It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Climate Change Does Not Cause Extreme Winters, New Study Shows

page: 1
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 09:53 AM
link   


Cold snaps like the ones that hit the eastern United States in the past winters are not a consequence of climate change. Scientists at ETH Zurich and the California Institute of Technology have shown that global warming actually tends to reduce temperature variability.

Repeated cold snaps led to temperatures far below freezing across the eastern United States in the past two winters. Parts of the Niagara Falls froze, and ice floes formed on Lake Michigan. Such low temperatures had become rare in recent years. Pictures of icy, snow-covered cities made their way around the world, raising the question of whether climate change could be responsible for these extreme events.


Climate Change Does Not Cause Extreme Winters, New Study Shows

I expect this to go over like a lead balloon for some of the folks here, but there isn't much to argue, as read below.

Some things worth noting have been emphasized, but the nuts and bolts of this study basically say that we would not be seeing the extreme variations in climate that we've been seeing if temperatures were going up. The temperature fluctuations would stabilize as the temperature goes up and the cold snaps and extreme heat would become less frequent, not more frequent, as some here and elsewhere have claimed.


Temperature range will decrease

Scientists at ETH Zurich and at the California Institute of Technology, led by Tapio Schneider, professor of climate dynamics at ETH Zurich, have come to a different conclusion. They used climate simulations and theoretical arguments to show that in most places, the range of temperature fluctuations will decrease as the climate warms. So not only will cold snaps become rarer simply because the climate is warming. Additionally, their frequency will be reduced because fluctuations about the warming mean temperature also become smaller, the scientists wrote in the latest issue of the Journal of Climate.

The study's point of departure was that higher latitudes are indeed warming faster than lower ones, which means that the temperature difference between the equator and the poles is decreasing. Imagine for a moment that this temperature difference no longer exists. This would mean that air masses would have the same temperature, regardless of whether they flow from the south or north. In theory there would no longer be any temperature variability. Such an extreme scenario will not occur, but it illustrates the scientists' theoretical approach.

Extremes will become rarer

Using a highly simplified climate model, they examined various climate scenarios to verify their theory. It showed that the temperature variability in mid-latitudes indeed decreases as the temperature difference between the poles and the equator diminishes. Climate model simulations by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) showed similar results: as the climate warms, temperature differences in mid-latitudes decrease, and so does temperature variability, especially in winter.
Temperature extremes will therefore become rarer as this variability is reduced. But this does not mean there will be no temperature extremes in the future. "Despite lower temperature variance, there will be more extreme warm periods in the future because the Earth is warming," says Schneider. The researchers limited their work to temperature trends. Other extreme events, such as storms with heavy rain or snowfall, can still become more common as the climate warms, as other studies have shown.

North-south shift makes the difference

And the jet stream? Schneider shrugs off the idea: "The waviness of the jet stream that makes our day-to-day weather does not change much." Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures play a greater role in modifying temperature variability.
Schneider wants to explore the implications these results have in further studies. In particular, he wants to pursue the question of whether heatwaves in Europe may become more common because the frequency of blocking highs may increase. And he wants to find why these high pressure systems become stationary and how they change with the climate.


This doesn't dismiss extra rainfall due to warming due to any warming, or heatwaves that occur.

However, the "theory" that has been kicked around that the cooling and heavy winters are related to extremes of climate changing is on the losing end of the debate. You have an independent study that agrees with the IPCC models, showing that temperature variability (the differences between highs and lows) would in fact, DECREASE, as the temperatures continue to climb. That is not happening. There is more warming happening at the poles, which is a completely separate discussion, and can occur for a lot of other reasons that are outside the scope of this thread.

Flame On!


~Namaste
edit on 29-3-2015 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)




posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:06 AM
link   
No flames here. The issues that some people decide to mount a crusade on astound me. I'm sure that somehow, these findings will be tied to man made climate change / global warming. Too much snow? Global warming. No snow? Global warming. Extreme cold? Global warming!

Easy to point at and ridicule "climate change deniers" when no matter what happens you can claim to be right.

What a friggin' joke.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Admittedly, my eyes begin to gloss over whenever I hear another "expert" on climate change. When the day finally comes when the weather reporter is 100% every time, I'll have confidence "we as a species" have finally mastered the millions of variables which determine the weather.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:09 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

So why did I get 20cm of snow dumped on me last night...on top of the 150cm since January? This time last year I was bbqing in my backyard with a sweater on. From what I understand, this is a very warm winter globally. Unfortunately for us on the east coast of North America, this is where all the cold air goes...and seems to stay.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   
I know you put in your OP but many seemed to have missed it.

The report is on "temperatures" not "precipitation" such as snow, rain, or hail.

From the article.



The researchers limited their work to temperature trends. Other extreme events, such as storms with heavy rain or snowfall, can still become more common as the climate warms, as other studies have shown.

Read more at: phys.org...



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:22 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Well It would make sense as long as temperature variance decreases. Question is would it really?? But to be honest I always thought were looking at the wrong things. CO2 increases as things get warmer so it's a indicator but reluctant to say it's the cause.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:38 AM
link   
CO2 causes radiative forcing. The premise that CO2 lags temperature increase is a false one.

In my opinion this OP falls asking the lines of it is still cold in the winter therefore global warming must not be true.

However those who actually study this say otherwise.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:42 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

According to this group, it's actually Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures (that) play a greater role in modifying temperature variability. Picky, picky. More to the point:


Schneider ...wants to find why these high pressure systems become stationary and how they change with the climate.



Don't know who writes those headlines. .....Or why people don't read the text.











edit on 29/3/15 by soficrow because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: jrod
CO2 causes radiative forcing. The premise that CO2 lags temperature increase is a false one.

In my opinion this OP falls asking the lines of it is still cold in the winter therefore global warming must not be true.

However those who actually study this say otherwise.


Care to cite some sources on those who study this that say otherwise?


The folks in the OP are the "those" that actually study this. This is a fairly new study, so something newer will have to be provided to contradict or negate what they are theorizing.

Also, CO2 has nothing to do with this topic and nothing to do with the discussion, so please stay on topic.

Thanks!

~Namaste
edit on 29-3-2015 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: FlySolo
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Admittedly, my eyes begin to gloss over whenever I hear another "expert" on climate change. When the day finally comes when the weather reporter is 100% every time, I'll have confidence "we as a species" have finally mastered the millions of variables which determine the weather.


I certainly understand your feeling on more "experts" chiming in. The only reason I even humored the idea of posting this is because of the arguments that warming temps make for colder localized winters, and to just easily explain away why it was so much colder and why the winters aren't getting warmer. Common sense tells most people that if the global temps are getting warmer, then cold temperatures will eventually go away and the extremes become farther and farther apart (less frequent, if at all).

At least the IPCC agrees with this. There's not a good way to explain it, so they are trying to understand why, but it's nice to see that they can passively admit that they don't understand.

ETA: I just realized that this was my 2000th post.... WOOT!


~Namaste
edit on 29-3-2015 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2015 by SonOfTheLawOfOne because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 10:58 AM
link   

originally posted by: Grimpachi
I know you put in your OP but many seemed to have missed it.

The report is on "temperatures" not "precipitation" such as snow, rain, or hail.

From the article.



The researchers limited their work to temperature trends. Other extreme events, such as storms with heavy rain or snowfall, can still become more common as the climate warms, as other studies have shown.

Read more at: phys.org...


That's correct. As temperatures increase, we should expect it to impact the hydrologic cycle in some way.

Increased heat = increased evaporation = increased condensation = increased rainfall.

However, along with that, we should be seeing less temperature variance according to the same climate models. The ones that show the ice disappearing from the poles, that's when the mean distribution for temperature has peaked in most models, even if you take CO2 out of the equation as the driver, this is about temperature.

Observation and computer model projection, yet again, don't agree when it comes to climate. Surprise, surprise.


~Namaste



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:04 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

...we should be seeing less temperature variance according to the same climate models


Erm, no. The argument seems to be about what's causing the variance - According to this group, it's actually Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures (that) play a greater role in modifying temperature variability. Specifically:


Schneider ...wants to find why these high pressure systems become stationary and how they change with the climate.



.....The headline is sensationalist and misleading.



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:05 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne




arguments that warming temps make for colder localized winters


I have not seen anyone in here say anything like that, though there were talks of the jet stream being off because of climate change, therefore keeping it in a lock over part of the US for a longer time than usual, and creating the "colder than normal" weather, is that what you are referring to.

edit on 29-3-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:20 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I think it's going to go like this. Every season will be extreme. Winters colder, summers hotter. In 100 years the only nice time of the year will be spring and fall because they will merge into one season. Winter and Summer will be the underground months.

eta: that doesn't make sense.
edit on 29-3-2015 by FlySolo because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:21 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne



I have seen numerous people saying that winters will be more extreme in some areas and summers more extreme in others . There us one member in particular that uses this logic.

I have been following this climate change debacle from the beginning.

I personally think that there is not enough information to draw up conclusions, the conclusions that the die hard changers are coming up with.
liejunkie01 because: (no reason given)

edit on 29-3-2015 by liejunkie01 because: i butchered the quoted reply, sorru



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:26 AM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne




arguments that warming temps make for colder localized winters


I have not seen anyone in here say anything like that, though there were talks of the jet stream being off because of climate change, therefore keeping it in a lock over part of the US for a longer time than usual, and creating the "colder than normal" weather, is that what you are referring to.


Just because you haven't seen it doesn't make it so.

There are plenty who have argued it. Here are just a couple of examples on this site:

www.abovetopsecret.com...
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Of course, these predate what I posted in the OP, and the studies are constantly changing, but this latest one is aligned with the IPCC, which gives it a bit more weight than usual.

Next time, please take your own time (instead of someone else's) to search for something when using a vacuous argument to discredit information that they convey.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:33 AM
link   

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

...we should be seeing less temperature variance according to the same climate models


Erm, no. The argument seems to be about what's causing the variance - According to this group, it's actually Changes in the north-south difference in temperatures (that) play a greater role in modifying temperature variability. Specifically:


Schneider ...wants to find why these high pressure systems become stationary and how they change with the climate.



.....The headline is sensationalist and misleading.


I disagree.

I think you are misinterpreting and mincing words.

The north-south variability they are referring to is the basis of the study. They are talking about the difference in temperatures between the lower and higher latitudes, which aren't being observed the way that projections and models are expecting, and THAT is what they want to understand and study further.

Sensationalist or not, I didn't write it, but I can't allow someone to blatantly twist what it says. It is not misleading and by you dismissing it on a headline shows that you are not open to facts, just one side or another of a debate.

Folks can read on their own, they don't need you to change their interpretation of the words.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 11:38 AM
link   
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Ok, chill i'm not your enemy...Sorry for wasting your valuable time, but thank you for answering

edit on 29-3-2015 by Mianeye because: (no reason given)



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: Mianeye
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Ok, chill i'm not your enemy...Sorry for wasting your valuable time, but thank you for answering


You're welcome.

You are not my enemy.

The ones who are, are the giant corporations that pollute, and when they can't, they go to countries where they can. They are the politicians who talk about fixing problems out of one side of their mouths, and then push legislation that is totally contradicting what they say. The companies who destroy forests without having a plan to replace them at a sustainable rate. The governments that think it's ok to dump garbage and pollutants into our oceans.

Those are my enemies. Are they yours? Are they for the other members on this forum?

Then the enemy of my enemy is my friend.


We should all start acting like it and stop trying to divide each other up into groups and create dissent over science that cannot possibly understand all of the things that contribute to climate change.

~Namaste



posted on Mar, 29 2015 @ 12:28 PM
link   
It's a competing hypothesis with the wavy jet stream hypothesis.
Only time will tell which if either is correct.



new topics

top topics


active topics

 
17
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join