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!
#67–Hey Benjamin==I have no doubt you interpreted what you read as saying: “warm weather causes the earth to cool” but did you save the link to that source so that we all might share in that profound statement?
Yes, many of the elements that cause heating/cooling also have an offsetting feed back loop. Thats only one of the reasons the climate (not weather) is so difficult to model.
Focus.
Science always becomes religion when money becomes involved. Jesus seemed to say that spiritualism becomes religion when money becomes involved (obliquely).
#69 Or you could be talking fundamentalism, which is making a decision before listening to a fact.
Greed and fundamentalism have little to do with science or faith.
Well, I think of fundementalism as the inability to consider new facts that that do not agree with old “facts”. Basically the same as you said.
Religions, by definition, refuse to accept new “facts” that disagree with old “facts”. Jews refuse to accept Jesus is the Messiah and only son of God and God himself. Christians refuse to accept Mohammed as the Messenger of the One True God, Allah, and the true scripture of God, the Koran.
The facts don’t matter to a spiritual person: the truth is that we would all be better off if we could love each other. The details of religion are irrelevant.
Similarly, the details of climate change are irrelevant. Only religious “Changers” care about the details. The truth is we would be better off if..,
# 71 What? said, “Religions… refuse to accept new “facts” that disagree with old “facts”. Jews refuse to accept Jesus is the Messiah… Christians refuse to accept Mohammed …”
Interesting choice of “facts.” Not denying your point. Just sorry it was the best you could do. Do you know the biggest difference between religion and climate change? The thermometer. I.e. there is some objective evidence about climate. We may or may not be interpreting it right but there is something.
Animby–you are on a roll. Being precise in the use of language. With few exceptions, when I read a post I don’t even notice the malapropisms, errors, misspellings, homonyms, and what not. No, my little brain just goes to what I unconsciously think the poster “means to say.” I wonder how I still manage to spot bad logic here and there? But reading your posts is instructive, rewarding, and fun.
Did you catch my fancy word play?
I know that you did.
Does the thermometer matter?
Every year, where I live, the thermometer goes from about -10°F to 110°F. What makes that change? Well, the sience figured out that the Sun, which shines over a longer period, and (I guess) more directly overhead, in the summer, keeps the ground a higher average temperature. Not so much in the winter. That’s a 120°F change, or about 60°C.
What did the thermometer tell us? Almost nothing, nothing relevant to the underlying cause.
The Earth has had much colder, and much warmer, periods in history. There was a (new?) PBS Nova about that tonight. We don’t seem to know why yet. But the “thermometer” tells us it was so, meaning the facts gathered to date.
The truth is that the Earth will eventually dry out and burn up, when the Sun goes SuperNova (or whatever, becomes a Red Giant, I don’t remember). It will happen far into the future, and if it happens tomorrow, so what?
Now we can agree to save all our resources until that time. But like many things, that is difficult.
Just like loving each other.
So we instead would rather cast aspersions about how our religion is better that their religion, that we know the true truth. That Jews are the chosen people, that God sacrificed his son for those that accept him as the saviour from sin, that Allah directs the daily live of every faithful Muslim.
It is easier to feel superior to others because of our beliefs, than to love someone who believes differently.
It is easier to shout about Global Warming and Climate Gate than to chage what we do to make the world a little better today.
Carbon Credits, meaning the involvement of profitable money exchange in the regulation of the climate, seems to me to be like selling of dispensations by the Catholic Church.
Money is neither environmental nor spiritual in my view.
A real scientist knows that if you can’t measure “it”, it doesn’t exist.
Kinda breaks down a bit in the field of human consciousness and the “ideas” that spring therefrom, but its still a good touchstone.
Know what I mean?
I don’t think you do.
# 74 What? said, “Does the thermometer matter?”
A wise man once said, Get a clue. They’re free.
Thermometers may give you good, bad or irrelevant information. But they give you tangible information. Even a shattered thermometer may give you some tangible information. Like, “Sharp. Don’t touch. Ooops! See, blood is red.’
When was the last a god gave you anything tangible? Really. Anything. A dollar? A chart? A case of clap? Anything.
Bobbo #73 – Off topic but you mentioned malapropisms. I forget the sentence, but I was talking to guy once who tried to use the word and it came out as “malpriapism.” Mrs. Malaprop would have been proud.
Animby–that is exquisite. With a little work, it could easily be a double negative or just redundant. Need to add a space or a hyphen.
I think we are in Shakespeare territory. Well, at least well past Palin? Although, I do have to say refudiate once uttered is hard to get rid of. I hope you shared a good natured laugh then just as you remember it with fondness today.
Interesting we both can remember malapropisms of others, but none of our own? I did think that Gestalt was a guy’s name like Freud or Jung. Struck me as funny when I discovered my error. I also mispronounce words that I have only read. The fish Orange Roughy for instance. I cover those error by cursing in French and claiming English is my second language. Then I laugh about that.
Its all so artificial I tell’s ya!
#78 Bobbo – “I also mispronounce words that I have only read. The fish Orange Roughy for instance.”
You sent me scurrying to a dictionary. Now I’m curious: How were you pronouncing it? By the way, damn you, now that I know the Orange Roughy is a member of the slimehead family, it isn’t half so appetizing. Did you know they can live to be 150 years old? No wonder that last one was a bit tough …
#80 I love the loser attitude. No wonder America sucks.
The New Zealand government has been forced by skeptics to no longer us their bogus adjustments to the temperatures that show lots of warming there. Now they are using what their thermometers actually recorded, which show not as much warming. Let’s see if other countries follow suit.
#82 Limp wristed, panty waisted claim chowder. You really need to come up with something better than that. Seriously, that was weak.
Animby–I prounced “ruffy” as the French might: “roo he.” My GF at the time laughed at me so I cursed her out in French and told her English was my second language. But she spoke fluent French and told me I pronounced every word I said incorrectly as well. We broke up right after that when she said she loved me and I replied “Isn’t that a nice feeling?”
Ha, ha. I still love the french though. Small case if you know what I mean, and I know that you do.
Speaking of word play, you are calling yourself “a scientist” now? How do you get to that characteristic? Most scientists I know, okay I don’t know any scientists, so…I’ve read that scientists form opinions based on objective valid evidence==not a casual personal observation of two thermometers and the application of faulty logic. Wouldn’t the placement of a thermometer on a patch of black asphalt correctly monitor the difference between thermometers in cities vs thermometers in cool Elysian fields? And wouldn’t a thermometer place whereever still give a temp change over time? Do you think global temps are only valid if taken from unimproved property?–no cities allowed? Is that what a scientist would do?
Bobbo, the thermometer placement is important because despite the scientific theory, it is the increase in temperatures itself that is used as evidence for the theory’s being valid. If in fact the temperature increase is caused by CO2 in the form of asphalt, and not CO2 in the atmosphere, then that weakens the evidence supporting the theory.
A prominent paper that concluded this urban heat influence was minimal, Jones et al, and therefore that CO2 in the atmosphere is the primary culprit in current warming, led to accusations of fraud against one of the scientists involved. Turns out the Chinese weather stations they used had no temperature records, and the scientist claimed he had paper copies that he lost.
http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf
Some of this showed up in the ‘climategate’ e-mails, with Michael Mann wanting them to file libel and slander lawsuits against the guy making the complaint. Another guy asked Jones if he verified the stuff himself or just took Wang on trust, as he never found the guy to be reliable.
Yes! Put pure trust in your masters. I’m sure they will stop using their private jets, limos, SUVs, and mansions as you become forced to use mass transit and live in mass housing complexes. I mean, they always make sacrifices before us, right?
#84 Bobbo : Of course, I’m a scientist. Not a researcher (anymore) but that doesn’t negate my training. I can still tell when a study has been properly constructed. I know they say medicine is an art but it’s an art heavily weighted down in science.
I specified the two weather stations I saw were a limited sample and SPECULATED that many more were in the same predicament. And yes, the best and most dependable readings would be out in the Elysian Fields. Many stidies are comparing temperatures taken in a heat sink and comparing them with 19th century (and earlier) readings usually measured in the pasture lands behind colleges. No one doubts that cities are festering pools of heat. People, vehicles, factories all produce heat. Same with airports. Those miles of pavements simply soak up heat all day and radiate it all night. How can those weather stations be an accurate representation of the local climate?
“Is that what a scientist would do?” No, Bob. A scientist would design a new study that does not compare modern techniques of climate recording with outdated ones. Perhaps the weather stations all need to be removed from cities and airports. At the very least, they should be duplicated away from artificial heat sinks, and their readings considered together.
I’m not a climatologist but I can look at a study and see there are too many wild variables. There are just too many allegations of false data and missing data and waaaay too many partisans involved in the work. We need an impartial group of scientists to design a real study, put it in motion and let it run for a decade or two. Remember a couple of decades ago, a new ice age was on the way! I am fairly convinced that a couple of decade from now, we’ll be damned sure that our climate change was caused by solar factors and there was nothing we could really do to stop it.
And now, I have to say goodnight. It’s late here and I’m on a plane early tomorrow for Borneo. Strictly a pleasure trip. Going scuba diving. I might check in by phone. Probably not.
Happy new year to you all.
Mike and Animby==well, lets not leave out the couple of years that most of Siberia’s thermometers were broken so the data for the first (warmer) years was just duplicated.
Sadly, no one in the pop culture of this issue, thats certainly ME and anyone else that has never actually read an ACTUAL IPCC REPORT. I googled it and couldn’t find one. I assume they are on the internet, but couldn’t wade thru the IPCC bureaucracy.
We have all heard that the temp guages are all wrong for all kinds of reasons. I read they were minimal in their overall effect and have been superseded by satellite measurements? One source of “facts” says BLACK, and another source of “facts” says WHITE. Then we fight about the facts.
Just yesterday on the tv cathode tube, I heard it said that 2010 was the hottest year on record. Then I heard it was a continuing down year in a five year trend. Then I heard while snow has captured the news in the USA–five other world places are having the warmest year on record.
What facts are we to assume? What facts make up the CURRENT—I SAY AGAIN CURRENT–IPCC reports?
None of us “knows.” And still the ocean sea levels rise. What is that? Unicorn breath?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sea_level
The IPCC Report is available online and easy to find. The only confusion is the different types of reports. I believe Synthesis Report is the right one(AR4).
NASA GISS reports based on an analysis of ground thermometers, which I think is ironic.
C’mon Mickey–I said I couldn’t do it. Give a mate a hand and post the link. Otherwise, everyone here that calls you Lyin’ Mike might think you have fallen back into your old ways.
I’d really like to review an actual IPCC report.
Please?
Actually, thanks Mike. I googled (synthesis report ar4) and got right to it–assuming its a real report rather than some process paper. And “maybe” what I’m really thinking ought to be looked at is the actual MODEL that the IPCC actually uses. Sometimes I wonder if its an actual model or if its just a bunch of conjectures strung together? Why isn’t there/or is there?/ a few youtubes of the model showing weather maps in the future? You can find such things, including my favorite, the expected coastlines of the world, but none seem sourced to the IPCC.
Strange? Or just my continuing ignorance. Well, on to a deeper review of the PDF document.
Again, thanks Mike.
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/syr/en/mains1.html#1-1
Well, at para Two, its stated that lower and mid trophic air masses are measured by balloons and satellites which are CONSISTENT WITH the ground measurements. I wonder if a footnote somewhere lists the locations of all the ground based thermometers? Why even look at that issue if net/net its all consistent with the balloons and satellites? Seems you’d have to WANT THE consensus of scientists and their WRITTEN REPORTS to be wrong to invest that kind of energy in looking for errors. Hoping for errors? Making up errors when we all agree science proceeds by making errors and correcting them?
Silly Hoomans.
I guess it would be “unfair” to expect the IPCC report itself to mention Animby’s observed asphalt mounted temperature gauge and explain what was done with that data.
So far, this is as close as I can get:
“Improvements have been made to both land surface air temperature and sea surface temperature (SST) databases during the six years since the TAR was published.” (No link to the referenced supporting reports.)
http://ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch3s3-2.html
Science.
Surface temperature measurements are irrelevant unless correlated with the instantaneous power output of the Sun.
It is like measuring the speed of a vehicle by only measuring the temperature and volume of exhaust gasses.
Junk science it smells like.
What–is that true? I don’t think so. I agree that would be irrelevant as to whether global warming is caused by something other than the Sun’s output but certainly the ground temp without calculating the Sun’s Input is completely relevant to whether or not the Earth is heating up as a trend over time?
You gotta keep your issues separatee by clear thinking.
Good boy.
>I wonder if a footnote somewhere lists the locations of all the ground based thermometers?
This is the impetus for climategate. Someone wanted the temperature records that were being used to calculate the temperature index. The scientists responded that it is all publicly available, we don’t have to give you anything.
The skeptics responded, yes it’s publicly available, but you have to tell us which stations you are using out of the big list. The scientists refused. Phil Jones told one guy,’Why should I give you my data, when you are just trying to find something wrong with it?’
This is not the temperature index that NASA publishes.
>what I’m really thinking ought to be looked at is the actual MODEL that the IPCC actually uses. Sometimes I wonder if its an actual model or if its just a bunch of conjectures strung together?
In theory, the IPCC doesn’t do its own research, and only summarizes existing research. There are lots of models. If you want model outputs, they are available at a site called the Climate Explorer.
To answer your question, it is an actual model.
Has the model been validated?
Bernanke / Greenspan had financial models that predicted the economy would be fine just before the meltdowns of 2001 and 2009. I will argue that the brightest minds available are building financial models at the biggest institutions and The Fed, and their models drive tens or hundreds of trillions of dollars of decisions each year.
The climate models are probably as complex as these financial models, and are probably just as likely to be correct long term.
B – I can’t understand half (or more) of your words; are you saying that measuring output (temperature) is sufficient to fully characterize a “black box”, e.g. without measuring input?