The irony, it burns. Do you think maybe Gaia is trying to send the U.N. and the delegates a message? One record low was funny, three in a row was hilarious, a new record low for the month of December was ROFL, but now six straight days of record lows during the U.N. COP16 Global Warming conference? That’s galactically inconvenient. The whole month so far has averaged below normal:
Here’s today from Weather Underground, Today’s low was 55°F and the old record was 60°F in 1999:
And here are the other 5 days, and more record lows are forecast, see below:
======================================================
The forecast for Cancun is not encouraging:
Existing record lows for the next two days are:
Dec 11 57 °F (2003)
Dec 12 55 °F (2008)
It is likely we will see a full week, possibly 8 days of record lows, and another new all time record low for the month of December is possible also.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
This sort of statement just drives me nuts! When a meteorological event (such as a snow storm, flood etc.) is labeled as a 100 year event, it really means it has a 1% chance of happening in any given year, not as many people tend to believe, that it “should” only happen once each century.
Never mind the minor issue that many of these events thresholds are based on very short histories so that they are hardly more than an educated guess vs a statistically valid statement.
Like throwing a pair of dice, the events are independent, and there is nothing unnatural or unusual about two or more 100 year events happening in close succession, just like it is not unusual for there to be a span of well over 100 years between such events.
Unfortunately that distinction is lost on most of the general public and the media and some organizations with an agenda intentionally play on the misunderstanding with such stories as mentioned above.
Larry
Smokey
The Cancun penguin does not exist, has never existed, and, thus, cannot be saved.
As for smallpox, samples should be “saved” in labs just in case.
Typical blog. Serious topic.. trollers with no brains.
Ongoing climate change is undeniable and will be the greatest challenge man has ever faced. The science is real.
No question the politics is much more difficult. How to convert our world to one where we pollute less is going to be our real challenge and the politicians are not up to the task. I blame this on poor media.
stan stendera,
Thanks for clearing that up. Some eco-greens are so loony that they actually believe stuff like that. Makes you want to slap ’em.
“”R. Gates says:
December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm
EVERY time CO2 rises in Earth’s history, the hydrological cycle accelerates (as CO2 is the fuel for that very acceleration)””
====================================================
Gates, EVERY time temperatures have increased, CO2 levels have followed.
Sun and temperatures are the fuel that accelerates the hydrological cycle.
=======================================================
“”and is a negative-feedback mechanism to keep CO2 in check.””
====================================================
Gates, it doesn’t give a rats patoot about CO2 levels. It’s not some elaborate system
designed around CO2.
“Mike says:
December 10, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Think globally.
“NASA: Hottest November on record,”
Further to my earlier comment, even comparing November of GISS with the rest of this year so far reveals major differences compared to the others. November was the FOURTH HIGHEST reading for the year so far according to GISS. However according to UAH, November was the LOWEST month and according to RSS, November was the SECOND LOWEST month.
If my science students plotted points to get the best slope and if one of the points was way off compared to the others, they would be told to reject the point that was way off.
GISS reminds me of the mother whose son played in a band. At one point the mother said everyone in the band played the wrong note except her son.
“JER0ME says:
December 11, 2010 at 1:46 am
What events, or lack of events, would disprove the theory (however little it may deserve the term) of AGW?”
This site would interest you:
http://isthereglobalcooling.com/
Larry, short answer is you can’t. Everything proves the theory. No data set can disprove religious belief.
R. Gates says:
December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm
Remove all the other known climate forcings such as Milankovitch cycles, ENSO, PDO, AMO, NAO, solar cycles, etc. and if you’ve got nothing left, then there would be no need for AGW…that’s how you could disprove it…
Since temperatures are not unprecedented, nor rising more rapidly nor further than in the past, natural variation is still the null hypothesis and is doing just fine.
It’s up to you to prove AGW, not up to us to disprove it.
R. Gates says: (December 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm)
The 40% rise in CO2 in the last few hundred years is hardly tiny. It has risen to a level not seen in 800,000 years. We still are not certain of how sensitive the earth is to such a rapid rise (geologically speaking) in CO2.
Well lets see.
A temperature rise of about 0.7C in 150 years (hardly unusual).
No general increase in extreme weather events.
The travesty of no statistically significant warming in over a decade (despite continuingly rising CO2).
Solid evidence of CO2 level changes following temperature changes throughout the ice-core record (as opposed to vice versa).
No increase in the overall rate of warming as atmospheric CO2 concentration has increased (despite the IPCC’s feeble attempts to show that there has been by drawing lines on a chart from cherry-picked start points).
Meanwhile poly bears continue to multiply like rabbits, and vegetation is flourishing.
And then we see proposals by the UN for energy-limiting laws and taxes which would see massive wealth redistribution under the governance of a central world power, with no prospect of third-world development – and no appreciable effect on world temperature projected by either sceptics or alarmists.
Time to smell it, Mr Useful Idiot.
latitude says:
December 11, 2010 at 7:33 am
“”R. Gates says:
December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm
EVERY time CO2 rises in Earth’s history, the hydrological cycle accelerates (as CO2 is the fuel for that very acceleration)””
====================================================
Gates, EVERY time temperatures have increased, CO2 levels have followed.
Sun and temperatures are the fuel that accelerates the hydrological cycle.
=======================================================
“”and is a negative-feedback mechanism to keep CO2 in check.””
====================================================
Gates, it doesn’t give a rats patoot about CO2 levels. It’s not some elaborate system
designed around CO2
___________
No one said anything about “it” giving a rats patoot about CO2 levels, whatever this “it” is that you’re referring to. Some anthropomorphism of Gaia perhaps? We are speaking here about what happens in the rock cycle over millions of years, and, based on the chemistry of earth, it just so happens that when CO2 levels are high, the hydrological cycle accelerates, leading to more weathering of rock, which absorbs the CO2 from the atmosphere, reducing the CO2 levels until the hydrological cycle declines. I didn’t imply that there is anything to give a rats patoot about this negative feedback cycle…it is simply the way the process works under earth’s chemisty.
As a side note however, I would suggest that this does touch on the Anthropic principle from Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthropic_principle), but in a broader sense, more akin to the Gaia principal that somehow the earth and even perhaps the larger cosmos) maintains the conditions for life in general, often sacrificing individual species (even most species, as in mass extinctions) so that life might go on. I think we are just on the threashold of discovering how plentiful life is in the universe (with many hundreds of exoplanets now having been discovered), and I would guess very soon now we’ll have evidence for life in many of these exoplanets. The point being, that somehow life and maintaining the conditions for such is one of things that seems to be “hardwired” into the structure of this particular universe. The CO2/rock cycle may be just that same principal on a very localized level.
R. Gates, NOW I understand what you mean by attractors. Wherever it’s cold, you end up at a global warming convention.
By the way, is your AGW-driven Arctic high pressure theory responsible for La Nina too? Looking forward to your answer on this one.
JERoME says:
“I appreciate taking me seriously.
I was not truly clear. What events in the real word, not in any models, would prove AGW is not happening? I think there is a general distrust of models among sceptics, and for very good reasons (mostly bias confirmation).
We are constantly informed that certain events are evidence of AGW. You imply the same quite strongly. What events, or lack of events, would disprove the theory (however little it may deserve the term) of AGW?”
_____
Sorry I misunderstood what you were asking. Obviously, to disprove or at least seriously discredit AGW, we would have to observe the general things that AGW predicts will happen, not happening. But before I talk about those, let me reinterate my position. I am 75% convinced that AGW is happening to one degree or another, though I reserve 25% of a skeptical position allowing for unknown natural cycles to be at work (Global Climate Models have accounted for all known cycles and still found a signature of AGW). I think there is a 25% chance that some unknown natural cycles related to the sun, the ocean, cosmic rays intensity, etc. to be causing the appearance of AGW. But still, I think it is more likely that the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s is indeed causing the global climate to warm and change.
But back to your question– what specifically in the real world would have to happen to disprove (or more likely discredit) the AGW hypothesis?
1. Global Climate Models have predicted an seasonal ice free Arctic by anywhere from 2030 to 2200. The Arctic has been trending down toward this event for many decades. If this long term trend reversed in a significant way (not for just a few years, but over many decades) it would go a long ways toward discrediting AGW. I personally look at the Arctic as being the bellweather of AGW, since polar amplification of warming is one of the hypothesis’ key tenets.
2. The stratosphere would reverse its long term cooling trend that we’ve seen and over the long term begin to warm once more. Global climate models have consistently indicated that the stratosphere would cool as more LW radiation is keep in the troposphere. If the stratosphere begins to warm over a long term cycle, then it would be a serious blow to the AGW hypothesis.
3. GCM have predicted that in addition to the loss of sea ice in the Arctic, we’d see a general warming of the region leading to the melting of permafrost. This is exactly what is happening, but if over the longer term we see permafrost being restored and the Arctic warming trend reverse, it would be a serious blow to the AGW hypothesis.
4. GCM’s have predicted a disruption of weather patterns leading to more frequent extreme events. These extreme events mean more: heavy rain, heavy now, cold spells, and drought and hot spells. The issue of cold spells and heavy snow seem ironic and even incompatible to some if the world is warming, but one must always take a global perspective on these issues. For example, how could global warming lead to heavy snow for Great Britain (or record cold in Cancun?). Poorly informed AGW skeptics make much of this as proof against AGW, but in fact, if they actually looked at the reasons for these extreme events they would not find support for their skeptical positions. During the last few winters we’ve had a very unusual pressure gradient setting itself up over the polar regions. This pressure gradient had broken down the normal closed low pressure systems that set themselves up over the arctic. Normally these low pressure systems serve to keep cold air primarily up north with only the occasional outbreak of cold air to the south. The past few winters the Arctic has been dominated by high pressure systems, and this has essentially been like leaving your freezer door open. The cold air from the north has had an open channel to be forced to points south. On flip side, the arctic had been warmer than normal during this time because of this high pressure, just as your freezer will get warmer inside if you leave the door open. The entire change in the pressure gradient from the equator to the poles (with the likely related Arctic Dipole Anomaly) is what I consider one of the “chaotic” effects from the 40% rise in CO2 since the 1700’s. It is chaotic in the sense that it came on very fast, and was largely unpredicted by GCM’s. None the less, it is causing the exact kind of effects that GCM’s predicted from AGW, and that is the disruption of normal weather patterns. Look for increasing extremes in weather worldwide. This doesn’t mean of course that EVERY extreme weather event is directly related to AGW, but we should see an increase in the frequency of extreme events. If we don’t see this over the longer term, then it would be a blow to the AGW hypothesis.
These are only a few, but perhaps the most obvious of real world events that could disprove or discredit the AGW hypothesis. Obviously, like the proof for AGW, they would take many years and even decades to see. However, right now, as of today, they are all happening in way that supports the AGW hypothesis, hence why I am personally a 75% “believer” that the hypothesis is likely true.
R Gates….you amaze me, you really do, at your seeming intransigence to not be able to drop the CO2 thing and just talk, inductively, about the science.
You have shown yourself to be very intelligent from your posts, but also, and in repeated, multiple instances, you have also shown yourself unwilling to drop your ego, sit back and listen and learn from the actual experts on here, one of which, you have also proven, in multiple, repeated instances, to not be.
I certainly am not one of those experts either. But I do listen and try to inductively take it all in.
Listen more….talk less….and you might learn something.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
Trever says:
December 11, 2010 at 6:03 am
“Typical blog. Serious topic.. trollers with no brains.
Ongoing climate change is undeniable and will be the greatest challenge man has ever faced. The science is real. ”
Now that’s what i call the most convincing argument i’ve read since… since Al Gore’s proof of a million degrees in the Earth’s crust.
Pamela Gray says:
December 11, 2010 at 10:44 am
R. Gates, NOW I understand what you mean by attractors. Wherever it’s cold, you end up at a global warming convention.
By the way, is your AGW-driven Arctic high pressure theory responsible for La Nina too? Looking forward to your answer on this one.
__________
If they had held the convention in Greenland, they would have been greeted by record high temperatures….and these two events (record cold in Cancun and record warmth in Greenland) are related, interestingly enough.
But on to your other question– the relationship to the current La Nina and the abnormal pressure gradient between the equator and the polar regions, leading to the higher relative pressure in the Arctic which has “opened the freezer” door for cold air to be pushed southward.
Certainly La Nina itself causes changes in the jet stream and in weather patterns as the ENSO cycle can dominate global weather and we see the changes in pressure gradients in the ENSO signature. The abnormal pressure gradient that has been setting itself up between the equator and the polar regions seems to be a signal riding on topo of the normal ENSO pressure gradient change cycle as can partially be seen in the fact that it has survived both last winters El Nino cycle and now this winters La Nina. It appears, therefore, to be not directly related to the ENSO cycle (though it may have some indirect effects). The net result is that the relative pressure between the polar region and the equator seems to have shifted to some new regime, and it remains to be seen if this shift is part of a long term change or not.
David, UK says:
December 11, 2010 at 10:22 am
R. Gates says: (December 10, 2010 at 4:58 pm)
“Time to smell it, Mr Useful Idiot…”
____
I would suppose that you like the sounds of your own echo chamber, and therefore issue forth ad hominems to make certain that any self-respecting person would not be inclined to actually respond to your postings and thereby break the monotonic echos of your lovely chamber…
“”No one said anything about “it” giving a rats patoot about CO2 levels, whatever this “it” is that you’re referring to.””
========================================================
Now you expect people to believe you are that dense?
=========================================================
“”“”R. Gates says:
December 10, 2010 at 9:39 pm
EVERY time CO2 rises in Earth’s history, the hydrological cycle accelerates (as CO2 is the fuel for that very acceleration)””
=========================================================
From what source do you say that GCM have accounted for all known natural “weather” cycles? Correct me if I’m wrong, but even the proponent scientists who created them acknowledge this weakness. They even go so far to say that short term cycles (such as clouds) are unaccounted for and/or underestimated in terms of influence. Me thinks you paint the picture in finer detail than the scientists themselves do.
R. Gates,
You’re being silly and illogical as usual. Well, 75% silly and illogical anyway.
You say, “what specifically in the real world would have to happen to disprove (or more likely discredit) the AGW hypothesis?”
What would have to happen is that global temperatures would have to exceed their historical parameters. But of course, that has not happened.
I could fabricate a hypothesis that there is a rabid cat under your bed waiting to jump out and bite you. But it would be up to me to provide convincing evidence of my hypothesis that the rabid cat exists — while skeptics of the rabid cat hypothesis would have nothing to prove.
All of your arguments are the same: they presuppose that CAGW is a fact, without real world evidence to support the conjecture. Saying that the Arctic [but never the Antarctic] will be ice-free ignores the fact that the Arctic has been ice free countless times in the past, regardless of CO2 levels. Basing your belief system on computer generated models is a fool’s bet, since GCMs are notoriously inaccurate.
Next, you grasp at the stratosphere claim because the original, universally quoted ‘fingerprint’ of AGW — tropospheric warming — has failed to appear. That is a classic case of moving the goal posts to suit your belief system. Cognitive dissonance at its finest.
Then you select a small region of the globe — permafrost — and claim that if there is melting, it supports your CAGW belief system. Yet you ignore the regular discoveries of Viking artifacts in Greenland, exposed by melting permafrost, which proves conclusively that the climate was significantly warmer back then, and has since cooled. Again, you are blinded by cognitive dissonance, and select only those facts which fit your preconceived beliefs of impending doom. The scientific method is completely alien to your thinking.
And you put your faith in GCMs, which are notoriously wrong. One could fade the GCM wager and make much better predictions. And keep in mind that models are not evidence. They are opinion generators, used to elicit grant money.
Finally, you speak of the “proof” of AGW. There is no proof. There isn’t even any empirical, testable evidence of AGW. The only measurable effect of increasing CO2 is increased agricultural production. Other than that entirely beneficial result, it can not be shown that the increase in CO2 has had any effect on global temperature, arctic ice, or anything else.
Despite your assertions, you are not a “75% believer in AGW.” You believe 110% with your whole heart and soul in catastrophic AGW. It is a theme that runs throughout your comments. You have a desperate need to believe in human-caused runaway global warming.
The antidote is simple. But like many things, it is difficult in practice: you must apply the scientific method to your conjecture. Unless you do that, you might as well drop to your knees and worship Gaia.
In addition, there is no known mechanism for a more violent weather pattern disruption when the world is “warming” as they say. Since greenhouse gasses are said to be well mixed, its insulation value would result in warming every where. Even in cold climates. Less variation in temperatures would predict less pressure gradient differences, would predict less violent weather episodes, since it is extreme differences, not globally increasing temps, that cause extreme weather events. Please explain your mechanism theory related to the necessary extreme pressure gradient differences being cause by increasing insulation, caused by increasing CO2. Saying it is so does not make a plausible mechanism appear.
Squidly says:
December 10, 2010 at 9:27 pm
tallbloke says:
December 10, 2010 at 5:43 pm
Rgates,
I suggest you go to the link you provided and read the last comment from ‘Guest’.
http://explorations.ucsd.edu/Research_Highlights/2010/Mar_Apr/argo/
he has saved me the trouble, by expressing exactly what I was thinking as I read the article.
Can I drink my beer in peace now please?
Thank you.
WOW! … just WOW! … An absolutely scathing response!
It wasn’t intended to be scathing, just dry Brit humour. I just didn’t appreciate being scolded by R Gates for not taking the science seriously at midnight on a Friday when I was winding down from the week’s work. Especially when the link was the usual load of alarmist cobblers which isn’t supported by the evidence. As usual.
Pamela Gray says:
December 11, 2010 at 11:57 am
In addition, there is no known mechanism for a more violent weather pattern disruption when the world is “warming” as they say
______
Pamela, have you studied the the research done on the effects of CO2 levels on the acceleration of the hydrological cycle for example? I have given numerous links to these over many posts and now would simply suggest that if you’re interested in looking at how more violent weather can be created through increased CO2 you google these topics. It seems you are thinking about the accumulation of CO2 in far too linear of terms, discounting any chance for chaotic effects (which could lead to extreme weather events). I’ve used the one-grain-at-a-time on a sandpile metaphor here many times in relationship to the build-up of CO2 over the centuries. You’re assuming that CO2 can just build up forever in some linear way, but we know that in systems, such as the climate, that exist on the edge of chaos, that there can come a point where just one additional grain can collapse the pile.
In short, to suggest there is no “known” mechanism whereby CO2 buildup in the troposphere could disrupt weather patterns leading to more frequent extremes in weather is just simply incorrect. Changes in ocean currents and changes in atmospheric currents (and therefore pressure gradients) can all be related to the additional energy in these systems which would be a result of the 40% increase in CO2 since the 1700’s.
@R. Gates
‘No one said anything about “it” giving a rats patoot about CO2 levels, whatever this “it”’
It is you smoking too much hashish I believe, which must be true. Maybe you’re a bit self-drawn to the autistic spectrum of life but you’re still reasoning like a badly spawned hippie on aside trip to the wrong kind of wonderland. Now if you were able to produce actual empirical, or at the very least show were it’s at, evidence, what with you’re defending the original claim and all, most, I humbly guess, wouldn’t have much problem with your, and your ilks, claim, so to speak. :p
Response to Smokey says:
December 11, 2010 at 11:53 am
______
Smokey, the AGW hypothesis makes many verifiable, measurable, real-world predictions, which I have stated a few of in my post above. Quite simply it says:
A is likely happening, if x, y, and z are happening.
x, y, and z are happening, therefore, A is likely happening.
The key word is likely. It is only to certain degree of probability that AGW is happening.
x, y, and z could be happening for entirely different reasons.
Many climate scientists who believe in AGW, put the probability in the upper 90 percentile. Thus, they might be considered for example 99% sure, with 1% uncertainty (which I would call skepticism).
This kind of probability in the AGW debate is quite common. If you can’t accept the fact that I feel more comfortable with a 75/25 split for my own position, then so be it. In general, I think your skeptical rebuttals to my posts indicate a far more “religious” clinging to your skeptical viewpoint then any my 75% “warmist” stance.