Originally Posted by Eric the Green

There are ways to make renewables more stable, as the PBS program pointed out. We cannot limit ourselves to thinking only about current technology in order to solve our crisis. Americans need to be innovative. One good thing is that is our strength. Our standard of living is not constraining us from making the changes. It is only politics. I think events in CA will prove that over the next decade.

It should be an obvious point, but global warming does not just cause warming. It causes extreme and unusual weather. It causes droughts and fire in some places, and too much rain, snow and more-dangerous hurricanes in others not so far away. We've already seen that in the last year in Asia, Australia and even America. Whether that weather will be too hot or too cold makes little difference. If the Gulf Stream stops flowing, the result of global warming could be an ice age.

How much it's going to cost us all in the pocketbook should be a concern to all conservatives, but it's not. They are only concerned with the welfare of oil and coal executives, who are the only ones who benefit from the current conditions.

According to this latest study, we havent had any extreme or unusual weather since records began in 1871.

Here is a quote

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

The only hot air thats been blowing is from the climate alarmists......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...992126630.html

http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads...01-science.pdf

CLIMATE CHANGE SCIENCE: THE BASICS
A study released by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences in 2010 said, “Climate change is occurring, is caused largely by human activities, and poses significant risks for —and in many cases is already affecting—a broad range of human and natural systems.” The climate will continue to change for decades as a result of past human activities, but scientists say that the worst impacts can still be avoided if action is taken soon.

GLOBAL TEMPERATURES: THE EARTH IS WARMING
Global average temperature data based on reliable thermometer measurements are available back to 1880. Over the last century, the global average temperatures rose by almost 1.5°F (see Figure 1), and the Arctic warmed about twice as much

Based on data from the U.S. National Climatic Data Center, the 27 warmest years since 1880 all occurred in the 30 years from 1980 to 2009; the warmest year was 2005 followed closely by 1998.

The scientific evidence is unequivocal. Natural climate variability alone cannot explain this trend. Human activities, especially the burning of coal and oil, have warmed the earth by dramatically increasing the concentrations of heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. The more of these gases humans put into the atmosphere, the more the earth will warm in the decades and centuries ahead. The impacts of warming can already be observed throughout the United States, from rising sea levels to melting snow and ice to more drought and extreme rainfall. Climate change is already affecting ecosystems, freshwater supplies, and human health around the world. Although some amount of climate change is now unavoidable, much worse impacts can be avoided by substantially reducing the amount of heat-trapping gases released into the atmosphere.....

Over time, the heat already absorbed by the ocean will be released back to the atmosphere, causing an additional 1°F of surface warming; in other words, some additional atmospheric warming is already “in the pipeline.”

GREENHOUSE GASES: MAKING THE CONNECTION
Although global temperatures have varied naturally over thousands of years, scientists studying the climate system say that natural variability alone cannot account for the rapid rise in global temperatures during recent decades. Human activities cause climate change by adding carbon dioxide (CO2) and certain other heat-trapping gases to the atmosphere. When sunlight reaches the earth’s surface, it can be reflected (especially by bright surfaces like snow) or absorbed (especially by dark surfaces like open water or tree tops). Absorbed sunlight warms the surface and is released back into the atmosphere as heat. Certain gases trap this heat in the atmosphere, warming the Earth’s surface.

This warming is known as the greenhouse effect and the heat-trapping gases are known as greenhouse gases (GHGs) (see Figure 2).

CO2, methane (CH4), and nitrous oxide (N2O) are GHGs that both occur naturally and also are released by human activities. Before human activities began to emit these gases in recent centuries, their natural occurrence resulted in a natural greenhouse effect. Without the natural greenhouse effect, the earth’s surface would be nearly 60°F colder on average, well below freezing. However, humans are currently adding to the naturally occurring GHGs in the atmosphere, causing more warming than occurs naturally. Scientists often call this human-magnified greenhouse effect the “enhanced greenhouse effect.”
Evidence from many scientific studies confirms that the enhanced greenhouse effect is occurring. For example, scientists working at NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies found more energy from the sun is being absorbed than is being emitted back to space. This energy imbalance is direct evidence for the enhanced greenhouse effect.

Greenhouse Gas Levels Rising. In 2009, the U.S. Global Change Research Program (USGCRP) released the most up-to-date and comprehensive report currently available about the impacts of climate change in the United States. The report says that average global concentrations of the three main greenhouse gases—CO2, CH4, and N2O—are rising because of human activities. Since pre-industrial times, CO2 has increased by 40 percent, CH4 by 148 percent, and N2O by 18 percent.

CO2 is the principal gas contributing to the enhanced greenhouse effect. Many human activities produce CO2; the burning of coal, oil, and natural gas account for about 80 percent of human-caused CO2 emissions. Most of the remaining 20 percent comes from changes in the land surface, primarily deforestation. Trees, like all living organisms, are made mostly of carbon; when forests are burned to clear land, the carbon in the trees is released as CO2.

The USGCRP report says that the current trajectory of rising GHG concentrations is pushing the climate into uncharted territory. CO2 levels are much higher today than at any other time in at least 800,000 years. Through all those millennia, there has been a clear correlation between CO2 concentrations and global temperatures, adding geological support for the strong connection between changes in the strength of the greenhouse effect and the earth’s surface temperature.

Scientists are certain that the burning of fossil fuels is the main source of the recent spike in CO2 in the atmosphere. Multiple, independent lines of evidence clearly link human actions to increased GHG concentrations. Moreover, there is strong evidence that this human-induced rise in atmospheric GHGs is the main reason that the Earth has been warming in recent decades. The USGCRP report says, “The global warming
of the past 50 years is due primarily to human-induced increases in heat-trapping gases. Human fingerprints also have been identified in many other aspects of the climate system, including changes in ocean heat content, precipitation, atmospheric moisture, and Arctic sea ice.” The U.S. National Academy of Sciences draws the same conclusion: “Many lines of evidence support the conclusion that most of the observed warming since the start of the 20th century, and especially the last several decades, can be attributed to human activities.”

Looking Ahead. The more GHGs humans release into the atmosphere, the stronger the enhanced greenhouse effect will become.

from http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/env...ort-finds.html

Dr Bodo Bookhagen, Dirk Scherler and Manfred Strecker studied 286 glaciers between the Hindu Kush on the Afghan-Pakistan border to Bhutan, taking in six areas.

Their report, published in the journal Nature Geoscience, found the key factor affecting their advance or retreat is the amount of debris – rocks and mud – strewn on their surface.

Glaciers surrounded by high mountains and covered with more than two centimetres of debris are protected from melting.

Debris-covered glaciers are common in the rugged central Himalaya, but they are almost absent in subdued landscapes on the Tibetan Plateau, where retreat rates are higher.

In contrast, more than 50 per cent of observed glaciers in the Karakoram region in the northwestern Himalaya are advancing or stable.

"Our study shows that there is no uniform response of Himalayan glaciers to climate change and highlights the importance of debris cover for understanding glacier retreat, an effect that has so far been neglected in predictions of future water availability or global sea level," the authors concluded.

Dr Bookhagen said their report had shown "there is no stereotypical Himalayan glacier" in contrast to the UN's climate change report which, he said, "lumps all Himalayan glaciers together."

Dr Pachauri, head of the Nobel prize-winning UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, has remained silent on the matter since he was forced to admit his report's claim that the Himalayan glaciers would melt by 2035 was an error and had not been sourced from a peer-reviewed scientific journal. It came from a World Wildlife Fund report.

He angered India's environment minister and the country's leading glaciologist when he attacked those who questioned his claim as purveyors of "voodoo science".

The environment Minister Jairam Ramesh had cited research indicating some Himalayan glaciers were advancing in the face of the UN's claim.

Originally Posted by Weave

According to this latest study, we havent had any extreme or unusual weather since records began in 1871.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

The only hot air thats been blowing is from the climate alarmists......

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...992126630.html

A different view;

http://www.newsweek.com/2008/06/28/g...-weather.html#

Global Warming Is a Cause of This Year’s Extreme Weather

It's almost a point of pride with climatologists. Whenever someplace is hit with a heat wave, drought, killer storm or other extreme weather, scientists trip over themselves to absolve global warming. No particular weather event, goes the mantra, can be blamed on something so general. Extreme weather occurred before humans began loading up the atmosphere with heat-trapping greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide. So this storm or that heat wave could be the result of the same natural forces that prevailed 100 years ago—random movements of air masses, unlucky confluences of high- and low-pressure systems—rather than global warming.

This pretense has worn thin. The frequency of downpours and heat waves, as well as the power of hurricanes, has increased so dramatically that "100-year storms" are striking some areas once every 15 years, and other once rare events keep returning like a bad penny. As a result, some climatologists now say global warming is to blame. Rising temperatures boost the probability of extreme weather, says Tom Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center and lead author of a new report from the Bush administration's Climate Change Science Program; that can "lead to the type of events we are seeing in the Midwest." There, three weeks of downpours have caused rivers to treat their banks as no more than mild suggestions. Think of it this way: if once we experienced one Noachian downpour every 20 years, and now we suffer five, four are likely man-made.

It's been easier to connect global warming to rising temperatures than to extreme weather events—and even the former hasn't been easy. Only in this decade have "attribution" studies managed to finger greenhouse gases as the chief cause of the rising mercury, rather than a hotter sun or cyclical changes. (The last two produce a different pattern of climate change than man-made warming does.) Now the same "whatdunit?" techniques are being applied to droughts, downpours, heat waves and powerful hurricanes. "We can look at climate-model simulations and likely attribute [specific extreme weather] to human activity," says Gerry Meehl of the National Center for Atmospheric Research.

The Midwest, for instance, suffered three weeks of intense rain in May and June, with more than five inches falling on some days. That brought a reprise of the area's 1993 flooding, which was thought to be a once-in-500-years event. The proximate cause was the western part of the jet stream dipping toward the Gulf of Mexico, then rising toward Iowa—funneling moisture from the gulf to the Midwest, says meteorologist Bill Gallus of (the very soggy) Iowa State University. The puzzle, he says, is why the trough kept reforming in the west, creating a rain-carrying conveyor belt that, like a nightmarish version of a Charlie Chaplin movie, wouldn't turn off. One clue is that global warming has caused the jet stream to shift north. That has brought, and will continue to bring, more tropical storms to the nation's north, and may push around the jet stream in other ways as well.

Global warming has left its clearest fingerprint on heat waves. Since the record scorcher of 1998, the average annual temperatures in the United States in six of the past 10 years have been among the hottest 10 percent on record. Climatologists predict that days so hot they now arrive only once every 20 years will, by midcentury, hit the continental United States once every three years. Scientists also discern a greenhouse fingerprint in downpours, which in the continental United States have increased 20 percent over the past century. In a warmer world, air holds more water vapor, so when cloud conditions are right for that vapor to form droplets, more precipitation falls. Man-made climate change is also causing more droughts on top of those that occur naturally: attribution studies trace droughts such as that gripping the Southwest to higher sea-surface temperatures, especially in the Pacific. Those can fluctuate naturally, as they did when they caused the severe droughts of the 1930s and 1950s. But they are also rising due to global warming, causing a complicated cascade of changes in air circulation that shuts down rainfall.

Hurricanes have become more powerful due to global warming. For every rise of 1 degree Celsius (most of it man-made) in surface temperatures in the tropical Atlantic, rainfall from a tropical storm increases 6 to 18 percent and wind speeds of the strongest hurricanes increase by up to 8 percent. As the new report acknowledged, "the strongest storms are becoming even stronger." Atmospheric conditions that bring severe thunderstorms (with hail two inches across and wind gusts of at least 70 miles an hour) and tornadoes with a force of F2 or greater have been on the rise since the 1970s, occurring about 8 percent more often every decade. Get used to it, and don't blame Mother Nature.

Originally Posted by Eric the Green

A different view;

I appreciate you posting these articles.

James50

I'll see your "Global Warming Is The Cause Of Extreme Weather", Eric, and raise you a "There Has Been No Particularly Extreme Weather"

source

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

That's not to say we're helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas's ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.

Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain's GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames "the bad weather."

Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain's future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.

A sliver of the billions that British taxpayers spend on trying to control their climes could have bought them more of the supplies that helped Dallas recover more quickly. And, with a fraction of that sliver of prosperity, more Bangladeshis and Nepalis could have acquired the antibiotics and respirators to survive their cold spell.

A comparison of cyclones Yasi and Nargis tells a similar story: As devastating as Yasi has been, Australia's infrastructure, medicine, and emergency protocols meant the Category 5 storm has killed only one person so far. Australians are now mulling all the ways they could have better protected their property and economy.

But if they feel like counting their blessings, they need only look to the similar cyclone that hit the Irrawaddy Delta in 2008. Burma's military regime hadn't allowed for much of an economy before the cyclone, but Nargis destroyed nearly all the Delta had. Afterwards, the junta blocked foreign aid workers from delivering needed water purification and medical supplies. In the end, the government let Nargis kill more than 130,000 people.

Originally Posted by Justin '77

I'll see your "Global Warming Is The Cause Of Extreme Weather", Eric, and raise you a "There Has Been No Particularly Extreme Weather"

source

The last few weeks we've been doing the big oscillations, the large scale patterns such as the Arctic Oscillation, the North Atlantic Oscillation and El Nino and La Nina. While there have been a few claims that global warming will stick one of these patterns or another in an extreme condition, the more common thought is that these pendulums are becoming more extreme. Thus El Nino brings drought to Australia, La Nina floods and typhoons. Thus in recent years the North Atlantic Oscillation has hit one of it's extremes, sending warm air north to melt the arctic ice pack while sending cold air south to vex North America and Europe.

I read the thing you quoted referencing all the same extreme weather that we've been talking about and coming to the conclusion that there is no extreme weather.

Now, I'm not too surprised that the Wall Street Journal is still posting corporate propaganda. That's what they are. That's what they do.

But I'm disappointed that you don't seem to have been reading the posts we've been putting up. You just seem to be throwing up any bit of propaganda that supports your values without paying attention to the extreme weather it is referencing and how it fits in with the various oscillations that we've been discussing the last few weeks. An article that quotes extreme weather to prove a lack of extreme weather is fitting in with your old invisible stars bombarding the earth with undetectable radiation that is the real cause of warming.

There is no extreme weather ---

Tell that to the folks in Oklahoma this past month.

I know, one week does not make a trend. Even so.

BTW- whether or not global warming exists or not or is only a dirty socialist plot, and ditto for peak fossil fuels of any kind, I am going to put in as much money and effort as I can in making my house as energy efficient as possible. Why?

Heating gas bills equal to twice the temperature the system could put out, that's why. And the latter was, to quote a lovely phrase from a weather website, "colder than a polar bear's pajamas." That's twice in five years. Or was it four?

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

There is no extreme weather ---

Tell that to the folks in Oklahoma this past month.

I know, one week does not make a trend. Even so.

-31F in one spot in Oklahoma!

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

I read the thing you quoted referencing all the same extreme weather that we've been talking about and coming to the conclusion that there is no extreme weather.

Now, I'm not too surprised that the Wall Street Journal is still posting corporate propaganda. That's what they are. That's what they do.

But I'm disappointed that you don't seem to have been reading the posts we've been putting up. You just seem to be throwing up any bit of propaganda that supports your values without paying attention to the extreme weather it is referencing and how it fits in with the various oscillations that we've been discussing the last few weeks

Holy fuck, Bob. Did you not even make an attempt to read the article? It pretty clearly comes out and says that the weather being spun as 'extreme' appears, upon review of, you know, data, to be well within the range of what people have experienced, in terms of amplitude and frequency, in the last 300-odd years.

That is, contra every fucking single one of the AGW claims of late, the extreme weather of the past couple years has been neither unusually bad nor unusually frequent. No one is saying there weren't bad snows, floods, heat waves, or what have you. All that the actual research is saying is that, those kind of things do not appear to be happening with any increased frequency or intensity over the historical record.
Which itself tends to support the hypothesis that we're looking at things which are perfectly explainable by natural variability. You know, since nature appears to have varied by this much and more in the recent past. Your flying spaghetti monster is wholly superfluous as an explanation here.

It is sad in the extreme to see that... ahem.. 'values lock'... can keep a person so willfully oblivious to data and its implications for theory. But whatever...

---
-edit-
I also notice now that, even though you failed to read beyond the second paragraph of the article, you did take note of the link url and use that to justify dismissing whatever-the-hell they were saying as 'corporate propaganda'. I can't help but think there's some sort of latin phrase that describes what you did.
So it goes...

(Copied from another thread, fits in well with this discussion.)

Originally Posted by The Grey Badger

Local weather events to me are not proof or disproof of what the all-over climate is doing.

As James pointed out, this is what the scientists have said:
Global Warming Will Dramatically Alter U.S. Northeast

Global warming will cause major changes to the climate of the U.S. Northeast if greenhouse gas emissions are not reduced, scientists said today. Warmer annual temperatures, less snow, more frequent droughts and more extreme rainstorms are expected if current warming trends continue ...

The report was released by the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA), a collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a team of independent scientists from universities across the Northeast and the nation.

Fact or fiction?

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Holy fuck, Bob. Did you not even make an attempt to read the article? It pretty clearly comes out and says that the weather being spun as 'extreme' appears, upon review of, you know, data, to be well within the range of what people have experienced, in terms of amplitude and frequency, in the last 300-odd years.

That is, contra every fucking single one of the AGW claims of late, the extreme weather of the past couple years has been neither unusually bad nor unusually frequent. No one is saying there weren't bad snows, floods, heat waves, or what have you. All that the actual research is saying is that, those kind of things do not appear to be happening with any increased frequency or intensity over the historical record.
Which itself tends to support the hypothesis that we're looking at things which are perfectly explainable by natural variability. You know, since nature appears to have varied by this much and more in the recent past. Your flying spaghetti monster is wholly superfluous as an explanation here.

It is sad in the extreme to see that... ahem.. 'values lock'... can keep a person so willfully oblivious to data and its implications for theory. But whatever...

---
-edit-
I also notice now that, even though you failed to read beyond the second paragraph of the article, you did take note of the link url and use that to justify dismissing whatever-the-hell they were saying as 'corporate propaganda'. I can't help but think there's some sort of latin phrase that describes what you did.
So it goes...

Give it up Justin. To deal with global warming, we're gonna need the government which unfortunately costs money in the form of TAXES

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Holy (expletive deleted), Bob. Did you not even make an attempt to read the article?

I did. Did you read mine? Many of the extreme weather events mentioned in the Wall Street Journal article claiming there have been no extreme weather events are part of the Arctic Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation and El Nino/La Niña Oscillation. (El Niño/La Niña is also known as the ENSO or the Southern Oscillation.) We have been discussing these oscillations in this thread for the last several weeks. My point of view which has not really been contested is that these Oscillations have not gotten stuck in one mode or another as a few have alleged, but tend to be swinging wildly to the extremes.

Not all of these extremes make it warmer everywhere. For example, the North Atlantic Oscillation sends warmer air to the Arctic Ocean (contributing to the ice melt) but colder air to New England and Europe (contributing to traffic jams). When the Wall Street Journal article, for example, quotes snow in England as a counterexample of warming they are utterly ignoring the North Atlantic Oscillation, which you should have been aware of had you been paying attention to the conversation. This is just one example of the WSJ article quoting evidence that is entirely consistent with global warming's effects on the Oscillations. However, neither the WSJ nor yourself seem willing to dig enough into the science to pick up on this.

This year we have La Niña's warm pattern in the Pacific sending moisture towards North America in a pattern called "The Pineapple Express." We have a weak phase in the Arctic Oscillation, which has allowed more warm air north and cold air south than is the norm. We had a strongly negative North Atlantic Oscillation in January (which has reversed recently) which tends to bring storms to North America and Europe.

If you look at the evidence quoted by the WSJ and ignore the propaganda, the extreme weather they quoted in recent years is compatible with the oscillations running strong, which is compatible with the global warming theory.

Again, if you had been seriously reading the articles that have been posted recently you should have been aware of this. Instead, you resorted to argument by expletive.

Here we have another Real Climate post, this one discussing the difference between writing something in a blog and doing peer reviewed papers.

Gavin Schmidt did a rough blog that was widely accepted but was not in his own opinion sufficient. He started going into more depth in order to refine his work, targeting publication in one of the peer reviewed journals. One of the criticisms he got was that the new paper was unnecessary. There was a consensus that the issue was settled... with some numbers quoted. The numbers were those from his own original blog post. It was thought he need not refine and confirm his own work published in a blog using relatively rough calculations.

But he got a lot of other more useful advice. Worth a read, especially if you take what you read in the blogs or main stream media seriously.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

But he got a lot of other more useful advice. Worth a read, especially if you take what you read in the blogs or main stream media seriously.

Did you read the one that I posted, where these guys predicted warmer temperatures and less snow?

The report was released by the Northeast Climate Impacts Assessment (NECIA), a collaboration between the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) and a team of independent scientists from universities across the Northeast and the nation.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

My point of view which has not really been contested is that these Oscillations have not gotten stuck in one mode or another as a few have alleged, but tend to be swinging wildly to the extremes.

Actually, that was the very thing the study the article was about indeed contests. That is, a review of the data shows a complete lack of evidence to support your contention that the oscillations have been 'wildly to the extremes' of late, as compared to the rest of the historical record. You're blaming AGW for a thing -- wildly-swinging climatological oscillations -- which isn't happening. The oscillations are all swinging just as they have in the past, and (it is not unreasonable to therefore propose) as they will continue to do in the future. At least, according to real-world data.

Your failure to pick up on that point -- the only point made in the first 3/4 or so of the article -- is what caused me to presume that you hadn't read it.

The preliminary studies involving the data from the 20th Century Reanalysis project support the hypothesis that the rise in global temperatures has had little impact on the North Atlantic Oscillator over a time frame of approximately 140 years.

Source.

"...previous studies found that during a shorter time period there was a trend towards a stronger positive North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO), which is a polar circulation that influences winter weather in North America and Europe.

In years with a "positive" NAO index, winters on the continents can be much milder than average, and in the early 1990s, some people wondered if global warming could be altering the NAO. According to Compo, the earlier reanalysis results indicated that might be the case.


“But when we included data going back to 1871, and going forward to 2008, the trend disappeared,” he says. “Now it doesn’t look like the increasing temperatures have had a strong influence on the NAO.” Compo says their reanalysis, which illuminates these climate circulations in three-dimensions, also gives a different perspective than most previous studies that evaluate the NAO by comparing barometric pressure readings from just a few locations. This longer preliminary analysis of the NAO and a few other global circulation measures are published in a new review of the 20th Century Reanalysis Project that appeared in the January issue of the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society."

I note, with some regret, that Weave sourced the WSJ article, The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder. Eric responded with his postings and Justin then counter referenced with the very same WSJ article.

A point of caution - rarely should a journalist be allowed to shape the majority of your opinion on a subject. Journalist credibility is not what it used to be and they often draw conclusions from concepts they do not understand (with insufficient research).

As far as I can tell (and I am not done looking at the research), the data from the 20th Century Reanalysis project is not saying many of the things it has been credited as saying. Beyond "the rise in global temperatures has had little impact on the North Atlantic Oscillator over a time frame of approximately 140 years" one should be dubious or provide a better source than a journalist, for example the Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

Here we have another Real Climate post, this one discussing the difference between writing something in a blog and doing peer reviewed papers.

Gavin Schmidt did a rough blog that was widely accepted but was not in his own opinion sufficient. He started going into more depth in order to refine his work, targeting publication in one of the peer reviewed journals. One of the criticisms he got was that the new paper was unnecessary. There was a consensus that the issue was settled... with some numbers quoted. The numbers were those from his own original blog post. It was thought he need not refine and confirm his own work published in a blog using relatively rough calculations.

But he got a lot of other more useful advice. Worth a read, especially if you take what you read in the blogs or main stream media seriously.

Thank you for this spot on post.

If any alarmists and/or amateur climatologists can escape their values-lock long enough to figure this one out, I'd be curious to hear it:

The Northeast's climate is already changing, the report said, as spring is arriving sooner, summers are hotter and winters are warmer and less snowy.

Again, from the same article that I posted previously.

Originally Posted by RyanJH

I note, with some regret, that Weave sourced the WSJ article, The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder. Eric responded with his postings and Justin then counter referenced with the very same WSJ article.

Hmm... I've got nothing to say here, but D'oh!

Originally Posted by Justin '77

Hmm... I've got nothing to say here, but D'oh!

The entire discussion is a perpetual motion machine anyway.

Originally Posted by The Rani

The entire discussion is a perpetual motion machine anyway.

Yeah, but I should really start paying attention to the posts of skeptics, instead of just focusing all my time looking at what the Believers are saying.

Originally Posted by The Rani

If any alarmists and/or amateur climatologists can escape their values-lock long enough to figure this one out, I'd be curious to hear it:

Again, from the same article that I posted previously.

While I don't count myself as a member of either of your two categories, I'll provide my observations on your article.

First, the article references a report that can be found here. The report is 52 pages long and is fairly accessible to the average college graduate or well-read citizen.

Second, the research in the report is a compilation of a wide range of climatologists' work in mostly peer reviewed articles. This is important, in that the peer review process induces a rigor in the research that limits grand standing and shoddy methods. Additional details on the involved researchers and their methodologies can be found here. A quick sampling of several of the available individual articles demonstrates that much of this research is not as accessible to the average well-read citizen and may present a bit of a challenge to those who do not have a statistical research background.

Third, the predictions from the research are based on forward extrapolating models. Models the researchers acknowledge as being limited. These models have been fitted with a bunch of data and used to predict past events to determine their future predictive qualities but given the complexity of the global climate system this is 'iffy.' However, the modeling appears to be accurate enough on which to base policy discussions.

Finally, it looks your article references pretty reasonable science. I am certain there are errors and mistakes within that science but the preponderance of it bears considerable thought. I have reproduced the executive summary of the report your article references below.

Executive Summary
The pulse of life and economic activity across the Northeast is marked by the region’s dramatic seasonal cycle, changeable weather, and extreme events such as floods and nor’easters. This familiar climate is already changing in noticeable ways. Temperatures have been rising, particularly in winter, and the number of extremely hot days in summer has been increasing. Snow cover is decreasing and spring is arriving earlier in the year. Recent changes in our climate in the Northeast are consistent with those expected due to increasing levels of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases in the atmosphere. These gases are released by the burning of fossil fuels and other human activities.

This study draws on recent advances in climate modeling to assess how global warming may further affect the Northeast’s climate. Using projections from three state-of-the-art global climate models, we compare the types and magnitude of climate changes that will result from higher emissions of heat-trapping gases versus lower emissions. The first scenario is a future where people— individuals, communities, businesses, states, and nations—allow emissions to continue growing rapidly, and the second is one in which society transitions onto a pathway of economic development with substantially lower emissions.

Over the next few decades, similar changes in climate are expected under either emissions scenario. For example, temperatures across the region are likely to rise by 2.5 to 4 degrees Fahrenheit (°F) in winter and 1 to 3°F in summer, regardless of the emissions during that period. These changes have already been set in motion by our emissions over the past few decades, but it takes years or decades for the climate to respond in noticeable ways.

By mid-century and later, however, most changes projected to occur depend strongly on the emissions choices we make in the near future and carry through the rest of the century. Specifically, under the higher-emissions scenario, in which the world remains on a pathway of highly fossil fuel- intensive economic growth (with heat-trapping emissions from automobiles, power plants, and industries continuing to increase through the end of the century), new projections for the Northeast show that:

• By the end of this century, winters could warm by 8 to 12°F and summers by 6 to 14°F.
• Historically, major cities in the Northeast experience 10 to 15 days per year when temperatures exceed 90°F. By mid-century, cities such as Philadelphia, New York City, and Boston could experience 30 to 60 days of temperatures over 90°F each summer. By late in the century, most cities in the region are likely to experience more than 60 days with temperatures over 90°F, including 14 to 28 days with temperatures over 100°F (compared with one or two days per year historically).
• As winter temperatures rise, more precipitation will fall as rain and less as snow. By the end of the century, the length of the winter snow season could be cut in half.
• The frequency of late summer and fall droughts is projected to increase significantly, with short- term droughts (lasting one to three months) becoming as frequent as once per year over much of the Northeast by the end of the century.
• The character of the seasons will change significantly, with spring arriving three weeks earlier by the end of the century, summer lengthening by about three weeks at both its beginning and end, fall becoming warmer and drier, and winter becoming shorter and milder.
• Sea-level rise will continue, reaching anywhere from a few inches to more than one foot by mid- century. By the end of the century, global sea level could rise from eight inches up to nearly three feet, increasing the risk of coastal flooding and damage from storm surges.
• Higher global temperatures also imply a greater risk of destabilizing the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets. It is possible, particularly under the higher-emissions scenario, that warming could reach a level during this century beyond which it would no longer be possible to avoid rapid ice sheet melting and a sea-level rise of more than 20 feet over the next few centuries.

In contrast, under the lower-emissions scenario, in which the world follows a pathway of high economic growth but shifts toward less fossil fuel-intensive industries and introduces clean and resource-efficient technologies, heat-trapping emissions would peak by about mid-century and then decline. New projections for this region show that smaller climate-related changes can be expected if the world follows the lower-emissions pathway—typically, about half the change expected under the higher-emissions scenario. In this case, projected changes for the region include:

• End-of-century temperature increases of 5 to 7.5°F in winter and 3 to 7°F in summer.
• An average of 30 rather than 60 days over 90°F for most cities in the region by the end of the century, and only a few days over 100°F.
• A 25 percent loss of the winter snow season.
• A likelihood of short-term drought only slightly higher than today.
• Arrival of spring one to two weeks earlier by century’s end; summer would arrive only one week earlier and extend a week and a half longer into the fall.
• Sea-level rise of a few inches to less than two feet by century’s end, reducing though not eliminating the risk of exceeding the warming threshold that would destabilize major ice sheets.

Under either emissions scenario, the Northeast of the future will be a tangibly different place. Additional future changes that do not show dramatic differences between scenarios include:

• Increases in the likelihood and severity of heavy rainfall events, including more than a 10 percent increase in the number of annual extreme rainfall events and a 20 percent increase in the maximum amount of rain that falls in a five-day period each year.
• Increases in winter precipitation on the order of 20 to 30 percent, with slightly greater increases under the higher-emissions scenario.
• A combination of higher temperatures, increased evaporation, expanded growing season, and other factors that will cause summer and fall to become drier, with extended periods of low streamflow. This will reduce the availability of water from northeastern rivers to natural ecosystems, agriculture, and other needs.

Although some changes are now unavoidable, the extent of change and the impact of these changes on the Northeast depend to a large degree on the emissions choices we in the Northeast and the world make today. The “higher” emissions scenario described here is not a ceiling on what our future emissions might be, but neither is the “lower” scenario a floor on the lowest emissions we can achieve. While actions to reduce emissions in the Northeast alone will not stabilize the climate, the region is a center of global leadership in technology, finance, and innovation. Ranked against the nations of the world, it is also the seventh largest source of carbon dioxide emissions from energy use. As such, the Northeast is well positioned to be a technology and policy leader in reducing emissions and driving the national and international progress essential to providing our children and grandchildren with a safe and stable future climate.

Ernest Rutherford

If your result needs a statistician then you should design a better experiment

James50