Notices
Results 1 to 22 of 22
Like Tree17Likes
  • 1 Post By exchemist
  • 3 Post By Strange
  • 1 Post By scheherazade
  • 2 Post By Flick Montana
  • 8 Post By Janus
  • 1 Post By Daecon
  • 1 Post By KALSTER

Thread: Record cold at the end of 2013 means the end of Global Warming.

  1. #1 Record cold at the end of 2013 means the end of Global Warming. 
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    November 2013, when "The World" got colder, not warmer!! (I think "The World" is that bit in blue between the North Atlantic and the North Pacific)


    [IMG][/IMG]


    Just to be crystal clear, here's December 2013 when "The World" was even colder and summer in Antarctica had blizzards and (a) ship stuck in ice!





    (Maps courtesy of NASA GISS)


    Last edited by Ken Fabos; January 26th, 2014 at 07:16 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,616
    Quite. While they were freezing in N America, you were having a heatwave and bushfires, and we were having record amounts of rainfall and flooding.

    One of the most annoying habits of climate change denialists is to seize on the term "global warming" and then crow stupidly about any cold snap, when everyone has been pointing out for years now that the effects we can expect to see are far more varied than just warming. Hence the term "climate change", duh.


    grmpysmrf likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,585
    Weather =/= climate.
    Lynx_Fox, Ken Fabos and exchemist like this.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    "Global warming" does not suggest that every consecutive year will be hotter than the last. It just denotes an overall trend.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Northern Horse Whisperer Moderator scheherazade's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Yukon, Canada
    Posts
    4,064
    We are experiencing the warmest January in the Yukon in my tenure, which goes back to 1969. It may not be the warmest on record, won't know until a few more days and the numbers have been officially crunched, but I would be surprised if it's not.

    One year of weather anomalies does not make or break a trend.
    babe likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Life-Size Nanoputian Flick Montana's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    Flatland
    Posts
    5,438
    KALSTER and grmpysmrf like this.
    "Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in the universe is that none of it has tried to contact us." -Calvin
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Moderator Moderator Janus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    2,074
    "Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feelings for the strength of their argument.
    The heated mind resents the chill touch & relentless scrutiny of logic"-W.E. Gladstone


    Edit/Delete Message
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Masters Degree
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    719
    One of the 2 map images has been going absent when I refresh this page. Although either one ought to be sufficient to get the intent. Inserting images often seems to often go awry when I try it here at TSF; couldn't get images to successfully upload from copies on my computer at all. Anyone else have problems seeing two maps?

    Exchemist - I think both "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are legitimate; global heat content (90% in oceans) continues to rise - "Global Warming" - and the consequences of that warming include "Climate Change".
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    One of the 2 map images has been going absent when I refresh this page. Although either one ought to be sufficient to get the intent. Inserting images often seems to often go awry when I try it here at TSF; couldn't get images to successfully upload from copies on my computer at all. Anyone else have problems seeing two maps?

    Exchemist - I think both "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are legitimate; global heat content (90% in oceans) continues to rise - "Global Warming" - and the consequences of that warming include "Climate Change".
    Sure, I didn't mean to imply otherwise. It's just that "Global Warming" is seized on by deliberately obtuse people seeking a way to ridicule the idea, every time it gets a bit cold somewhere.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Professor Daecon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2013
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    1,276
    Thank Odin we don't call it "the theory of global warming" instead. That'd be even worse.
    dan hunter likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    exchemist
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    London
    Posts
    2,616
    Quote Originally Posted by Daecon View Post
    Thank Odin we don't call it "the theory of global warming" instead. That'd be even worse.
    Very true. Then we'd have the stupid argument of the creationists all over again.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,232
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    One of the 2 map images has been going absent when I refresh this page. Although either one ought to be sufficient to get the intent. Inserting images often seems to often go awry when I try it here at TSF; couldn't get images to successfully upload from copies on my computer at all. Anyone else have problems seeing two maps?

    Exchemist - I think both "Climate Change" and "Global Warming" are legitimate; global heat content (90% in oceans) continues to rise - "Global Warming" - and the consequences of that warming include "Climate Change".
    Yep.

    I am baffled why the concept can be so incomprehensible to some people. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. More of it means more solar energy is trapped in our atmosphere, meaning there is more energy available in our climate. More energy means more and/or a higher intensity of the things that require energy, things like polar vortexes and such.

    More extremes of weather should be easy to understand as well. If you mildly disturb a body of water for instance, you'll get a certain average high and low amplitude of waves in it. Disturb it a little more and both the average amplitude will go up, as well as the amplitude of the highest and lowest, say, 1% of waves.
    scheherazade likes this.
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by Ken Fabos View Post
    November 2013, when "The World" got colder, not warmer!! (I think "The World" is that bit in blue between the North Atlantic and the North Pacific)


    [IMG][/IMG]


    Just to be crystal clear, here's December 2013 when "The World" was even colder and summer in Antarctica had blizzards and (a) ship stuck in ice!





    (Maps courtesy of NASA GISS)

    "Averaged over all land and ocean surfaces, the Earths temperatures warmed roughly 1.53°F (0.85ºC) from 1880 to 2012."
    https://www2.ucar.edu/climate/faq/ho...last-100-years


    In the last 132 years the Earths temperature has only risen 1.5 degrees F, and this small increase will not stop cold records from being broken. If ocean, wind, and other conditions are right, we can have years where huge numbers of cold records will be broken. Things like the El Niño can cause temperatures to rise, and things Volcanic eruptions can cause the Earth to get cooler.
    What is El Nino? Fact Sheet : Feature Articles
    volcanoes and climate


    Global warming is about carbon dioxide "a greenhouse gas", and the more carbon dioxide a planet has in its atmosphere, the warmer that planet is. Humans let out massive amounts of carbon dioxide into the Earths atmosphere, and basic science says this will make our planet warmer.


    The entire Earths (average) temperature is expected to rise 3.5 degrees in the next 100 years.
    Global Climate Change

    But temperatures in the USA could rise by 10 degrees.
    Climate Change Over the Next 100 Years


    These increases might seem small, but they could devastate farming areas that grow our major crops, devastate areas where we raise our livestock, cause animals and plants to move/grow in different places, cause plant/animal species to die in certain places, and cause plants and animals to go extinct.

    Or global warming could stop deep ocean currents, and then North America and Western Europe would be covered in ice 365 days out of the year.
    A Chilling Possibility - NASA Science


    With our planets present path of overpopulation, and global warming's possible (devastating) effects on farmland and livestock pastures, global warming could create a huge and dangerous food shortage in the future.

    (Global warming caused by releasing carbon dioxide is nothing to play with.)

    Chad.
    Last edited by chad; February 9th, 2014 at 02:27 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Masters Degree LuciDreaming's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Cambridgeshire
    Posts
    660
    I think you'll find that's incorrect Chad - we actually produce enough food to feed 10 billion people - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11069.html and Eric Holt Gimenez: We Already Grow Enough Food For 10 Billion People -- and Still Can't End Hunger
    "And we should consider every day lost on which we have not danced at least once. And we should call every truth false which was not accompanied by at least one laugh" Nietzsche.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    856
    Quote Originally Posted by LuciDreaming View Post
    I think you'll find that's incorrect Chad - we actually produce enough food to feed 10 billion people - http://www.nature.com/nature/journal...ture11069.html and Eric Holt Gimenez: We Already Grow Enough Food For 10 Billion People -- and Still Can't End Hunger
    I just deleted the following from my original post to make it accurate,

    "Think about how we don't have enough food to adequately feed everyone on this planet, and then think about overpopulation. We already don't have enough food for everyone, and in the next 100 years we will have even more people to feed. Then think about how temperature increases could devastate our farmland and grazing pastures."


    I would comment on your source, but I don't want to start talking angry "politics" in this section of the forum.

    Thank you for pointing out my error,
    Chad.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I've mentioned this possibility before, but I'm not sure if it is accurate. One of the properties of melting ice is that it absorbs heat as it melts. Something about the ice crystals breaking down or the volume of the substance decreasing.

    So my expectation would be that, if the polar ice caps are melting, or even if they're just merely going through a transition between deep freeze and less deep freeze (ice has multiple freeze states), then at the moment of transition, they would absorb quite a lot of heat, creating a cold snap.

    That's the principle that used to work in ice cellars (before refrigeration was invented.) You put blocks of ice in your cellar, and as the ice gradually melted, it would keep the cellar cool. Point is.... water ice has interesting properties. The reverse also works. If you coat oranges in water just before a frosty day, the water on the outside will freeze, releasing a small amount of heat as it freezes, and thereby preventing the orange underneath from freezing. It's a common practice among orange growers to do this when a frost comes.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    I'm going to post a link to wiki to describe this property of water ice. It's counter intuitive, but it's also an undisputed scientific reality. (I should say "fact" for the hard line conservatives, because I think they would consider it a "fact" given the evidence for it.)

    Ice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    When ice melts, it absorbs as much energy as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C. During the melting process, the temperature remains constant at 0 °C. While melting, any energy added breaks the hydrogen bonds between ice (water) molecules. Energy becomes available to increase the thermal energy (temperature) only after enough hydrogen bonds are broken that the ice can be considered liquid water. The amount of energy consumed in breaking hydrogen bonds in the transition from ice to water is known as the heat of fusion.
    I think the poles do more to conserve world wide temperatures than perhaps we like to give them credit.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    I think the poles do more to conserve world wide temperatures than perhaps we like to give them credit.
    Especially the Arctic. Antarctica is a largish continent continually covered in ice - so cold that it doesn't snow in the centre very much - and it's mostly isolated from the rest of the climate systems by the circumpolar currents and winds.

    The Arctic, on the other hand, is very much the air conditioner of the northern hemisphere directly and the whole globe indirectly. We've been playing with fire, quite literally, and further loss of ice, snow cover and permafrost in the Arctic regions will bite into our previously predictable seasons and weather very hard.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Cosmic Wizard
    Join Date
    Dec 2013
    Posts
    2,408
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I've mentioned this possibility before, but I'm not sure if it is accurate. One of the properties of melting ice is that it absorbs heat as it melts. Something about the ice crystals breaking down or the volume of the substance decreasing.

    So my expectation would be that, if the polar ice caps are melting, or even if they're just merely going through a transition between deep freeze and less deep freeze (ice has multiple freeze states), then at the moment of transition, they would absorb quite a lot of heat, creating a cold snap.

    That's the principle that used to work in ice cellars (before refrigeration was invented.) You put blocks of ice in your cellar, and as the ice gradually melted, it would keep the cellar cool. Point is.... water ice has interesting properties. The reverse also works. If you coat oranges in water just before a frosty day, the water on the outside will freeze, releasing a small amount of heat as it freezes, and thereby preventing the orange underneath from freezing. It's a common practice among orange growers to do this when a frost comes.
    Quote Originally Posted by kojax View Post
    I'm going to post a link to wiki to describe this property of water ice. It's counter intuitive, but it's also an undisputed scientific reality. (I should say "fact" for the hard line conservatives, because I think they would consider it a "fact" given the evidence for it.)

    Ice - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


    Quote Originally Posted by wiki
    When ice melts, it absorbs as much energy as it would take to heat an equivalent mass of water by 80 °C. During the melting process, the temperature remains constant at 0 °C. While melting, any energy added breaks the hydrogen bonds between ice (water) molecules. Energy becomes available to increase the thermal energy (temperature) only after enough hydrogen bonds are broken that the ice can be considered liquid water. The amount of energy consumed in breaking hydrogen bonds in the transition from ice to water is known as the heat of fusion.
    I think the poles do more to conserve world wide temperatures than perhaps we like to give them credit.
    Yes the melting masks the temperature rise even though the heat content is increasing.
    You see the same thing in the atmosphere with some of the heat going into larger storms and increased windiness instead of just a direct temperature rise.
    In the oceans you see changes in chemistry as well as more active currents.

    American museum of natural history ocean chemistry.
    Changing Ocean Chemistry
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Forum Bachelors Degree One beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    442
    A single year or even a couple of years of different/unusual weather are statistically irrelevant. One needs to be looking at periods of hundreds or thousands of years in order to make any meaningful comments. CO2 concentration started to rise in the late 1700's and was co-incident with the increased use of coal to power the newly invented steam engines.

    OR was it the increase in world population? How much CO2 do humans produce by breathing? Is the increase in global CO2 anything to do with the world population (which has increased massively) simply breathing?

    Another question; We are talking CO2 here, but what about methane, which I'm told has something like 35 times the greenhouse effect of CO2, is that correct?

    A lot of methane is apparently produced by cows (burping) as they digest their grass, yet we don't hear that beef burgers or milk are going to be taxed.


    OB
    Last edited by One beer; February 10th, 2014 at 02:31 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Moderator Moderator
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    city of wine and roses
    Posts
    6,225
    How much CO2 do humans produce by breathing? Is the increase in global CO2anything to do with the world population (which has increased massively) simply breathing?
    Doesn't really matter. What we breathe out is a result of what we have consumed. There aren't many foodstuffs that are more than a year old and we certainly don't eat fossils. Most of what we exhale is from CO2 that grew a plant (which might have fed an animal) mere days or weeks or months ago . Just as the CO2 absorbed by deciduous trees during the growing season but not absorbed after leaf fall shows up in the annual CO2 oscillation.

    If we weren't releasing fossil CO2 the ups and downs in CO2 atmospheric concentrations year by year would result in a more or less flat graph, but it's steadily going up. That's not due to us or animals exhaling, that's due to fossils like oil and coal and gas releasing the CO2 they absorbed as plants millions of years ago.

    Another question; We are talking CO2 here, but what about methane, which I'm told has something like 35 times the greenhouse effect of CO2, is that correct?
    Sort of. In fact it's a lot more than that, but the effect doesn't last. More importantly, methane reacts in the atmosphere to finish up with CO2 as a product. Now that's going to cause havoc for hundreds of years rather than the few decades the methane does.

    If you want to look at hundreds of thousands of years of CO2 fluctuations in the atmosphere, start here. Time history of atmospheric CO2 - YouTube Most importantly, you need to watch this on full screen so that you can keep an eye on the data sources map showing where each measurement comes from.
    "Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen." Winston Churchill
    "nature is like a game of Jenga; you never know which brick you pull out will cause the whole stack to collapse" Lucy Cooke
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Bachelors Degree One beer's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Posts
    442
    Ah right, thanks for the explanation.

    So just to make sure I understand this; methane is short lived, but it reacts in the atmosphere to produce CO2, which isn't. So therefore production of methane from dairy/beef farming IS potentially a problem, no?

    (Don't worry, I'm not about to go off on a political or vegetarian rant, (being of neither persuasion), I am just trying to understand the situation!)

    OB
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 16
    Last Post: April 17th, 2013, 01:33 PM
  2. Replies: 105
    Last Post: January 19th, 2013, 10:37 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •