The science is in!
The high topography of Asia influences the atmosphere in profound ways. The jet stream, a river of fast-flowing air five to seven miles above sea level, bends around Asia’s mountains in a wavelike pattern, much as water in a stream flows around a rock or boulder. The energy from these atmospheric waves, like the energy from a sound wave, propagates both horizontally and vertically.
As global temperatures have warmed and as Arctic sea ice has melted over the past two and a half decades, more moisture has become available to fall as snow over the continents. So the snow cover across Siberia in the fall has steadily increased.
The sun’s energy reflects off the bright white snow and escapes back out to space. As a result, the temperature cools. When snow cover is more abundant in Siberia, it creates an unusually large dome of cold air next to the mountains, and this amplifies the standing waves in the atmosphere, just as a bigger rock in a stream increases the size of the waves of water flowing by.
The increased wave energy in the air spreads both horizontally, around the Northern Hemisphere, and vertically, up into the stratosphere and down toward the earth’s surface. In response, the jet stream, instead of flowing predominantly west to east as usual, meanders more north and south. In winter, this change in flow sends warm air north from the subtropical oceans into Alaska and Greenland, but it also pushes cold air south from the Arctic on the east side of the Rockies. Meanwhile, across Eurasia, cold air from Siberia spills south into East Asia and even southwestward into Europe.
That is why the Eastern United States, Northern Europe and East Asia have experienced extraordinarily snowy and cold winters since the turn of this century.
I guess that takes care of that. We’re dooooooomed! Might as well party!
#34 WHat – Kudos. Great article. Fairly reliable source but I do wish they would document some of the things they say. It;s always good to check the facts yourself. You know, trust but verify.
Thanks.
It SNOWED in New York in December?
That you’re using to “joke” that climate change isn’t happening?
How STUPID are you people! Seriously. This is POWER STUPID. Now if it was a blizzard in NY in September, that would be ODD! But snowing in NY in winter isn’t that unusual (I used to live there).
NEWS FLASH!!!! THIS JUST IN!!!! It will be hot in Phoenix in July!!!
IDIOTS!
Science works by taking measurements from the ENTIRE globe for the ENTIRE year. Power idiots like you people take one event in one place at one time that’s NORMAL and assume it “proves” your case.
I pray (irony) that power idiots like you folks don’t ever get power over our science budget or it will be the dark ages again. Idiots. Wow!
(wanders off grumbling “They’re shocked it snowed in NY in late Dec…idiots”)
@34 @35
For those who can’t follow basic logic, the discussion is “localized events” vs. “global averages”.
Sigh. See, the earth as a WHOLE keeping warming will change normal weather pattens. That means specific areas will “change”. Dry areas might get more rain, or get super dry. Cold areas could get shifted jet streams and get warmer. Weather isn’t ONE pattern or one system, it’s thousands. Changing the entire system will make “local events” different.
Global warming means taking ALL of those temperatures for the ENTIRE planet (not just YOUR HOME TOWN IDIOT) and comparing them. So it’s 3 degrees colder and wetter in NY than average. Did you compare the weather in Peru, Japan, central Russia, mid Pacific, etc? No, you just looked out the window, saw snow in December and said “golly gee Vern, global warming ain’t real”.
Idiots.
Hey Asshat #37,
I posted an interesting commentary on the debate, that’s all.
Reading your post, I can see you are a religious zelot, and not a thinking person. Fine, but keep your name calling to yourself.
More snow means higher temperatures.
http://motls.blogspot.com/2010/01/warming-induced-by-latent-heat-of-snow.html
#31 Greg Allen
Palin and Beck are so last decade. Draft dodgin’ Ted Nugent is the new nutter.
Ted Nugent ain’t no new nutter…he’s been nuts forever.
My favorite: Climate is what you expect, weather is what you get.
Gonna need a BIGGER SNOW SHOVEL !!!
#39 MikeN,
That was an interesting “read”.
I’m reminded of some people in my classes that seemed to pass tests, but didn’t understand the material.
The gist of the argument seems to be, and heat is released when snow is made, and this contributes to global warming. But, solar radiation reflected by snow plays no role in cooling the earth. I think the author doesn’t make any sense through any of his assumptions.
#37 Asshat – Just got an email from mother in Phoenix – you know, the desert? Gonna be well below freezing tomorrow.
And, by the way,I live in Thailand – you know, the tropics? – and they’ve just declared a cold weather emergency.
See here, I am not a denier. I am just not convinced. I’m a scientist. Not a climatologist but I do understand how research ought to be conducted. One of the weather stations that is feeding all the warming data sits at Sky Harbor Airport in Phoenix. It sits there in the middle of several square kilometers of concrete and blacktop. Tell me that’s a fair average for Phoenix.
The same thing in Bangkok. Little weather station sitting there on a patch of black tar. Now, I haven’t visited hundreds of weather stations but, you know what? I suspect a whole bunch of them are sitting in the warmest places in town.
So, I say, before we jump into a solution for a problem that is unproven and waste huge sums of our time, energy and wealth, let some impartial scientists design a study, retro or prospective doesn’t matter as long as it’s a fair study. Then we spend some time carefully gathering and analyzing the study. No out of left field hockey sticks (a mixed metaphor if I ever heard one) or faked images of stranded polar bears and, for god’s sake, no Al Gore movies full of lies and inaccuracies. Then we can plan our future.
I’m all in favor of taking steps to lower our CO2 footprints but I also think we need to be careful of unintended consequences. Have you heard the theory that electric cars may be responsible for more CO2 than gasoline autos? They say gas engines produce less CO2 than the coal burned to recharge them. I don’t know that that theory is true but if so, would be a major unintended consequence.
Personally, I live in Thailand. I’m going to start buying up all the snowshoes I can get my hands on. A few years from now when the jungle is covered in snow as “high as an elephant’s eye” I’ll be rich. Rich, I tell you. Hahahahahahahahahahaha
I don’t know anything about climate science, but what I do know is how to tell shit from shine-ola.
When I hear so-called scientists ending debate by claiming “the science is in” and “we have consensus”, then turns around and calls those who disagree “deniers”, science has been replaced by politics.
Everyone knows, that in politics, follow the money, you’ll find the real truth. I’ll bet you’ll find that the loudest voices in the movement have the most to gain from it.
Global Warming is just a educated guess that’s no more accurate then saying their is Global cooling. I think its fair to say that Weather is not very predictable in many ways. Their are patterns but to suggest a reason for them when we have only really accurate records for a very short time in terms of the age of Earth is ridiculous.
#29 Animby,
The global warming nut jobs want you to “think of global warming before you think of yourself”. Altruism at its most obvious state.
The political con-artists tell you to make your house colder during the winter and warmer during the summer, take shorter showers, use smaller TVs, drive smaller cars, don’t drive black cars, ride mass transit, and spend trillions and trillions of dollars we don’t have. And why? Think of global warming!
If we had some end date that we are trying to make it to, then these bullshit sacrifices would mean something. These meaningless short term sacrifices are negated every single day by the constantly growing population of the planet. Every sacrifice you make every day is negated by a child being born or a couple buying a new home. The idea that “every little bit helps” is total bullshit. Pollution is a macro issue, not a micro one. We need new technologies, not turning the heat down a degree or not driving black cars.
The idea that I must sacrifice what I want in my life for this completely unprovable myth is complete and total idiocy. This perceived problem of global warming is completely and totally a non-issue to individuals. Even if humanity was wiped from the planet, the world will continue to heat up and freeze as it has done before we were even here.
Getting back to governments roll in this, they just want to prey on the altruism that you’ve been spoon fed your entire life to be able to gain new powers and control. They will tell you that it’s patriotic. They will tell you that it’s “environmentally friendly”. They will tell you that it’s the “right thing to do”. In reality, they are doing nothing more than telling you how to live your life.
I have no issue with governments informing of perceived problems. I have a problem with government taking away choice and forcing you to live by their means based on your altruism.
Look at it this way, by using and consuming less, you will be giving the people who can fix these kind of issues less money. Less in taxes, less in energy profits, and less in production ability.
Hey Derek…you want to help me pay for filling my heating oil tank? Cost me about $650 last week. I’ll crank up the temp in the house so I can walk around the house in my thong, and we’ll be helping finance the fixers.
You lot are hilarious.
Please, please do not move next door to me. We’re enjoying a pleasant winter several degrees warmer than historic averages. Our only concern is not enough snowpack – bothering the ski industry.
You may now return to W.O.W. and watching Fox Snooze.
Hey I’m a doubled down denier now.
1) take 3 per cent of 400ppm, thats 10ppm,
thats 1 molecule in 100,000.
2) I firmly reckon that the planets appetite for co2
vastly outdoes any emissions. Given a natural
imbalance between these, there should be vastly
greater fluctuations in co2 conc. But there isn’t.
The 400 ppm is a vacuum state due to co2 outgassing of
oceans that the c3 and c4 plants cannot suck up.
Emissions are condensed out of the atmosphere maybe
six months due to diffusion on planetry scale and seasonal
ocean surface temperature because of north/south land area
difference.
Lifetimes would be 100s years if not for the condensation.
3) The so called consensus is the greatest scientific fraud
in history. The peer group do not act like scientists,
they have been manipulated by those seeking the next
bubble.
After reading all the posts here, contemplating pros and cons, following links and verifying claims, there is one possible alarming affront to human dignity that clearly stands out here, that is directly attributable to climate change politics, and which should give all AGW pundits reason for pause. Olo Baggins of Bywater is threatening to prance around in a thong.
#29–Animby–yes, climate can be local or global just as I posted. I started off saying climate was only global, but in my self serving/righteous manner I turned to the dictionary and found out I was too narrow and posted that my critics were correct on that point.
Pedro–I know you enjoy disagreeing with me in your curtailed, no followup, no facts manner but as you burden your fellow readers here by not using their names to clue them in, I find your comments not worth the effort to see if they apply to me. Rather self defeating wouldn’t you say? And how would I modify your posts to meet my criticism? I would do what most do here: post the name and the number of post you are responding to. Its called not being an asshat. Now, being self serving and righteous, I note my own posts have tended now to just give the name of the person. I can fix that and become better myself paradoxically thru the wholesome criticism of others. Ain’t life grand?
This climate debate is one of the best examples we all have to analyze how you know what you know and how you change your mind. Is it “fact” based, argument based, first heard, by authority, by emotions, by prejudice? Which is it, which one comes first? Which has more power? Is this what the Darwin debates felt like 150 years ago?? And like that debate, should much more of our thinking be agnostic?
None of us would argue one way or the other regarding the intricacies of developing room temperature super conductors, or the direction to take to get the next x10 fold increase in computing speed or storage, etc. What makes ANY of us qualified to rant one way or the other on AGW?
On one side we have the consensus of qualified scientists, and on the other side the forces of status quo and all of us arguing everything except the climate model. Where would the smart money go? Heh, heh. I said “smart money.” Smart money will always go with the corruption.
#32–foobar==it would be nice if your insight would play out that way: saving ourselves in spite of ourselves BUT because the discussion/politics/science/status quo of AGW has all been conflated, what we are going to get is more sources of carbon to burn: methane and coal, RATHER THAN an informed long term solution of green energy.
Tiny Silver Fish
Facing Upstream, Going Downstream
In clear Swift Water.
((Not my haiku, so I can’t change the wording))
Yes, how do you know what you know and how do you change your mind?
pedro, what award does one receive for earning the right to join you at the loonhood meetings?
When everybody around you is a loon, maybe you should look inward?
SCIENCE…better than just praying or making up shit…
http://physorg.com/news/2010-12-climate-ups-downs.html
Last time I was in Arizona, it was raining cats and dogs.
“Desert” indeed!
Olo Baggins, old pedro is the local grouchy old man troll. When he’s not here, he’s out on his front lawn yelling at teenagers.
We can only speculate whether the waist band on his pants are above or below his nipples…
If the elites really believe in global warming, why haven’t property prices on the coasts plummeted? Why would you pay millions for something you believe will be under water before long?
The supposed “carbon footprint” of a typical denizen of the USA is much higher than that of the rest of the world – particularly the third world.
So why is our ruling class still encouraging mass the import of third-worlders?
I have no problems at all with global warming debate. I personally believe that global warming is a natural cycle as proven by the many “ages” our planet has gone through. This is not a pollution “free for all”. We still need to constantly be vigilant to be as clean and efficient of a society as we can. I guess the answer of using fear and lies or using public discussion is where many people get divided.
My issue is when the government gets involved. That’s when the deification hits the oscillation. Let society choose the correct course of action, not politicians. Inform the public and let them choose. Let humanity choose it’s own path, be it the high road or the low road. Humanity will survive, adapt, and thrive. We always have, and we always will.
Derek: Lets review:
#1–You conflate/confuse weather with climate. Very stupid, or just a tool?
#12–“altruism of existence” /// Yes, Animby nailed you on that one although I recall you came back with an excellent explanation. An explanation that was certainly required, because, Animby did nail you. You have to incorporate your subsequent explanation so your original posting makes sense to begin with.
#48–“The global warming nut jobs want you to “think of global warming before you think of yourself” /// Very short term thinking. Of what worth is a human life except what we pass on to our kiddies? You are verging into self centered nutbag LIEberTARDianism here. Let’s monitor that.
#61–“I personally believe….” /// Nothing good ever follows that dogmatic set up==just as you evidence. Ha, ha. AGW “by definition” is not part of the natural cycle. When you confuse base defintional terms, like weather for climate, and natural with man made, and short vs long==you look like you need to buy and read a dictionary before you turn on your computer.
Yea, Veerily.
pedro plumbing.
“Ask a scientist a very profound question on his science and he will be silent. Ask a religious person a very simple question on his religion and he will be frenzied” Kedar Joshi
At what point did science become religion?
#65 Because you’re not actually hearing scientists. You’re hearing a bunch of idiots from Al Gore to John Shimkus shlepping their bullshit.
You’ve probably never heard of Charles Keeling who is a scientist who actually got an education, did hard work, published his research and data for review, and didn’t whine on national TV every night about why his daddy never loved him like Professor Glenn Beck.
From my reading, it says that warm weather causes the earth to cool. Seems like the Earth has a built in thermostat and it has a way of getting rid of excess heat. If the earth gets too cold, I suppose it was a way of warming back up. Duh.