Global warming... Are we there yet?

[Moozillaaa]

I don't know about you, but it's cold here in NC, US.

My heating bill is more than it has ever been. I thought December was about normal, but Progress Energy NC reports that Dec. was the coldest since 1977. And January goes without saying - coldest EVER. First 10 days of February have been the same.

Now that ClimateGate is out of the bag, is the global warming armageddon downsized until further notice? Or just plain dead??? I wouldn't mind a little warming to be truthful, and I used to always like colder weather.

BTW, it's 29F now 7:45 am, normal low is 31.

You?

http://ubuntuforums.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=146626&d=1265806050

[[h2o]]

One cold year doesn't really mean anything. It's the mean temperature rising that is the problem.
Also, have you checked how the temperature is in the rest of the world? I know at least parts of Northern Europe are a bit colder than normal, but I have no idea if South America, Australia, Asia or Africa are having colder or warmer cliamte than usual.

Also, the most important point: It is called global warming, meaning that the global temperature will rise. Local temperatures may very well plummeth. I for one live in a country that might actually be a lot colder due to global warming since there is a risk that the Gulf Stream disappears or changes.

[Grenage]

I personally don't read much into the temperatures of one year; 10 years - yes.

[audiomick]

global warming refers to the mean temperature of the atmoshpere as a whole. One of the expected consequences is that extremes will become more so, i.e. stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, colder winters.

In answer to your question: we are there already.

edit: I just looked at the posts that turned up above me. I heard from friends and family in Australia a couple of weeks ago that they had a record high overnight low temperature of 32° in Melbourne. The last few weeks have been above average. Here in Germany we are having a cold winter. Where I live there has been snow on the ground more often than not for the last three weeks, in an area where it might only snow once in a winter.

[chucky chuckaluck]

I don't know about you, but it's cold here in NC, US.

yup, this crap sucks. i didn't move here (from massachusetts) for the skiing.

[tjoff]

Yes, you are right your unique observation undermines the foundation of all known climate theories.

Sigh...

Absolutely no conclusions about the global climate can be drawn from a observation in one specific location, you need a MUCH wider perspective in space and time.

It is a funny coincidence that this is actually one of the warmest Januarys ever recorded, on a global scale:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/02/january-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-72-deg-c/

[ElSlunko]

Feels like El Nino all over again in Southern California.

[chewearn]

Welcome to the Ice Age!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cf/Gone_Nutty.jpg

[JDShu]

I don't think the existence of global warming is even that disputed. Now people are arguing about whether its our fault or just natural.

[DrMelon]

5 feet of snow, instead of the usual 2 inches. I'd say it's going the other way :P

[V for Vincent]

global warming refers to the mean temperature of the atmoshpere as a whole. One of the expected consequences is that extremes will become more so, i.e. stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, colder winters.

In answer to your question: we are there already.

At least one person gets it!

*edit*
By which I don't mean no one else does, it's just that audiomick is the only person so far to state this explicitly, which seems a bit surprising.

[handy]

Global warming induced climate change, creates extreme weather conditions.

We have had an extremely high rainfall of over 14" in the last 6 weeks, & very unusual temperatures.

Hot days of 43+ C, followed by cold days of less than half that temperature.

Very strange, but we are enjoying the unusual precipitation whilst is lasts. Because we know that it can't last.

[Ric_NYC]

2 weeks of cold weather change everything...


...




SEATTLE -- The National Weather Service says last month was the warmest January on record in Seattle, an average of 47 degrees.


"Temperatures in Past Decade Were Warmest Since 1880, NASA Says
January 22, 2010, 06:42 AM EST" (Businessweek)


"One day last week, demand in Argentina hit a record 19,370MW as more Argentines turned on air conditioners to combat the unusually high temperatures. The increased demand pushed the domestic delivery of power to a single-day record of 411.1 gigawatts on Thursday.(WSJ)

[lovinglinux]

We are experiencing extreme weather conditions in Brazil, with temperatures higher than usual, lots of rain and floodings.

Yes, I believe we are already there. Now sit back, relax and watch the nature fighting back.


Sooner or later, the day comes...when you can't hide from the things that you've done any more.

Commander William Adama - Battlestar Galactica Miniseries

[Desert Sailor]

In my opinion, and it's just opinion, it was a tactical error for the climate change prophets-of-doom to adopt the label "Global Warming". If they had adopted "Global Climate Change" then they could argue either way regardless of of which weather extreme you're experiencing at the moment.

As was mentioned, the issue isn't that the climate is changing, (It has been warming since the last ice age) but what is the real cause of the change. Is it a natural cycle over which we have little if any control, or is it all the fault of my computer's power consumption and another evil Microsoft/Intel conspiracy to take over the world. Pick your conspiracy and have fun. You can't get out of this life alive anyway.

[gjoellee]

Global warming is happening right now, but it is happening at "slow" so we don't notice it.

If you put a frog in a cup of warm water it will notice that it is hot, and it will try to get out of the cup. If you put the frog in a cup with normal heated water, and slowly warm it, the frog will just stay there until it is rescued.

That is what's happening to us. :-(

Also...scientists that deny global warming are usually working to oil, gass and car companies. :D

You should also see a documentary on National Geographic about climate changes thousand of years ago, to get a batter picture of it.

[Simian Man]

You know what happens when you heat something? It creates energy. And by heating the world we are creating more energy in it and that equates to more weather of all types. More frequent and severe changes in temperature, storms, precipitation etc.

I'm sick of idiots who think they're being original by saying "Well it's snowing in New Orleans, so much for global warming". It's not supposed to snow in New Orleans; something is wrong.

[Grenage]

I think the we'd be better off saying who cares? Climates change, and we should be creating minimal emissions because it's better to play it safe.

[gjoellee]

It creates energy.

Not to be an ***, but you should take a look at some kind of energy law. It says "Energy can not be created nor disappear. Energy just exists, and pass from one item or form to another". But you are right...I don't want no hurricanes!

[Ric_NYC]

You know what happens when you heat something? It creates energy. And by heating the world we are creating more energy in it and that equates to more weather of all types. More frequent and severe changes in temperature, storms, precipitation etc.

I'm sick of idiots who think they're being original by saying "Well it's snowing in New Orleans, so much for global warming". It's not supposed to snow in New Orleans; something is wrong.


I agree... And those people should stop watching Foxnews, Glenn Beck and friends*. (*My opinion)

[MasterNetra]

Up here in Michigan its been a little warmer then usual, at least as far as winters go normally here. But ya the changes that come with a warming world aren't direct or simple. Climates are going to shift more wildly and are unpredictable (at least for us atm).

[Simian Man]

Not to be an ***, but you should take a look at some kind of energy law. It says "Energy can not be created nor disappear. Energy just exists, and pass from one item or form to another". But you are right...I don't want no hurricanes!

OK, then it transfers the heat energy into other forms of energy in the system. Happy?

[jenaniston]

. . . stronger hurricanes, hotter summers, colder winters . . .
In answer to your question: we are there already.


http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/ppm.jpg

"According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
the current atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration is about 386 parts per million,
and growing at a rate of 1.5 to 2.5 p.p.m. per year.

Some climate watchers predict a point-of-no-return threshold
lies in the vicinity of 450-500 p.p.m.,
at which point the earth’s climate will begin to behave very erratically."

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/carbon-concentrations-already-too-much/

[Grenage]

Cretaceous CO2 levels are estimated to have been around 1,000 PPM. Your point?

[ptviperz]

it annoys me that AGW is a self fulfilling prophecy type religion.

It's colder? AGW! it's warmer? AGW! 15 Hurricanes? AGW! 2 Hurricanes? AGW!

There has yet to build one predictive model that's even remotely close to -actual- results. Therefore, in my mind, the science isn't very good. They've predicted this 3-4 degree change from 1900 to 2000 and the actual change was .5 degree. There has been -no- heating for the last 8 years and they can't explain why that is at all. I think the truth is, the climate changes and we can't do anything about it or predict it.

[jenaniston]

Cretaceous CO2 levels are estimated to have been around 1,000 PPM. Your point?

high CO2 = warmer

The distictively warmer Mid-Cretaceous Period of 90-120 million years ago makes the point very well . . .
with no scientific consensus on how the Mid-Cretaceous warm climate came about.

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/globalwarming/cretaceous.html

Polar ice caps melting . . . adds energy to the climate change equation . . .
and some cooling of temperate regions.

http://greeninc.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/06/04/carbon-concentrations-already-too-much/
"Once the world started seeing large-scale changes like melting polar ice,
the 350 p.p.m. threshold confirmed what observation was already suggesting:
“That we’re already too far.”

[Grenage]

high CO2 = warmer

Apparently.

[jenaniston]

Apparently.

and growing at a rate of 1.5 to 2.5 p.p.m. per year . . .
so maybe some 32 years until a 450 ppm atmospheric CO2 threshold ?

[Grenage]

<sarcasm>
I'm secretly hoping for a super virus that will wipe out 99% of the global population - problem solved on every angle.
</sarcasm>

I agree that it's a problem, but with the world's population increasing at the rate it is... I think it's semantic.

[tjoff]

Cretaceous CO2 levels are estimated to have been around 1,000 PPM. Your point?

No, what is YOUR point?

Of what relevance is the C02 levels more than 65 million years ago to the current discussion? At that time there was no human civization and the flora and fauna was entirely different from now. There is no guarantee that the flora and fauna of today can survive a fast climate change.

We all know that variations in C02-level and global temperatures change a lot on a large time scale. The conditions for life changes, and species adapt and evolve.
But if such a change happens in the course of a few hundreds of years, what will happen? Well, we do not know, but accelerated natural selection is not a pretty thing, when you are a potential selectee.
Life as such will survive for sure. And the wealthier part of the human race surely too. But biodiversity and living conditions will be significantly changed. Some aspects might be better than today, some worse. Do you feel lucky?

Is it really so important to insist on burning every single drop of fossil fuel until it eventually is depleted anyway, that we are willing to risk the consequences of drastic climate change on a short time scale?

[Grenage]

There is no guarantee that the flora and fauna of today can survive a fast climate change.

No there isn't; but the world won't explode.

[Ric_NYC]

Rare formation

Typically, tropical cyclones do not form in the South Atlantic Ocean, due to strong upper level shear, cool water temperatures, and the lack of a convergence zone of convection. Occasionally though, as seen in 1991 and early 2004, conditions can become slightly more favorable. For Catarina, it was a combination of climatic and atmospheric anomalies. Water temperatures on Catarina's path ranged from 24 to 25 °C, slightly less than the 26.5 °C temperature of a normal tropical cyclone, but sufficient for a storm of baroclinic origin.[3]
Up to that point, no tropical cyclone had been observed to reach hurricane strength in the South Atlantic Ocean via satellite imagery, which dates back to the mid-1970s.[8] While Catarina formed in an unusual area, its relation to global warming or any other type of global climatic change is still up for debate. The Brazilian Society of Meteorology attributed it to "climatic changes and atmospheric anomalies,"[4] while other researchers have indicated that it could be the result of the Southern Annular Mode or other seasonal variations in weather within the Southern Hemisphere, again linked to global changes in climate.[9] However, more research in the area is still needed to make a conclusion.[9](Wikipedia)

http://img195.imageshack.us/img195/2274/600pxcyclonecatarina200.jpg
Catarina, approaching the Brazilian coastline on March 27, 2004 near peak intensity.

[jenaniston]

The conditions for life changes, and species adapt and evolve.
But if such a change happens in the course of a few hundreds of years, what will happen?

. . . the consequences of drastic climate change on a short time scale?

Yes it is this rate of change . . . that will be tough to adapt to . . .
http://i372.photobucket.com/albums/oo161/sunblush/ppm.jpg




No there isn't; but the world won't explode.

So the arguement against doing anything is what . . .
that the earth is already headed to exceed it's sustainable population threshold ?
. . . even before the 450 ppm CO2 is reached and as that theory goes - the rate gets hotter even faster

[Grenage]

So the arguement against doing anything is what . . .

As I said in my previous post, I'm totally in favour of reducing emissions, I just doubt it will make much difference.

[jenaniston]

. . . in favour of reducing emissions, I just doubt it will make much difference.

fair enough . . .
but maybe along with some technology advance to also help make the rate slooow . . .
there is an even better chance for adaptation.

So any slowing of the rate . . . offers a better chance.

[Grenage]

On that we agree!

[Sef]

Locked. Politics.