M/clear
68°
M/clear
Hi 81° | Lo 52°

Letter: Climate change versus weather

Please educate me on “global warming”; I’m a bit confused. In July I am told that a heat wave is “irrefutable proof” of so-called climate change, that we must act now in order to stop our dear Earth from becoming a CO2-fueled incinerator. Yet, when I’m walking through armpit-deep snow in January in minus-degree wind chills (wondering where the “global warming” is at that moment), I’m admonished by those obviously more educated than I not to confuse “weather” with “climate change.” So, if I got this right, “global warming” is the cause of a midsummer heat wave in July, but it’s just “weather” that’s the cause of a midwinter snowstorm in January. Correct? Okay, I get it now.

JOHN McBRIDE

Concord

Simple. Whoever said that a heat wave is proof of climate change was wrong. You also should understand the difference between temperature and precipitation. Just because it's warmer over all doesn't mean that the snow fall amounts will be less. In fact, the warmer atmosphere allows it to absorb more moisture before precipitation starts. When the temperature is over 32 it falls as rain. When under 32, as snow. NH will still have minus-32 temps (and even minus-0 temps) in the winter even if the earth were to warm by several degrees. Climate change doesn't mean we'll be growing palm trees on Hampton Beach.

Bottom line is that the climate changing is NOT caused by man. The weather we have now happened in the 30's and 40's and even in the 1800's. Climate change is being used by ideologues in an attempt to control the behavior of people and have them conform to progressives ideals. Look to the Sun, recent photos show many abnormalities, including a magnetic field change on the Sun. The brainwashed ideologues on this comment section will do everything that they can to dazzle you with convoluted and rigged statistics and will not accept any question of their so called science. Don't be fooled.

Itsa...WOW...so brainwashed ideologues don't present science, the way you do. "The weather we have now happened in the 30's and 40's and even in the 1800's" according to you. So, why have the warmest eleven years on record happened since 1998 (ref. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/12/071213101419.htm) or, said another way, "...according to NASA: US National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) releasing their global stats for 2011. Their global temperature dataset put 2011 as the joint eleventh warmest year since records began in 1880..." (ref: http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2012/01/nasa-scientists-expect-record-breaking-warm-years-soon). So ITSA...where are your references??

Actual scientific evidence/sources to back up your claims? Or half-baked distortions based on deliberately misread science--as from WWWT?

Another uncertainty for climate models – different results on different computers using the same code Posted on July 27, 2013 by Anthony Watts New peer reviewed paper finds the same global forecast model produces different results when run on different computers

sail...I notice that NONE of your posts have any references. Probably just an oversight on your part, but I prefer to believe only those people who support their statements. And, by the way, Anthony Watts has a little problem posting some things but stating others. For instance, from his website: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/03/uah-global-temperature-report-2012-was-9th-warmest but when BEST published its report, he argued with it. But, then, he uses what he has previously written as references, not real scientists peer-reviewed work.

Regarding Watts and BEST: when the study was first announced, with funding from the Koch Bros, among others, and led by then skeptic Prof. Muller, Watts announced that whatever the findings of the BEST study, he'd abide by them. Once the study was complete, and the results announced, however, confirming the measurements and findings of every other study done, he changed his mind. To do otherwise would likely have ended his tidily lucrative website underwritten by the deniosphere.

around 2000 the previous tendency of the jets and climate zones to drift poleward had stopped and subsequently they appeared to be retreating back equator ward again. That was inconsistent with AGW theory

"remember the 1970s breathless warnings of imminent global cooling. Strangely enough, the cure was the same as for global warming… de-industrialization on a large scale. I suspect that for many in the climate alarmist camp, de-industrialization has always been the underlying goal. Climate change (cooling then, and warming now) is a means to an end."

None of the models projected the current 17 year pause. None of the scientists predicted or warned of the 17 year pause. None of the scientists can still explain the 17 year pause with any data showing how the mechanism of the pause works. The models failed. the theory upon which those models were built, has been falsified. The rude, unscientific behavior of the alarmist scientists is what should make any intelligent person raise alarm bells and make one distrust their bogus arguments.

Global warming is a cause embraced by scoundrel politicians and politicized scientists. They all have something to gain, and you have your freedom to loose. The "science" is an illusion and a transparent lie based on doctored data and corrupted computer models. Forget global warming!? Earth undergoing global COOLING since 2002! Climate Scientist Dr. Judith Curry: ‘Attention in the public debate seems to be moving away from the 15-17 year ‘pause’ to the cooling since 2002’ No significant warming for 17 years 4 months

2013 is now the warmest year on record

John, which climate scientist told you that a specific heat wave was "irrefutable proof"? If you would, perhaps, listen to people who have actual expertise in the field you might really "get it."

Right...a heat wave is NOT 'irrefutable proof' of global warming. However, it will be considered a part of the total global warming, after it is summed with all the other days (of the year) highs and lows temperature. Such statistics have shown that eleven of the warmest summers, since temperature records became common, around 1870, have occurred since 1998. That IS an irrefutable proof of global warming.

John...'weather' is what it outside each and every day; 'climate' is the total weather for each year. For example, while you were walking through that armpit deep snow last winter, you could have taken solace from the climate statistic: Eleven of the hottest years recorded in the US have occurred since 1998. IF you live around Concord, John, do you remember having so many 90 plus degree days with such high humidity in years past??

"armpit deep snow last winter"....Sorry just not true...simply a normal NH winter- disregard the global warming alarmists...they have burnt out their mission

Carbon Dioxide is transparent to solar radiation but it is opaque to the thermal radiation the Earth emits. It traps heat that way. More C02 means more heat trapping. Plus there is the issue of "Carbon Sinks". Temporal forests and the oceans. especially cold ones, are the major Carbon sinks. Without Carbon sinks, the C02 builds up in the atmosphere at a higher rate of speed than it would otherwise. If you look at the condition of our Carbon sinks, you'll see that they are not getting any younger. And as the Ocean heats up, which it has, it reduces its place in the Carbon cycle. A natural warming cycle can be disrupted or exacerbated by human actions. BTW, I was initially skeptical for some time about human causes but the nature of the Carbon cycle changed my mind

'Climate' is the typical weather for a region based on long-term averages--usually 30 years or more. Weather is simply the day to day change in local conditions. The fact we still get cold weather and snow in winter in New Hampshire doesn't obviate the fact that our climate (and the weather--gradually) is changing. Fall lasts longer, Spring comes earlier, plants and animals from warmer climes are extending their ranges northward. There's no debate on this. That said, I can't help but think that your letter was prompted as much by a determination to remain immune to the facts on 'climate change' --actually a terminology change suggested by Republican strategist Frank Luntz, to replace the scarier 'global warming'. Beginning in the late '90's, the far-right wing ginned up efforts to create the deniosphere in order to sow disinformation that would counter the findings of climate science, and create the illusion of controversy and debate regarding its findings. E tu?

It's not really confusing at all. There are very good reasons that scientists refer to it as climate change and not just global warming. An overheated atmosphere holds more moisture, and together with the effects of the jet stream--changed, many believe due to melting of ice sheets--it causes both heat waves in the summer (and fall and spring) and snowmaggedon-type storms. It can also cause flooding as well as drought. These are all examples of extreme weather, and these are precisely what we can expect with climate change. That does not mean that weather and climate are the same thing, only that climate can make weather patterns less predictable and more extreme. Here's the bottom line on climate change--it doesn't care whether you believe in it or not. It's still going to happen.

FACTS introduced to the US Senate last week: there is no greater incidence of droughts, floods, hurricanes, tornadoes, blizzards, fires or any other natural climate calamity

Post a Comment

You must be registered to comment on stories. Click here to register.