Cold weather and global warming: perfectly compatible

Last month I heard a conservative radio talk show host proclaim, "Hah! It's snowing in Arizona. Guess this will make John McCain change his mind about global warming."

Idiocy must be contagious, because yesterday I heard something similar (on CNN, I believe). The weather person was saying that it was unusually cold in the central and eastern parts of the United States.

The anchor responded with something like "Well, that's interesting, since the Copenhagen conference on global warming happened not long ago." Before he could expand upon this illogical train of thought, the weather expert interrupted to save him from further embarrassment.

"When it's colder than normal in one area, it's usually warmer than normal somewhere else. Currently the jet stream is sending cold air from the arctic down into the heart of the country. But in Juneau, Alaska, it's warmer than in Chicago right now."

Like this Climate Progress blog post says, Duh! A cold snap doesn't disprove global warming. Obviously.

Problem is, our not-always-so-great United States is filled with people who either (1) don't know much about science, (2) don't care much about science, or (3) pretend to not know or not care much about science in at an attempt to score political points.

Regardless of the reason, it's hard for me to accept that someone could be so dense as to believe that just because it's really cold and snowy some place where it usually isn't, this shows that global warming isn't happening.

Here's an example from Europe of why this is a misconception. The United Kingdom's National Weather Service asks and answers the question, "What's Causing the Cold Weather?" 

In most winters, and certainly those in the last 20 years or so, our winds normally come from the south-west. This means air travels over the relatively warm Atlantic and we get mild conditions in the UK. However, over the past three weeks the Atlantic air has been ‘blocked’ and cold air has been flowing down from the Arctic or the cold winter landmass of Europe.

...The current cold weather in the UK is part of the normal regional variations that take place in the winter season. It doesn’t tell us anything about climate change, which has to be looked at in a global context and over longer periods of time.

Even though during the past few weeks it's been colder than normal in parts of the United States and Europe, it's been warmer than normal in other areas of the world. (Bluish areas are colder, reddish areas are warmer.)

Nonetheless, facts don't stand in the way of anti-scientific global warming deniers. Media Matters addresses this subject in "Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?: Climate Change Edition."

Answer: not if you're on Fox News.

Cold weather has come to almost inevitably yield reflexively mindless right-wing media attacks on the scientific consensus about global climate change. Yes, when it's chilly outside, particularly if it happens to snow, media conservatives go into hysterical fits -- declaring the idea that global climate change actually exists and is at least in part caused by humans a complete farce.

Actually, what's farcical is someone saying Ooh, it's cold! That disproves global warming!

Comments

[DavidC]

Hi. I have a blog search set up in my feed reader for 'climate change', 'global warming', etc. and it is somewhere between hilarious and very depressing the number of people who are posting something like "Look at the snow! Where's yur global warming now! Hur dur hur!"

Good to see the occasional oasis of sanity! :)

All the best from chilly England - kinda wish I was in Bulgaria right now - http://www.novinite.com/view_news.php?id=111540 :)

David.

[Bpaul]

It's infuriating/depressing how much I'm running into this sentiment.

... Dood, the world's not the simple, right?

"Global Warming" is a media term, the scientists prefer "Climate Change."

UHHGGGGG

[Greg Koch]

"Problem is, our not-always-so-great United States is filled with people who either (1) don't know much about science, (2) don't care much about science, or (3) pretend to not know or not care much about science in at an attempt to score political points."

Gee, I wonder why people are suspicious of the global warming community. Global warming has been politicized and it started with the left.

Global warming, being real or not, is just another avenue for a segment of our society to get their digs deeper into my pocket.

[Blogger Brian]

Bpaul, I used to say "climate change" more than "global warming," but have started to warm up, so to speak, to the latter.

The plain fact is that global temperatures are rising, not falling. If we say "climate change," this leaves global warming deniers with the option of saying, "yeah, the change is toward cooling," which isn't true.

The plus side of "climate change" is that it points toward another apparent fact: that extremes of climate will occur more often with "global warming," sometimes in the snowy/icy/cold direction.

But on the whole I've come to think that global warming is as good a term for what humankind is doing to the planet as climate change.

[joe]

Don't be short minded people..
global warming doesn't absolutely mean WARM...
Action reaction,

The Icecap is melting due to Global Warming, releasing clear water into the ocean, due to water density convection (from top to bottom ocean at the north ice cap),
more clear water make the gulf stream slowing (GS) down. Resulting of the
GS water temperature cooling down in lower latitude. GS is part of the Europe Climate system.
If GS is colder, west wind is colder Europe is Colder...

All Climat systems of the world are inter-related.. if one get fucked up, it will be feel else where.... (butterfly effect...)

[tucson]

All this global warming climate change stuff is apparantly happening and I understand how warming could cause cooling, but as I have said before: Does anyone really know what is happening or will happen? Still, we should clean up our act just out of principle and common sense.

I said the above only as an opportunity to repeat Greg Koch's comment above:

"Gee, I wonder why people are suspicious of the global warming community. Global warming has been politicized and it started with the left.

Global warming, being real or not, is just another avenue for a segment of our society to get their digs deeper into my pocket."

[Blogger Brian]

tucson, the global warming deniers -- oil and coal industries, among many others -- have much more financially at stake, and are doing a lot more to spread disinformation in pursuit of the almighty dollar.

See:
http://climateprogress.org/2010/01/09/rolling-stone-climate-killers-polluters-and-science-deniers-rupert-murdoch-warren-buffett-john-mccain/

[matt]

i think global warming mean hotter summers for the uk and more colder winters.. but then again i think its gonna get colder in the uk not warmer i would say tho hotter summers and colder winters for the uk... cause look at last winter we had alot of snow and it was really cold in the uk... and this winter so far is colder then last year so wat the hell are people on about saying its gonna get warmer in winter dont be silly more like we gonna have colder winters and i dont mind cause i love the snow its about time we getting winters like this and i think wr gonna get more of this next year stuff the met office they sed we will have a milder winter this year and have we noo we aint we have got a much colder winter so there u go there wrong so get over it met office u probz dont like saying we get colder winters but we are so tuff s... really

[DJ]

Brian, above you conclude: “Actually, what's farcical is someone saying Ooh, it's cold! That disproves global warming!”

Why ignore the other half of the farce? The one where every heat wave is met with someone saying Ooh, it’s hot! This proves global warming!

Google “heat wave global warming” and you’ll find the following items among the first page of results:
- Is Heat Wave a Result of Global Warming? (msnbc)
- Global Warming, Not Just Heat Wave (CommonDreams.Org)
- Is There a Link Between Adelaide’s Heatwave and Global Warming? (bravenewclimate.com)
- Europe’s Heat Wave Raises Global Warming Concerns (Reuters on PlanetArk.org)
- Global Warming Tied To Heat Wave; Lawsuits Loom (NPR)
- Heat Wave – Global Warming Revealed? (thedailygreen.com)
- Australian Heat Wave To Last Six Days, Signaling Global Warming (redorbit.com)

I give Brian an “A” for consistency. His filter is in full time “on” mode, always seeking that which fits AGW theory while failing to observe anything that calls it into question, or questions the motivations or judgment of its proponents. Not a very scientific mindset, Brian.

[Blogger Brian]

DJ, I've never said that a heat wave is a sign of global warming. So what are you talking about?

At any rate, global warming is a fact. So there is a difference between those who say (1) a cold wave shows global warming isn't happening, and (2) a heat wave shows that global warming is happening.

The reason I focus on the cold weather is that (1) people use faulty logic and also are reach a untrue conclusion through their illogic. The (2) people also use faulty logic, but reach a true conclusion through their illogic.

So the "ooh, it's cold; global warming is false!" people are considerably more wrong than the "ooh; it's hot; global warming is true!" people. Because global warming is happening.

[Jurģis]

climate is changing all the time, In history there has been cold weather and warm weather all the time, some civilization has grown strong due to global warming.
Humans doesn't have any impact on temperature, we better avoid from toxic trash in water and other polution but we can't impact temerature.

That is performed by sun and other space activities.

But for those banks in SSwizterland that receives emission money it's not in business plan.

[Dougetit]

There are two satellite observing systems which operate totally independent of each other. Both use a different set of NASA launched NOAA satellites. The University of Alabama in Huntsville, (UAH), receives government funding and uses the latest satellite technology to compile their data. The other satellite system, Remote Sensing System, (RSS), uses a different set of NOAA satellites. RSS data is compiled by a private firm.

Most puzzling is why James Hansen at the government run NASA has a preference for less reliable ground based thermometer data when he has access to the more accurate satellite record. At one time Hansen at NASA did use satellite data for the Sea-based portion of the global temperature record, but dropped it claiming that satellites were showing a “cooling bias”.

1998-1999 are the key years when dramatic differences became strikingly apparent between the satellite and thermometer record, (NASA shows an up-shift in late 1998-early 1999). UAH has a per decade divergence rate of about 71% but, more alarming, RSS and NASA divergence trends have been accelerating since 1998 to the scorching rate of 111% per decade. These results leave you with two opposing conclusions. If you believe Hansen’s “homogeneity adjusted” thermometer record, global temperatures have been warming for the past 12 years. If you believe the satellite record, we have been cooling for the past 12 years. Which conclusion do you believe to be true?

[Blogger Brian]

Dougedit, there's no debate that the Earth is steadily warming. Only climate change deniers who don't pay attention to the science believe otherwise.

I believe truth to be true: reality. Which are the temperature facts reported by NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). We've just come to the end of the warmest decade on record. Check out the facts. And the graphs.
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/

Here's the Data Details section of the report. Pretty damn persuasive. Note that the temperature data comes from three sources, not just satellites, as you implied.
---------------------
FROM GISS REPORT:

To conduct its analysis, GISS uses publicly available data from three sources: weather data from more than a thousand meteorological stations around the world; satellite observations of sea surface temperature; and Antarctic research station measurements. These three data sets are loaded into a computer program, which is available for public download from the GISS website. The program calculates trends in temperature anomalies — not absolute temperatures — but changes relative to the average temperature for the same month during the period of 1951-1980.

Other research groups also track global temperature trends but use different analysis techniques. The Met Office Hadley Centre, based in the United Kingdom, uses similar input measurements as GISS, for example, but it omits large areas of the Arctic and Antarctic, where monitoring stations are sparse.

In contrast, the GISS analysis extrapolates data in those regions using information from the nearest available monitoring stations, and thus has more complete coverage of the polar areas. If GISS didn't extrapolate in this manner, the software that performs the analysis would assume that areas without monitoring stations warm at the same rate as the global mean, an assumption that doesn't line up with changes that satellites have observed in Arctic sea ice, Schmidt explained. Although the two methods produce slightly different results in the annual rankings, the decade-long trends in the two records are essentially identical.

"There's a contradiction between the results shown here and popular perceptions about climate trends," Hansen said. "In the last decade, global warming has not stopped."

[Jurģis]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stij8sUybx0&feature=player_embedded#

[Dougetit]

In response to Blogger Brian,

Brian did not understand my post. I never claimed that the Earth is NOT steadily warming. But “his” claim depends only on what start and end date he uses. Yes, if Brian cherry picks January 1979 to present, all thermometer AND satellite datasets show a warming trend. But what is the “ideal” temperature? History shows many ups and downs in the temperature record. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm At the peak of the medieval warm period, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg.png (from about 1150), to about 1450, we find a steady cooling trend. More recently there have been 2 cooling trends between 1895 to 1980. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg

The facts are that since January 1998 thru December 2009, both UAH and RSS satellite records shows a 12 year cooling trend, while all thermometer data shows a warming trend. These are the FACTS and can’t be denied by Brian or anyone else.

But, that was NOT my point. My point was that, beginning in 1998, there began to be a growing DIFFERENCE between TRENDS in the thermometer record and TRENDS in the satellite record. The GISS divergence is most prominent in February 1999, with another major discrepancy in January 2007. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

This NASA/NOAA/CRU divergence TREND from two independent satellite records has steadily continued to grow wider since 1998 to a point where this TREND now shows a 71% to 111% decadal DIFFERENCE, (depending on which thermometer dataset you choose). This was about the time that James Hansen at NASA refused to use satellite SST’s as his primary source claiming a satellite “cooling bias“. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/hansen-global-surface-air-temps-1995/
The cooling satellite record and warming thermometer record is evident in the concern expressed by Kevin Trenberth when he stated in the climategate email "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't".
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt
None of their computer models had, or could, predict this.

Brian assumes in his response to me that the thermometer record is more accurate than the satellite record, http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd06oct97_1.htm
but considering the revelations before and since climategate, thermometer manipulation has been in question. http://www.c3headlines.com/2009/12/the-climate-liars-of-copenhagen-pt-3-global-warming-is-unequivocal.html Check out the “Additional articles” links.

Brian cites a source from three “massaged” temperature sources, all of which conveniently use ground based thermometers. He specifically cites the HAD/CRU/MET as a source, but what LINK does he have for the anomaly that CRU reported for the month of December 2009? Hmm? Might the fraud investigation of CRU have anything to do with the lack of data? (goolge climategate) Nahh! Unlike the “unavailable” CRU raw data from surface stations, the satellite data is balloon verified and scrutinized in every detail for any possible error.

My question was “Which conclusion do you believe to be true?” which Brian did not address convincingly if at all. He states “the GISS analysis extrapolates data in those regions using information from the nearest available monitoring stations, and thus has more complete coverage of the polar areas.” but the satellite record reflects 100% of global temperatures equally. Are we to believe the thermometers “extrapolation” or James Hansen’s “homogeneity adjusted” method over the satellite method?

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.”: Albert Einstein. And it was Galileo who went against the “consensus” that the Earth was flat.

Consensus is not a scientific term, but rather used as an “alarmist‘s” defense.

Skeptic defines all “legitimate” scientists. Denier is not a scientific term.

I am sure that Brian will believe what he wants, no matter what, but he needs to pay better attention to the facts.

[Dougetit]

In response to Blogger Brian,

Brian did not understand my post. I never claimed that the Earth is NOT steadily warming. But “his” claim depends only on what start and end date he uses. Yes, if Brian cherry picks January 1979 to present, all thermometer AND satellite datasets show a warming trend. But what is the “ideal” temperature? History shows many ups and downs in the temperature record. http://www.scotese.com/climate.htm At the peak of the medieval warm period, http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/e/eb/Ipcc7.1-mann-moberg.png (from about 1150), to about 1450, we find a steady cooling trend. More recently there have been 2 cooling trends between 1895 to 1980. http://icecap.us/images/uploads/USHCNvsCO2.jpg

The facts are that since January 1998 thru December 2009, both UAH and RSS satellite records shows a 12 year cooling trend, while all thermometer data shows a warming trend. These are the FACTS and can’t be denied by Brian or anyone else.

[Dougetit]

Cont..

But, that was NOT my point. My point was that, beginning in 1998, there began to be a growing DIFFERENCE between TRENDS in the thermometer record and TRENDS in the satellite record. The GISS divergence is most prominent in February 1999, with another major discrepancy in January 2007. http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt

This NASA/NOAA/CRU divergence TREND from two independent satellite records has steadily continued to grow wider since 1998 to a point where this TREND now shows a 71% to 111% decadal DIFFERENCE, (depending on which thermometer dataset you choose). This was about the time that James Hansen at NASA refused to use satellite SST’s as his primary source claiming a satellite “cooling bias“. http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/02/28/hansen-global-surface-air-temps-1995/
The cooling satellite record and warming thermometer record is evident in the concern expressed by Kevin Trenberth when he stated in the climategate email "The fact is that we can't account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a travesty that we can't".
http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=1052&filename=1255523796.txt
None of their computer models had, or could, predict this.

[Dougetit]

Brian assumes in his response to me that the thermometer record is more accurate than the satellite record, but considering the revelations before and since climategate, thermometer manipulation has been in question.

[Dougetit]

Cont....

Brian cites a source from three “massaged” temperature sources, all of which conveniently use ground based thermometers. He specifically cites the HAD/CRU/MET as a source, but what LINK does he have for the anomaly that CRU reported for the month of December 2009? Hmm? Might the fraud investigation of CRU have anything to do with the lack of data? (goolge climategate) Nahh! Unlike the “unavailable” CRU raw data from surface stations, the satellite data is balloon verified and scrutinized in every detail for any possible error.

[Dougetit]

Cont...

My question was “Which conclusion do you believe to be true?” which Brian did not address convincingly if at all. He states “the GISS analysis extrapolates data in those regions using information from the nearest available monitoring stations, and thus has more complete coverage of the polar areas.” but the satellite record reflects 100% of global temperatures equally. Are we to believe the thermometers “extrapolation” or James Hansen’s “homogeneity adjusted” method over the satellite method?

“No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right, but a single experiment can prove me wrong.”: Albert Einstein. And it was Galileo who went against the “consensus” that the Earth was flat.

Consensus is not a scientific term, but rather used as an “alarmist‘s” defense.

Skeptic defines all “legitimate” scientists. Denier is not a scientific term.

I am sure that Brian will believe what he wants, no matter what, but he needs to pay better attention to the facts.

[Blogger Brian]

Dougedit, when you publish your findings, which contradict the consensus conclusions of the world's leading climate scientists, in a peer-reviewed journal, I'm sure it will be a great relief to everybody concerned about global warming to find out you are right, and that all those climatologists are wrong.

Until then, good luck changing minds. You sure haven't changed mine. I'll stick with real science.

[Dougetit]

Blogger Brian said:

“when you publish your findings, which contradict the consensus conclusions of the world's leading climate scientists, in a peer-reviewed journal”

Oh I see… So you are referring no doubt to Phil Jones of CRU who emailed Michael Mann “I can't see either of these papers being in the next IPCC report. Kevin and I will keep them out somehow - even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is!”

http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=419&filename=1089318616.txt

Now there’s a “world leading climate scientist” for you.

Since you base your opinion on “consensus conclusions“, I’ll leave the publishing to you as I’m sure that your pro AGW paper would be more eagerly published. I’ll stick with real facts on which base my opinion of the science.

Brian, you are most likely a very intelligent person. Unfortunately you have been mislead.

Good luck to you my friend.

[Blogger Brian]

Dougedit, you missed my point, just as you're missing the truth about global warming.

On Fox News and other cable channels opinions are equal. Commentary usually has a Republican and a Democrat, a creationist and a evolutionist, a believer in UFOs and a skeptic.

But reality isn't like that. Not the sort of objective reality that science mostly studies. The scientific method struggles -- valiantly, imperfectly, yet honestly and mostly successfully -- to understand the truth.

Minority opinions, once a scientific consensus has been arrived at, don't deserve the same weight as the majority opinion. If you believe in a flat Earth, or that evolution is false, it's up to you to prove your point of view.

My viewpoint on global warming is the consensus scientific one. Yours isn't. My viewpoint is supported by thousands of peer-reviewed research paper. Yours isn't. So it's up to you, and global warming skeptics like you, to prove your point. If you can't, that's fine. Your viewpoint will remain like the creationist perspective: interesting, but unsupported.

So thanks for visiting my blog. Like I said, if you ever have genuine scientific support for your position, I'll consider it. But until then, I choose reality over belief, facts over faith.