Climate Change Does Not Cause Extreme Winters, New Study Shows

This is not the first time they froze over. The Niagara Falls where frozen over when I was a kid Solid Amazing yes. I'm 51 now and wow they still freeze over? This study seems flawed.

And when I was a kid the snow was so deep. Is it actually getting normal again. I know winter started to suck with cold and just dusting s of snow up North (Ohio area).

I think the weather is due to the shifting of the Earth from tsunami. A fraction of a inch at the poles is what when you reach the equator?

originally posted by: soficrow
a reply to: BlueMule

Missed it. What do you think of the film?

If you think that's calving, you should see my wife throw a temper tantrum.

Seriously though it's pretty amazing.

👣

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

At the 4:22 mark they show how much the glacier retreated in 100 years then show that in the 10 year period where it exceeded what it took 100 years.

They didn't capture that 110 years on film, but saying the show only covers a 4-year term is a bit dissingenious.

For the record, since you want to pick at syntax, they didn't show anything at 4:22 except for a diagram. What I was referring to regarding the 4-years is the calving, which pretty much the entire video is showing except for the last 30 seconds that you want to nit-pick at. So, ok...

"Disingenuous", you say?

So it's not disingenuous to leave out critical information...

Such as... the majority of retreating glacial coverage in that area, began in the 1790's, LONG before CO2 was a problem, and long before the Industrial Revolution began.

The retreat was well under way for decades prior to the 100 years that Balog refers to in the film. Why is that not included? Why only 100 years, the 100 years that happen to fit perfectly into the man-made global warming theory? Right after the Industrial Revolution?

Have a look at this really cooool glacial map from the USGS:

Glacier Bay: Map of Alaska and Glacier Bay. Red lines show glacial terminus positions and dates during retreat of the Little Ice Age glacier. Green polygon outlines approximate area mapped by multibeam system in May-June 2001.

It's a map of Glacier Bay showing the retreat areas in the red lines with the dates indicated.

The melting, calving and overall retreat of that entire region were well underway coming out of the Little Ice Age.

For all you know, the current landscape and glacial coverage is exactly what is was prior to the Little Ice Age, doing exactly what it did during the Medieval Warming Period.

The event he filmed in Alaska is a local event. It doesn't represent climate change as a whole, and looking at that map, it clearly shows that while 100 years of melting occurred, it was well underway long before the "usual suspects" for climate change are considered part of the problem. CO2 is only talked about in the late 1800's, so why did the melting start in the late 1700's?

I'll give you a hint... it wasn't CO2. It likely wasn't caused by man either.

But I guess we can add "truth" along with "beauty" being in the eye of the beholder.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

"Disingenuous", you say?

Yes, Absolutely disingenuous on your part. You tried to make it out the video is only about a 4 year period completly ignoring any information on the 110-year frame even in the short video clip.

Now you are going on about 1790 saying why did they start talking about it in the 1800s.


Seriously? Are you trying to say you're not being disingenuous?

If so I completely disagree. Maybe we can just leave it at that because I don't see this going anywhere.

originally posted by: Grimpachi
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

"Disingenuous", you say?

Yes, Absolutely disingenuous on your part. You tried to make it out the video is only about a 4 year period completly ignoring any information on the 110-year frame even in the short video clip.

Choosing not to discuss something is not the same as ignoring it, which I did not do. The post is not about the video, but someone else introduced something as an argument and I chose to address the majority of the video instead of a 15 second drive-by animation. There is absolutely nothing disingenuous of my part to point out the pure lack of context given in the video to the rest of the story.

Now you are going on about 1790 saying why did they start talking about it in the 1800s.

No, I'm saying that in the video, they conveniently left out the retreat beginning in the 1790's so that they could show 110 years ONLY, again, taking the true story out of context, which is to try and say that the melting started happening right around the Industrial Revolution and has accelerated since.... when the story would be totally different if they said the melting started almost 200 years ago, before the Industrial Revolution, therefore, the cause must be something else unexplained by man.

I didn't address the last 10 years of melting anywhere because I don't have to, it's not what the OP was about and not what I'm debating. I'm debating the merits of leaving out facts.

Seriously? Are you trying to say you're not being disingenuous?

Yep, sure am.

If so I completely disagree. Maybe we can just leave it at that because I don't see this going anywhere.

Alrighty then, we agree on something.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

There are a plethora of threads in this very forum with links to the information you demand. I am replying via mobile phone so linking is difficult

But go ahead and try to play the burden of of proof game without actually offering any proofs against man made climate change, just opinions, half truths, and pseudoscience.

Radiative forcing is something you should be able to figure on your own.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

There are a plethora of threads in this very forum with links to the information you demand. I am replying via mobile phone so linking is difficult

But go ahead and try to play the burden of of proof game without actually offering any proofs against man made climate change, just opinions, half truths, and pseudoscience.

Radiative forcing is something you should be able to figure on your own.

While your friends applaud you with stars, the burden of proof is on YOU when you make a claim such as yours.

You don't get to make an assertion and then ask someone else to prove you wrong... you bring your facts and sources to the table or go sit down in the corner somewhere. That's like throwing your hands up and jumping up and down saying the earth is flat... if you're going to say it, you can't ask everyone else to prove you wrong. We've been there, done that, with God and religion for the longest time, and you are just taking a page from that playbook.

Oh, that's right, I forgot Jrod... I forgot, you are an expert with impeccable sources, including your fake professor friend that you went around spouting until you were called out on it by people who do research, and shown to be a complete and total liar.

Back up what you have to say, it's really that simple. I posted a study based on a paper in a journal... where's your sources?

Pointing me to the other threads in this forum is not the same as proving your point and supporting your argument with proper science.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

I'll call this one out like I call out most of the global-warming alarmist posts: The conclusions are based on "climate simulations and theoretical arguments," just like AGW people tend to do.

I have bored of using simulations, theoretical arguments, and computer models as hard evidence.

Perhaps the day is coming soon when we will all
factor in the Sun and its behavior as affecting climate and weather ?
(yes I know what I just said)
The Solar wind pressure study Ulysses SWOOPS
which was shut down purposefully (they didn't like the data is my guess)
showed a 30 %drop in magnetism a 13% cooler solar wind and a 20% increase in cosmic rays
because of our WEAKENING Sun between 1998-2008. That's a MASSIVE change.
And why it's getting colder IMHO .
Dim a light bulb, does it get hotter ?

www.leif.org...

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Now you are going too far. I studied meteorology at Florida Institute of Technology. Dr. Windsor and Dr. Lazarus are real people. Never said any of the PHD's are my friends. Unlike you I have actually crunched numbers in this field, and it is apparent that you have not.

It is you who I'd full of lies and dishonest debate tactics. There is no debate on the changing planet, all one has to do is simply look around at this planet to see the changes and destruction we are causing. The flat earth comment among others you have made shows to me you don't care about the truth or the science, you just want to 'prove' me wrong or discredit what I write because you think this is still up for debate. A wise man once told me, the first rule of meteorology is to look out the window, the same concept applies to climate change.

Human activity is changing planet Earth. Only a fool denies this reality.

a reply to: jrod

Unlike you I have actually crunched numbers in this field, and it is apparent that you have not.

What field would that be? What kind of applied work have you done in meteorology? Do you have a degree from FIT, or just name drop people there because you took a class once?

Why don't you provide some examples of those field-based numbers and what you did with them?

Anyone who wants to know how well you "crunch the numbers" versus anyone else on ATS, can have a look at this thread:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Take your strawman arguments elsewhere Jrod... I never ONE time debated anything on the changing planet, or whether or not it is or isn't changing. The planet is always changing and I have never said otherwise.

I look to prove or discredit ignorance and lies, both of which you manage to demonstrate incessantly in your posts.

You don't look out the window to see "climate change" like you do weather. That doesn't even make sense.

Try arguing the original source material I posted, like OTHERS have.

ETA: This wasn't even a post about man made climate change, but about climate change in general and the effect on winters.

~Namaste

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Residence time calculations for CO2 is a start.

Interesting how you accuse my posts getting started too much. I do find it interesting that your posts almost always get starred instantly....that does get fishy.

It gets old being accused of exactly what you are guilty of. Time for you to find another straw man.

originally posted by: jrod
a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Residence time calculations for CO2 is a start.

Sure! Please, show me how stupid I am, and how smart and trustworthy you are with regard to science and especially, climate science by showing us all how to calculate a residence time for CO2?

It gets old being accused of exactly what you are guilty of. Time for you to find another straw man.

Maybe I'll look out the window for him, where I'll find your definition of climate change and your residence time calculation.

~Namaste

originally posted by: SonOfTheLawOfOne

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

I read that article this morning. And I still don't understand that if...climate change no matter the cause can effect the jet stream and the currents in the oceans and those are two reasons that I've read for cold snaps, like we had in the northeast this year. Somethings not connecting for me.

a reply to: SonOfTheLawOfOne

Why should I waste my time showing RT calculation when you will just twist the numbers around, find some pseudoscience article that says the widely accepted RT of CO2 is wrong and a bunch of other BS. It just become a circle jerk trying to bring knowledge and good information to threads like this when someone like you will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to discredit good information.

Here is a great thread that shows the hypocrisy of those who deny we as a species are changing this planet's climate:

The Plot Thickens: NASA Exposed Adjusting Temperature Data All Over The World Now
(this thread was created as a satirical counter to the link to the thread you provided)