COLD WEATHER: The cold in places like Florida actually could be a sign of warming, rather than an argument against the phenomenon.
Image: Ruthanne Reid, courtesy Flickr
Editor's Note: This story was updated at 11 A.M. Eastern time to include comments from meteorologist Joe Bastardi.
Icicle-covered oranges in Florida. The United Kingdom swamped with its coldest December in more than a century. Travelers stranded in airports surrounded by snowy fortresses.
These have been some of the dominant images this winter, and now one forecaster says it's going to get colder. Yesterday, an AccuWeather meteorologist predicted that January could be the chilliest for the nation as a whole since the 1980s.
"More waves of Arctic air will invade the country, starting late this week and continuing through the next week and beyond," explained Joe Bastardi of Accuweather in a release. Rare snowfall is headed to Seattle, while the Texas citrus industry may have to prepare for cold-weather damage, according to his forecast.
So how does this fit with global warming models?
According to some climate scientists, the cold in places like Florida actually could be a sign of warming, rather than an argument against the phenomenon.
The ongoing disappearance of sea ice in the Arctic from elevated temperatures is a factor to changes in atmospheric pressure that control jet streams of air, explained James Overland, an oceanographer of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA. That is because ice-less ocean is darker and, thus, absorbs more solar heat, which in turn spews warmer air than average back into the Arctic atmosphere.
That unusually warm air can contribute to a "bulge" effect to the atmospheric pressure controlling how cold air flows, according to Overland, who works at NOAA's Pacific Marine Environmental Laboratory. Rather than moving circularly in the Arctic from west to east as typical, the bulge may prompt air to move in a U-shaped pattern down to the southern United States.
How loss of Arctic ice gives you snow in Seattle
Last year was the waviest example of this pressure phenomenon in 145 years, said Overland. What also is happening is that the wavy air flow from north to south is appearing for longer periods of time, rather than just for a week or two, he said.
"You can't go as far as saying the loss of sea ice is causing cold weather in Florida," said Overland. "You can say it is a contributing factor." In October, Overland co-authored part of NOAA's Arctic Report Card, which included a section on how Arctic weather is influencing weather in mid-latitudes.
He emphasized that more research needs to be done on the cause and effect relationship between disappearing Arctic sea ice and cold weather in southern locations. Other research backs up his argument.
In November, climate scientist Vladimir Petoukhov reported in the Journal of Geophysical Research that the overall warming of Earth's northern half could result in cold winters. "These anomalies could triple the probability of cold winter extremes in Europe and northern Asia," he said in a statement.
The area covered by sea ice hovered near its historic low this summer, and is expected to be largely gone by mid-century (ClimateWire, Dec. 17, 2010).
Another study published in Environmental Research Letters last year, though, predicted colder winters in the United Kingdom because of natural variations in solar activity.
Differing from the majority of scientists, meteorologist Bastardi presented his "global cooling" theory in a December AccuWeather video arguing that carbon dioxide is a trace gas that has less effect on weather than forces such as the sun.
"There's no need to panic over global warming," he said.
The key thing is to look at the climate over long periods of time and not try to find meaning in one weather event, said David Easterling, chief of the Scientific Services Division at NOAA's National Climatic Data Center.
"The flip side is it's been unusually warm in Canada this winter," he said.
January aside, the National Weather Service predicts that swaths of the country stretching from the Southwest to the Southeast will be warmer than average this year. Record high temperatures are currently outnumbering record low temperatures by about two to one, and those ratios are projected to be about 20 to 1 by mid-century and 50 to 1 by 2100, said Jerry Meehl, a scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research.
How much the existing data registers with politicians and the public is an open question.
Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), who once called global warming a "hoax" and was one of the loudest opponents against climate legislation last year, posted a blog last month mentioning recent cold weather events.
How weather impacts belief
"The fanciful claims surrounding global warming have turned out to be a colossal deception, an artful hoax, and an intellectual fraud," it said.
According to the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research, news coverage of climate change in 50 newspapers around the globe dropped by more than half in late 2009 to 2010. That parallels the time frame that climate change fell off the radar of Capitol Hill and international climate negotiations ended in Copenhagen, Denmark.
Last year also witnessed a drop in public belief in man-made warming. Gallup, for example, reported that the percentage of the population saying that seriousness of warming is "exaggerated" jumped 15 points between 2007 and 2010.
Christopher Borick, director of the Muhlenberg College Institute of Public Opinion has studied public reaction to the climate change issue since 2008. He and his team found that an individual's belief or skepticism of its existence lies in personal experience: Unusually hot summers resulted in an increase in the number of believers, while frigid winters led to a greater number of skeptics.
"[Weather] has a big effect on the perception that climate change is happening," said Borick. "Meteorological phenomena, storms and droughts, can be translated by individuals to their views on what's happening with long-term climate."
In a survey last spring, following an unusually cold winter for many parts of the United States, the percentage of climate change believers stood at 52 percent, with 36 percent non-believers and 13 percent unsure. The number of believers rose 8 percent and the number of non-believers dropped 9 percent in the fall survey, taken just a few months after a hot summer.
But Jon Krosnick, a professor at Stanford University, said the only group affected by cold weather in terms of belief about climate change is the 30 percent of the population who distrust scientists. And then they only consider how the most recent season compares to the previous three years in terms of worldwide temperatures, he said.
If this winter is unusually cold, he said, you would expect to see a "small drop" in the percentage of people who think global warming is happening.
"People don't use their local temperatures as a benchmark," he said. "They are not dodos."
See what we're tweeting about
29 Comments
Add CommentHoly crap James are you serious?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off Dark matter has not been proven only theorized. Perhaps the CERN program will actually find proof of its exsitance but to date it is only suspected. http://public.web.cern.ch/public/
Perhaps the main reason there are people who choose to disagree with the status quo is becuase people like you spout worthless dribble with only the faintest understanding of what you are talking about.
We can read about competing theories from other well known scientists who can show that Co2 follows temperature not the other way around.
http://english.pravda.ru/science/earth/11-01-2009/106922-earth_ice_age-1/
http://www.noteviljustwrong.com/
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/ice_ages.html
http://www.climatedepot.com/
They cant predict a tornado, earthquakes,hurricanes they cant even pridict the weather from day to day but they would have you belive they can predict the global warming centuries in advance.
Since we are exiting the latest interglacial period look for the next ice age coming soon to the boobs who thought we were burning up.
He means dark matter in the most literal sense, material that is dark in color, not dark energy/dark matter. Meaning black carbon, burnt fuels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can compare the state of the world to the state of one person. If you drink alcohol every day, you will develop a habbit. Once that habbit takes hold, you start to get worse and worse, at one point you are aware of how bad you're treating yourself, but still cannot stop. The industrialized countried have an addiction to not only oil, but the consumer's way of life. If you want to lose weight, you can try running every once and a while, but it takes a total rehaul of your habbits (eating in this case), a change in the way you live your life. People are unhappy with being fat, but most people don't want to change their lifestyle. But, some people do change their lifestyle, the human mind is strong. The problem we face today, and IMO seems insurmountable until catastrophy happens, is that we need billions of people to change their habbits. And in the case of billions of people, it needs to be convenient. Change is often not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the naysayers that still want to burn fuel, and consume their way though life, you can, but you have to tackle an even harder problem...population control.
I believe there are "non-believers" in global warming for two reasons:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this1. The scientific community has done a poor job in presenting and communicating the data. Showing charts that start in 1860 because it shows the "max upward trend" is foolish.Pick 100 sites around the world and let the data speak for itself. I realize that there will be endless discussion on the sites, and the there will be lobbying for those that show what you want shown. Use basic longitude and latitude for the 100 (or 50, etc)
2. Discussion of ideas like the warm-air bulge you site here. That is a brown theory (someone pull it out of their posterior) and sends credibility down the toilet. You seem to be willing to publish any idea that supports your position, whether founded or not. We need some good science that people can feel comfortable with.
Global warming must be true: what will happen the to carbon-economy we have created if it's not?
hah, in the article about record seasonal weather:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"So feel free to use or misuse those statistics to your heart's content."
Fortifides my point in the fact that science has to belief/faith applied to it. Only facts. People distort them, but science will always prevail when it comes to facts.
Live your life in a crazy belief structure in your head, I'm going to stick to fighting for what's happening around me.
You environmentalist morons would be amusing if you were not costing the world billions in unnecessary costs and regulation. The facts are there is no HUMAN caused global warming. Your religion was debunked and proven to be based on falsified information and so called computer models that are skewed to "prove" humans are causing global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe facts are CO2 has gone up AFTER the rise in temperature, just as it has for every warming period between ice ages going back a billion years.
Myths of your ideology are there is no actual reason to accept some kind of "global" temperature or its meaning. WE humans do not know enough about the atmosphere to even guess what is happening and less than 100 years of temperature data from parts of America, Europe and a few other locations amounting to less than 1000th of a percent of all temperature on land, sea and in the air we would need to take to even begin to understand the biosphere we live in.
The facts are you human caused warmists have chosen a nonexistent problem to to demonize and given it a cause called CO2 which conveniently can't be measured, we dont know what actually can be in the atmosphere and it will always be there as long as life exists. In effect a cause you can always state is still a cause and never have to worry about a solution.
With a final problem with your religion. We cant falsify your claims, as long as every atmospheric phenomenon, earthquake and bird dropping is always a justification to claim global warming is a problem and is human caused. With everything that happens "proof" and no condition exists to falsify it, you people are just spouting a belief and ideology with no science to back it up.
I suppose you morons will claim global warming is proven again when it is HOT in LA, a hurricane occurs in the atlantic, a volcano erupts on the sea floor, the caribou choose a migration path 30 ft north of last year past a fallen pine tree, the tarot cards come out in numeric order, hell freezes over, god smites the planet and the Obamanation continues another 4 years.
For what it's worth, I am very concerned about waste and abuse of our environment as it can directly affect all of us. For me, the jury is out still on global warming as I feel many well-meaning researchers simply do not understand the problem, assuming it exists, to the point where they can predict what is happening. My point, dude, is that your holier-than-thou attitude is starting to wreak of some of the severest of Evangelical Bible-bashings. And I am very glad you are able to abate your guilt by buying Apple products. Steve Jobs and his "Green" marketing campaign send their regards from China's Foxconn. Would I be correct in surmising that you drive a Prius? A damned fine auto, that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh, and I lived in a third world country for many years. FYI
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLOL! bfish and soccerdad... Wow. bfish, i have seen you try to dismiss global warming before. I guess some never learn. soccerdad, it IS science when hypothesis is written and explored.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgenda? Yes, I am quite sure Scientific American has great interest in proving global warming. Maybe it would help them distribute better? LOL! Or could it be that scientists, in a majority, believe man made climate change to be fact? Nah. That couldn't be why they would write these articles! Geez.
Are you kidding me?? I find it so difficult to believe that anybody, who doesn't have financial ties to coal and/or oil, doesn't believe that we are to blame for these climate disasters. Senator Inhofe is a moron, and so is everybody who voted for him. It's just another case of being corrupted by special interest groups.
I will tell you what.. No matter what imaginary comfort zone these people are living in, I hope they wake up soon! If not, any comfort in saying "I told you so" will be completely diminished by the tragedy that will/would be our reality.
JamesDavis, I agree with you completely. Your post is idealist, but I share your hopeful vision. Unfortunately, money is stronger than ideals, morality, and/or life (in general, if the world becomes an unlivable habitat)in our current world. Perhaps one day the world will stop trying to pretend that we are infallible and own up to our mistakes. But to be honest, I am kind of doubting it.
The reason for so many deniers of climate change is because we have allowed the educational system to deteriorate to the point where a large proportion of the general population receives no useful science education. Just looking at the posts here, even those which claim some erudition, one has to note that most people can't even SPELL!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf people had an understanding of science & an appreciation of what science & scientists contribute to our lives, they would not be so quick to say, "Nothing's happening. It's all nonsense."
Something bloody well IS happening! Wake up & smell the rotting flesh of dying species. More extinctions now than at any time since the demise of the dinosaurs.
The children growing up today & inheriting the planet that the Baby Boomers are leaving behind are going to be extremely p*ssed off about our oblivous & greedy neglect of their environment.
Get an education. Learn to think critically! Stop taking the word of so-called pundits who have none of your interests at heart & are only interested in their next HUGE paycheck.
Things are going to change, whether we like it or not, & no matter what we do. That is now inevitable. All we can do at this point is act to ameliorate the effects & hopefully adapt our societies towards survival in a very different world. With people who say, "Look how cold it is this winter. What a load of old codswallop is this 'global warming' nonsense," one cannnot help but be pessimistic about our species survival chances.
Thanks lakota2012 (2012?)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour posts are very good and provide great resources for anyone trying to understand what is happening.
It might be better to not get off into the old ACC/no ACC debate (Anthropogenic Climate Change). Most scientists agree that the climate is changing dramatically. Even those who disagree with AGC theory agree that the climate is changing in very dramatic ways. I suggest that we should just fast-forward and look at what is probably happening. I believe we are witnessing one of the most amazing events in the history of scientific observation.
It has been long accepted by meteorologists that the weather is a 'Chaotic' system. That is to say that it is a complex dynamical system and is best described by the Chaos Theory rendering of 'Dynamical Systems Theory’ (DST)'.
I say that what we are witnessing is a complex system that is very near to the point of a major reorganization. It appears to be rapidly moving between two points that are ever more widely separated showing that there is an increase in energy and organization around a new set of nodal points within the system. These changes are usually permanent in the near term and will cause a permanent shift in historical weather patterns. We have the tools to watch this as it happens thanks to NOAA and others.
We will all learn from what will happen over the next five or fewer years no matter what we 'believe in'.
Science is a fascinating pursuit and its' theoretical and philosphical direction changes sometimes very abruptly. One example is the study of light which was thought to propagate in an "ether". Studies attempting to identify this "ether" were published literally right to the day before Einstein's great discoveries.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTake these Global warming "theories" with a grain of salt. Climate scientists haven't the computer power or the appropriate numerical models to begin to solve this problem. All the current theories have the same validity as religion.
“Observations throughout the world make it clear that climate change is occurring, and rigorous scientific research demonstrates that the greenhouse gases emitted by human activities are the primary driver. These conclusions are based on multiple independent lines of evidence, and contrary assertions are inconsistent with an objective assessment of the vast body of peer-reviewed science.”
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe above are the first two sentences of a letter sent to each member of the US Senate on Oct 21, 2009 by the heads of 18 prestigious national scientific associations in the United States:
American Association for the Advancement of Science
American Chemical Society
American Geophysical Union
American Institute of Biological Sciences
American Meteorological Society
American Society of Agronomy
American Society of Plant Biologists
American Statistical Association
Association of Ecosystem Research Centers
Botanical Society of America
Crop Science Society of America
Ecological Society of America
Natural Science Collections Alliance
Organization of Biological Field Stations
Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics
To access this letter in its entirety, go to: http://www.ametsoc.org/
There was an op-ed piece in the New York Times recently (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/12/26/opinion/26cohen.html?_r=1) arguing that global warming increases winter snow fall, which in turn increases the reflectivity of solar radiation in Siberia, which cools that part of the earth. This has the effect of diverting the jet stream in such a way that arctic air is forced south in North America. This is another theory about why global warming contributes to our current cold snap.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm a professor of linguistics, not a climate scientist, so I'd like to see an expert response to this idea.
It's sad that Scientific American gives people like Joe Bastardi a speakers box to stand on to spout such utter nonsense. They have bought into this faux argument that somehow every article in order to reflect balance in journalism must find the few crank contrarians.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoes the editorial staff of Scientific American believe that the question is still open for debate? If so they should publicly say so and be clear that they do not accept the position of every major American Scientific organization.
It is not just the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists that believe AGW is real but there is also something called consilience among different branches of science which also support its reality.
As a Canadian I find it absurd that people continue to talk about this issue in the face of the astronomical air and sea temperature anomalies we have experienced in the north of our country.
At the very least if Scientific American had any senses of trying to adhere to any probity in its presentation of science it would moderate the comments. In essence what you have done is allowed your comment section to be hijacked by people espousing all sorts of conspiracy theories involving climate scientists. If you had any senses of decency towards these scientists you would take down such comments which essentially besmirch their scientific achievements.
"Something bloody well IS happening! Wake up & smell the rotting flesh of dying species. More extinctions now than at any time since the demise of the dinosaurs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisElegia, can you give me the names of at least ten quadripeds and ten birds and ten fish and ten plants that have gone extinct in the past year? Is there a list I should be aware of? Or are these just "forecasts" of "some scientists" based on "computer models"? Thank you.
Any particular reason you've decided Joe Bastardi is a respectable source for a story on climate change?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, bfish, where do you think the carbon we're pulling out of the earth is going if not into the atmosphere?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"If people had an understanding of science & an appreciation of what science & scientists contribute to our lives, they would not be so quick to say, "Nothing's happening. It's all nonsense."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, Elegia, you are exactly right. Scentists have invented or have otherwise made possible the internal combustion engine, television, the electric lightbulb, Air conditioning, space exploration, dishwashers, washers and dryers, water heaters snow plows, every modern medical advance since leeches, central heating, Oil Supertankers and the rest of the shipping industry, railroads, the trucking industry, pesticides, most medicines, all Aircraft, gasoline refineries, and every manufactured product that uses chemicals synthesized from petroleum, which amounts to just about everything you will put your hands on today.
If it weren't for scientists and all they have provided the world over the past two hundred years, you would most likely not exist.
And, if you were to suddenly relinquish everything (and I mean everything!) you own or use or eat or drink made possible by the exploitation of fossil fuels, you would be dead inside of two weeks. Honor the scientists? By all means, but honor them all, not just your ideologically driven climate "scientists."
The human contribution of carbon dioxide represents about 0.117% of all green house gases. Sorry, but nothing is happening and it really is all nonsense.
Dear author of this article,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you remove any mention of Global Warming and instead use the term Climate Change almost all of the confusion is erased! I wrote along the same lines in Mapawatt's latest post:
http://blog.mapawatt.com/2011/01/05/stop-global-warming-madness/
For instance, telling the Average American "It's cold outside because our emissions are resulting in Climate Change" is much easier for them to swallow than "It's cold outside because our emissions are resulting in Global Warming". Yes, it's a semantic difference, but one that has a large impact on the public's (i.e. non-scientists) acceptance of the concept that man's actions are causing our climate to change.
Yes, we don't need to know who put the (whatever)(wherever) to see the results.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI like the ongoing statistics about how record highs are outnumbering record lows, and the trend is upward.
That's all I need to know. Glad I'm not a farmer. Weather weirdness is catastrophe for them.
Well, here we go again! If it gets warmer, it global warming. Now, it colder and guess what? Yup! Global Warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the sky turned red on Monday, someone would spout AGW.
Listen, if you SciAm terrorists have the data, PUBLISH IT. Let us run the numbers together.
What are you afraid of? Oh, that's right I read the Climategate Memos.
I'll bet you this; if they take the money out Climate Research, the fanatics will find another topic. But, winter will still happen. So will Summer.
Enter Pi into the computer program, it'll produce a hockey stick, too.
@CanadianClimate Hawk-Your post indicates your ignorance of the current facts and data regarding the issue of human caused potential climate change.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is most certainly extensive debate in the science community (climate science and other) regarding the extent that additional human released CO2 (as the predominate human caused GHG) will warm the planet. In addition to this, there is a very basic debate, with no accurate data to support either position; as to whether a warmer planet is better or worse for humanity in the long term.
"Well, here we go again! If it gets warmer, it global warming. Now, it colder and guess what? Yup! Global Warming."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, you are confusing global warming and climate change. Global warming is the warming of the globe based on an overall average. Climate change is the changes in weather patterns based on changes in the energy content of the sea, air, and land. The globe is warming overall, but there is no implication that it will warm everywhere at the same time, or by the same amount.
Sisko continues to push his warming-is-better argument despite weather-related food shortages driving food prices to record highs in 2008 and again this year. So, we are better off with less food while our population continues to grow. That's in interesting perspective.
"Enter Pi into the computer program, it'll produce a hockey stick, too."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat statement is either a lie, or based on nearly complete ignorance.
Canadian Climate Hawk-
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou are completely misinformed if you believe there is a consensus regarding the subject of climate change. I can cite many, many prominent “climate scientists” and “ physics‘” who absolutely disagree with the IPCC’s analysis and conclusions.
Scientific American is considered by many as a completely biased publication promoting an agenda that human CO2 emissions must immediately be stopped, but the science certainly does NOT support that conclusion.
There is probably (imo) close to a consensus that increasing GHG’s will have an impact on the earth’s climate, but there is no agreement on many issues beyond that. Clearly science does not yet understand the rate of any warming or the impact to specific regions.
Given the FACT that CO2 levels are certainly not be going down for many decades after human emissions peak, (and that human emissions will not peak for many decades) planning and building appropriate infrastructure is the sensible government policy. This “solution” is also the lowest cost approach since the “new” infrastructure would be needed
"And, if you were to suddenly relinquish everything (and I mean everything!) you own or use or eat or drink made possible by the exploitation of fossil fuels, you would be dead inside of two weeks. Honor the scientists? By all means, but honor them all, not just your ideologically driven climate "scientists."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTimbo, nobody is suggesting anybody give up everything they own or use or eat made possible by the exploitation of fossil fuels. When Benjamin Franklin invented the pot bellied stove he was not advocating giving up warm homes. He was making the use of firewood far more efficient, safer, easier, cleaner and cheaper. There was less smoke in the air. People used far less wood, but their standard of living did not go down. Their houses were warmer, not colder.
When central heating was invented, it used less fuel but the standard of living did not go down. When insulation was invented, the standard of living did not go down. When we successfully reduced air and water pollution in our cities, the standard of living did not go down. So why are you trying to scare people into thinking that trying to reduce carbon emission will affect our standard of living? Are you trying to claim that using solar panels, solar water heaters, better insulation, biofuels, and more efficient cars will make anyone's standard of living go down? More likely it will go up, because people will pay less for energy. Already solar panels will pay for themselves in energy saving in less than 7 years, and the costs are still coming down.
Climate change is part of a natural cycle.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Precession of the Equinoxes is based on the observation that the stars "fall back" 1 degree over 72 years. Today we know this is caused by the wobble of the earth's axis and that this cycle is about 26,000 years.
http://newsroom.melbourne.edu/news/n-119
Both the Lake Vostok and Epica ice core studies at Antarctica indicate that carbon dioxide levels rise for about 21,000 years as the earth warns and then fall during cooling periods. Over millions of years, the earth has gone through ice ages and tropical epochs.
Based on the Precession alone, we can expect global warming to continue for another 3,000 years even if we reduced industrial emissions of CO2 to zero (they are currently .011 percent of total atmosphere) because the last ice age ended approximately 18,000 years ago.
There are of course many other factors. My question regarding climate change is about the ozone layer and ozone "hole" over the poles.
How does this affect climate change?
You are right that industrial emissions of CO2 are very small compared to nature. I have posted about one basic natural cycle (Precession) but if you investigate the reasons why certain groups promote AGW theory, you come up with some interesting facts. The CRU (Climatic Research Unit) at the University of East Anglia is funded by BP Petroleum, Shell Oil, the British nuclear power industry and Greenpeace.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
Funding sources are at the end of this article published by the CRU itself.
So what is really happening is that industry wants the taxpayer to fund tech change!
I am sure most readers of Scientific American are aware of carbon credit markets, George Soros, et al.