulsman would care to acknowledge a world beyond the US borders, there’s a counterweight to the Minnesota frying pan.
And down here, when we eat a pie there’s a ninety percent chance it’ll be a meat pie. Something else, Tom, seemingly impossible for Americans to comprehend.
Tom Yulsman
Apr 5 at 9:39 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Graphite:
Perhaps you should re-read my entire post. You seem to have missed the point of what I wrote.
I discussed the proximate cause of the heat wave: namely, a huge kink in the jet stream that brought anomalously warm air far to the north, including Minnesota. But I also pointed out that over the long run, climate change has been raising the odds of such events occurring. That’s what I said, and I stand by it.
Since I wrote my post, Marty Hoerling, a scientist at NOAA here in Boulder, published a report that concluded: “Our current estimate of the impact of GHG forcing is that it likely contributed on the order of 5% to 10% of the magnitude of the heat wave during 12-23 March.” Unlike many other people these days, I take seriously what experts like Hoerling say. So I’m happy to accept his diagnosis. But that’s not all he said. He aso concluded that “the probability of heat waves is growing as GHG-induced warming continues to progress. But there is always the randomness.”
Which is essentially the same thing I said in my post. It’s fine if you disagree with that. We could have an honest debate about it. But please do not misrepresent what I actually said.
Best,
Tom
Mike Mangan
Mar 25 at 5:21 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Worst case of projection I’ve ever seen, Tom. You should have Bob B’s second link taped to your mirror. It’s no wonder that you people have completely lost Republican and Independent voters with these feeble yet annoying attempts at “communicating climate.”
http://www.gallup.com/poll/153365/Republicans-Democrats-Differ-Causes-Warmer-Weather.aspx
Alexander Harvey
Mar 25 at 5:52 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Hi,
I am sure that:
“the overall Earth system has been steadily accumulating energy at a rate of about five watts per square meter.”
should read as “one half a watt per square metre”
from that paper’s abstract: 0.50±0.43 Wm−2
Alex
Eve
Mar 25 at 6:04 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
If humans are winning because the jet stream has developed a north-to-south kink, then the humans in eastern north america are winning. Warmer weather, earlier planting season, less snow to shovel, lower heating bills..what’s not to like. But the humans who live in places other then Eastern North America are not winning. They are freezing. That is not fair. But then, who ever said the climate was fair.
Tomys
Mar 25 at 6:53 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Well said, Bob! Nice Home-Run!
joshv
Mar 25 at 7:20 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Using one of the higher estimates, the global temperature anomaly for 2011 was about 0.5C, about 1 degF. You claim that this level of warming contributes to the entirely weather based event that we are now experiencing in the midwest and eastern united states by making such events more likely.
I am curious, if you lowered the highs 1degF would this event be any less exceptional? Also keep in mind that CO2 based warming impact nighttime lows more so than daytime highs, so the decreases in nighttime highs would in fact be less than 1degF if CO2 based warming were removed.
But why look at the anomaly for 2011? This was in fact a weather event – not caused by CO2 heating the air in place, it was caused by warm air moving from where it normally is to where it normally isn’t. So if you want to look to the global temperature anomaly as a contributing factor, look to the global anomaly closest to the time of the event – February 2012, -0.12degC – that is, 0.12degC below average.
Tom Yulsman
Mar 26 at 12:47 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Just a clarification for everyone: This is actually not my web site per se. It is independently run by graduate students at the University of Colorado. So any kudos for maintaining an open site that encourages civil discourse is due to them. As their advisor, I’m proud of what they’ve accomplished — and humbled too.
– Tom Yulsman
Tom Yulsman
Mar 26 at 4:31 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Shub:
I will respond by quoting something my physics teacher in high school used to say when, in a very thick German accent, he caught me trying to wriggle out of something by saying, “But Mr. Weisman, if x were true…”:
“If your grandmudder had vheels, she’d be a motorcycle,” he would grumble.
If there is no warming for a thousand years, then of course, there will have been no warming trend. But that says nothing about the warming trend of the past century, which has been well documented. I know you will disagree with that characterization, and feel free to criticize it if you’d like. But please excuse me in advance for not responding. It is spring break, I am trying to catch up on grading, and I do not want to get sucked into the vortex of point counterpoint that never seems to stop on this subject.
Have a great evening!
– Tom
Tom S
Mar 27 at 1:57 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
For how long have the record highs been out pacing record lows? 10yrs, 20? What was the ratio from 1940 to 1980? Is this just the USA? Do you think 130yrs of data is sufficient to aknowledge anything about a climate system that is millions or even billions of years old? Does the PDO mean anything to you or sunspots and other poorly understood climate affecting relationships? Would you bet $1mil on what the average temperature will be at any given city you chose to within 0.5C 3yrs from now? If not, why not? Ok, how about the global average, the piece of garbage the metric is? This site is pure propoganda with a dash of cherry picked “science” if you want to call it that.
Good day!
Shub
Mar 27 at 5:41 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Hi Tom
Happy spring break
There is nothing for me to disagree or agree. You made a claim, i.e., that if one choose s an arbitrary point back in time, there is a warming trend.
Well, if you choose an arbitrary trend back, let us say, a thousand years, what do you imagine the trend (the magenta line) would look like? Pretty flat would be the answer, unless you subscribe to the Mannian stick.
Why draw straight lines through graphs that represent a noisy process? Decadal trends are noise at the multicentennial scale, and millenial trends are noise at even longer timescales.
In short, if 17 years is arbitrarily short, any longer periods you may choose are arbitrary and short as well.
Tom Yulsman
Mar 27 at 8:58 pm (UTC -6) Link to this comment
Shub: Thanks for commenting. And now, if you’d like to know who I truly am, go here: http://www.c3headlines.com/2012/03/tom-yulsman-cherry-picking-cagw-doomsday-cultist.html ;-)
– Tom