Climate Change Does Not Cause Extreme Winters, New Study Shows

originally posted by: bringmecoffee
No flames here. The issues that some people decide to mount a crusade on astound me. I'm sure that somehow, these findings will be tied to man made climate change / global warming. Too much snow? Global warming. No snow? Global warming. Extreme cold? Global warming!

Easy to point at and ridicule "climate change deniers" when no matter what happens you can claim to be right.

What a friggin' joke.

Exactly, it's like having your cake and eating for some. It's time to pull out all these hundreds of years of temperature measurements and start all over again as measurements of what and where they came from, not manipulated stats, comparisons and averages and a percent off or on for this and that. Kick the hockey stick into oblivion, and let someone else have a go...as good a way as any!

Oh! I nearly forgot, don't forget the Sun is 'thought' to be in a prolonged cooling period, so that'll need to be taken into account......sometime?

originally posted by: dragonridr
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Well It would make sense as long as temperature variance decreases. Question is would it really?? But to be honest I always thought were looking at the wrong things. CO2 increases as things get warmer so it's a indicator but reluctant to say it's the cause.

CO2 will always be a greenhouse gas. In the lower atmosphere it will stop some heat from escaping back to space, and then re-emit it in random directions which will cause some heat to bounce back to the surface kind of like a buy one get __ free.

The natural warming cycles from orbital forcing always start with solar forcing, we're closer to the sun so things start to melt, releasing frozen greenhouse gases, as those gases build up in the atmosphere it will cause heating beyond just solar... sometimes overtaking solar as the main forcing of warming.

Currently there is no reason that sun should have initiated warming. It was our GHG emissions.

originally posted by: Kali74
It's a competing hypothesis with the wavy jet stream hypothesis.
Only time will tell which if either is correct.

Boom.

Couldn't agree more, just putting it out there for consumption.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

What an absolute joke. It is the modern day hippy that believes this malarkey and the old political hippies that hope to make us all sacrificial lambs to their new fascist state.

In remembrance of this farcical thread, I will be sure to let my lawn mower idle a little longer this year and fill up when we hit triple digits on the thermometer.

Get a job already..

ETA: Using a highly simplified climate model, they examined various climate scenarios to verify their theory.
What a joke of a sentence.. They are overly simplified fascist baboons..

"Using a highly simplified climate model" Really? The patients are running the insane asylum..

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

...you dismissing it on a headline shows that you are not open to facts, just one side or another of a debate.

I find your response to be exceptionally disrespectful. I commented that the headline was sensationalist, and did not reflect the article's content. Sorry if you have a problem tolerating others' observations and ideas.

The study's premise is that yes, the earth IS warming. The article reports the researchers' findings that yes, the poles are warming faster than other areas of the planet, and because they're warming, there is a decreased temperature difference between higher and lower latitudes - which won't drive extreme winters. Specifically, "Despite lower temperature variance, there will be more extreme warm periods in the future because the Earth is warming," says Schneider.

Note they focus on temperature only, not precipitation. And speculate that killer heatwaves might become more commonplace as a result of global warming. Point being, they're just denying that winters are colder, not saying that global warming is not happening.

....Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures play a greater role in modifying temperature variability.

Schneider wants to explore the implications these results have in further studies. In particular, he wants to pursue the question of whether heatwaves in Europe may become more common because the frequency of blocking highs may increase. And he wants to find why these high pressure systems become stationary and how they change with the climate.

a reply to: soficrow

Boom.

originally posted by: Kali74
a reply to: soficrow

Boom.

What does that mean? Should I expect an attack? ...Ed. to add: Or are you saying I shot him down? : puz :

...I'm disabled, nearly 65, on a fixed and very limited income - and can't afford to replace my computer yet again. Is that the price of ATS membership? Is this all just a computer game to some people here?

a reply to: soficrow

Boom like this:



The headline of the article is completely over the top (pretty uncharacteristic poor showing for phys.org).

The results of this study seem to be completely in line with the bigger picture. It’s long been a central tenet of mainstream climate science that an enhanced greenhouse effect leads to more/faster warming in the Arctic. On the whole, this reduces the temperature gradient between equator and poles. (This article, which is poorly written imo, is trying to make it sound like that revelation is breaking news or something).

But that’s what we’ve been observing for decades, and it’s also exactly what’s theorized to be creating a more meandering jet stream now. When the temperature gradient is reduced there is a less strict flow from hot to cold basically - so the jet stream kind of unbuckles and lets loose in certain places, because it’s no longer so tightly constrained by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

But the key point is “in certain places”. Overall the globe is still warming, and the temp gradient is being reduced. This study, according to the article –

used climate simulations and theoretical arguments to show that in most places, the range of temperature fluctuations will decrease as the climate warms.

Which honestly, is like…well…duh.

It’s exactly what we saw this winter:


Most of the Northern Hemisphere was much warmer overall. It was just that one part where so many of us happen to live that got the shaft.

This study looked at a very simple, big picture model and really did nothing to disprove the finer details and nuances – they just pretty much ignored them. At the bottom it even says:

And the jet stream? Schneider shrugs off the idea

He’s just saying that in the bigger picture overall warming plays a more prominent role than a few meandering cold fronts, which is true – but it also doesn't tell the whole story, which is why we get idiots like James Inhofe "disproving" global warming by throwing snowballs on the Senate floor in February.

a reply to: Kali74

originally posted by: mc_squared
a reply to: soficrow

Boom like this:

The headline of the article is completely over the top (pretty uncharacteristic poor showing for phys.org).

The results of this study seem to be completely in line with the bigger picture. It’s long been a central tenet of mainstream climate science that an enhanced greenhouse effect leads to more/faster warming in the Arctic. On the whole, this reduces the temperature gradient between equator and poles. (This article, which is poorly written imo, is trying to make it sound like that revelation is breaking news or something).

Thanks so much, both of you. And my apologies kali74 for fearing the worst.

I love how climate change is either THIS or THAT.

Climate change is real, but the fact that its real doesnt mean that you can blame everything on it and say that because its real, a skeptic has no argument.

Ive seen enough studies to know that most of them use data to prove their side and not a neutral argument. Im not a climatologist or a scientist but I do know how to read between the lines and I know that there is so much bad data and misinformation that it makes people go crazy and choose a side.

If Climate change is such an issue, why arent we shoring up our coastlines and preparing for the end of the world events that come with it? In America, we can do anything we want at anytime to protect or react to a crisis but yet this one is just crazy warnings and arguments. The chart about the warm winter above is cute too and it doesn't include all the data of the winter and yet people spit this chart out like its indisputable.

The bottom line here is that people see this stuff and only use data to help their arguments and you cant ever have a real conversation on the topic. There IS climate change but that doesnt mean its going to kill us all. There is known bad science and manipulation of data out there as well yet people ignore this if they are on the side of doom.

If we had a real crisis on the horizon, we wouldn't be just shouting at each other.......just my opinion.

a reply to: DavidWright

...If we had a real crisis on the horizon, we wouldn't be just shouting at each other

There IS a real crisis but it's affecting others - not us yet.

You need to watch "Chasing Ice." Here's the short, followed by the full documentary.

excellent videos!
where is the full verson?

a reply to: autopat51

Oooops. My apologies.

Chasing Ice is available on:

dvd-logo blue-ray-logo Slider-5-Netflix-small Slider-5-iTunes-small amazon-logo-small

a reply to: soficrow

One of those guys has a potty mouth.

👣

a reply to: soficrow

I will watch the full documentary before I comment on that but I live in an area that has many lakes caused by glacial movement.........I was under the impression that glaciers are still in retreat mode anyway.

A lot is not understood about climate cycles in general but again, is there imminent death on the horizon from a flooded city......no proof as of yet but we try to tax people and steal from people because this MAY happen? That is my issue......money is being stolen under the guise of climate change and what is there to show for it.....LITTLE.

Rest assured though that Al Gore is well to do from his fear-mongering.....

a reply to: BlueMule

Missed it. What do you think of the film?

a reply to: soficrow

Yeah what mc-squared said lol...

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: DavidWright

...If we had a real crisis on the horizon, we wouldn't be just shouting at each other

There IS a real crisis but it's affecting others - not us yet.

You need to watch "Chasing Ice." Here's the short, followed by the full documentary.

Since when is a 4-year period of photos a representation of world wide climate change?

The clip that Balog shows is a 4-year time-lapse of a glacier calving in a localized area... it is what arctic ice does, it calves.

Not only that, but the video starts in May and ends in September... shouldn't it also end in May to give a better idea of comparison to see where things are at the same time of year?

Lastly, don't you think it's a bit presumptuous and dangerous to take a local, 4-year time lapse event, and infer that the entire planet is in danger from climate change? That's a bit of a stretch.

For the record, what you see in the video was the equivalent of about 7.4 cubic km of ice, but the Peterman Glacier in 2010 was more than 20 times larger.

The earth loses ice in some areas and gains it in others. Glaciers retreat and reform. The degree of which depends on so many factors. I watched the movie you posted and never felt like it was an accurate representation of global changes when it was localized. Good theater, for sure, but not the same as sound science. (although, one could argue that science has become nothing more than theater these days.)

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

They are too busy high fiving each other.

Didn't you get the memo?

Now any youtube video that shows ice breaking apart proves the theory that we are doomed.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

At the 4:22 mark they show how much the glacier retreated in 100 years then show that in the 10 year period where it exceeded what it took 100 years.

They didn't capture that 110 years on film, but saying the show only covers a 4-year term is a bit dissingenious.