The Weather Isn't Getting Weirder

[Hilarious Clinton 452]

Last week a severe storm froze Dallas under a sheet of ice, just in time to disrupt the plans of the tens of thousands of (American) football fans descending on the city for the Super Bowl. On the other side of the globe, Cyclone Yasi slammed northeastern Australia, destroying homes and crops and displacing hundreds of thousands of people.

Some climate alarmists would have us believe that these storms are yet another baleful consequence of man-made CO2 emissions. In addition to the latest weather events, they also point to recent cyclones in Burma, last winter's fatal chills in Nepal and Bangladesh, December's blizzards in Britain, and every other drought, typhoon and unseasonable heat wave around the world.

But is it true? To answer that question, you need to understand whether recent weather trends are extreme by historical standards. The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project is the latest attempt to find out, using super-computers to generate a dataset of global atmospheric circulation from 1871 to the present.

As it happens, the project's initial findings, published last month, show no evidence of an intensifying weather trend. "In the climate models, the extremes get more extreme as we move into a doubled CO2 world in 100 years," atmospheric scientist Gilbert Compo, one of the researchers on the project, tells me from his office at the University of Colorado, Boulder. "So we were surprised that none of the three major indices of climate variability that we used show a trend of increased circulation going back to 1871."

In other words, researchers have yet to find evidence of more-extreme weather patterns over the period, contrary to what the models predict. "There's no data-driven answer yet to the question of how human activity has affected extreme weather," adds Roger Pielke Jr., another University of Colorado climate researcher.

We do know that carbon dioxide and other gases trap and re-radiate heat. We also know that humans have emitted ever-more of these gases since the Industrial Revolution. What we don't know is exactly how sensitive the climate is to increases in these gases versus other possible factors—solar variability, oceanic currents, Pacific heating and cooling cycles, planets' gravitational and magnetic oscillations, and so on.

<a name="U401849635988YBF">Given the unknowns, it's possible that even if we spend trillions of dollars, and forgo trillions more in future economic growth, to cut carbon emissions to pre-industrial levels, the climate will continue to change—as it always has.

That's not to say we're helpless. There is at least one climate lesson that we can draw from the recent weather: Whatever happens, prosperity and preparedness help. North Texas's ice storm wreaked havoc and left hundreds of football fans stranded, cold, and angry. But thanks to modern infrastructure, 21st century health care, and stockpiles of magnesium chloride and snow plows, the storm caused no reported deaths and Dallas managed to host the big game on Sunday.

Compare that outcome to the 55 people who reportedly died of pneumonia, respiratory problems and other cold-related illnesses in Bangladesh and Nepal when temperatures dropped to just above freezing last winter. Even rich countries can be caught off guard: Witness the thousands stranded when Heathrow skimped on de-icing supplies and let five inches of snow ground flights for two days before Christmas. Britain's GDP shrank by 0.5% in the fourth quarter of 2010, for which the Office of National Statistics mostly blames "the bad weather."

Arguably, global warming was a factor in that case. Or at least the idea of global warming was. The London-based Global Warming Policy Foundation charges that British authorities are so committed to the notion that Britain's future will be warmer that they have failed to plan for winter storms that have hit the country three years running.

A sliver of the billions that British taxpayers spend on trying to control their climes could have bought them more of the supplies that helped Dallas recover more quickly. And, with a fraction of that sliver of prosperity, more Bangladeshis and Nepalis could have acquired the antibiotics and respirators to survive their cold spell.

A comparison of cyclones Yasi and Nargis tells a similar story: As devastating as Yasi has been, Australia's infrastructure, medicine, and emergency protocols meant the Category 5 storm has killed only one person so far. Australians are now mulling all the ways they could have better protected their property and economy.

But if they feel like counting their blessings, they need only look to the similar cyclone that hit the Irrawaddy Delta in 2008. Burma's military regime hadn't allowed for much of an economy before the cyclone, but Nargis destroyed nearly all the Delta had. Afterwards, the junta blocked foreign aid workers from delivering needed water purification and medical supplies. In the end, the government let Nargis kill more than 130,000 people.

Global-warming alarmists insist that economic activity is the problem, when the available evidence show it to be part of the solution. We may not be able to do anything about the weather, extreme or otherwise. But we can make sure we have the resources to deal with it when it comes.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704422204576130300992126630.html

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Getting your steady diet of science from Op/Ed pieces again, eh? When you gonna graduate from opinion-based, fuzzy science and move on to what the big boys read, like Science or Nature? Or how about NASA's website? You can open a new tab to keep a dictionary handy for all them big words.

[Brother Hesekiel 2,236]

Well, after having lived in 6 European countries and briefly for 6 months in India before checking out Florida and finally moving to Southern California 19 years ago, I can tell you we have typical winter weather her: blue skies, sunshine, and temperatures in the low-to-mid-70s.

The moment I need air conditioning in the summer or a heater in the winter or see what is illustrated as a snow flake, I'll be worried.

Just can't decide which convertible I should drive to work today . . .

Edited February 11, 2011 by Just Bob

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Getting your steady diet of science from Op/Ed pieces again, eh? When you gonna graduate from opinion-based, fuzzy science and move on to what the big boys read, like Science or Nature? Or how about NASA's website? You can open a new tab to keep a dictionary handy for all them big words.

Send money!

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Getting your steady diet of science from Op/Ed pieces again, eh? When you gonna graduate from opinion-based, fuzzy science and move on to what the big boys read, like Science or Nature? Or how about NASA's website? You can open a new tab to keep a dictionary handy for all them big words.

And when reality catches up with you please don't commit suicide. It isn't getting warmer, the weather hasn't changed and your religion is a false one.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

For my lifetime, we've had the same fluctuating weather pattern/climate.

It hasn't changed one damn bit.

Most people forget what the weather was like 10 years ago, so it's easy to fool them into believing it's worse and/or better for that matter......

[one...two...tree 2,762]

And when reality catches up with you please don't commit suicide. It isn't getting warmer, the weather hasn't changed and your religion is a false one.

Which reality is that? That all them scientists are plotting to take away your muscle car and make you start wearing bicycle shorts to work? Take off that tinfoil hat, you'll get a clearer signal.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Which reality is that? That all them scientists are plotting to take away your muscle car and make you start wearing bicycle shorts to work? Take off that tinfoil hat, you'll get a clearer signal.

Your tinfoil hat seems to be over your eyes. Look around! As much as you want doomsday to come it isn't. The planet isn't getting warmer, weather hasn't changed and your religion is false. I know you don't want to admit it but you have been led down the garden path. Some day you will wake up, for your sake I hope it is soon.

[Gary and Alla 3,694]

Your tinfoil hat seems to be over your eyes. Look around! As much as you want doomsday to come it isn't. The planet isn't getting warmer, weather hasn't changed and your religion is false. I know you don't want to admit it but you have been led down the garden path. Some day you will wake up, for your sake I hope it is soon.

But for our sake I want to watch him flop around a little longer.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Look around! As much as you want doomsday to come it isn't.

Sure, Johnny. Personal observation of natural phenomena is way more scientific than listening to a bunch of nerd scientists who snicker behind our backs for trying to pull a fast one on us all.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Sure, Johnny. Personal observation of natural phenomena is way more scientific than listening to a bunch of nerd scientists who snicker behind our backs for trying to pull a fast one on us all.

while a scientific theory might do well in showing how it got to that theory, it's no more than simple observations in itself as well. Even then those observations are skewed by those who are searching for something to be a certain way.

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Sure, Johnny. Personal observation of natural phenomena is way more scientific than listening to a bunch of nerd scientists who snicker behind our backs for trying to pull a fast one on us all.

Man are you in for a let down. I want to be there the day you realize just how fooled you have been.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

from NASA's website:

Global climate change has already had observable effects on the environment. Glaciers have shrunk, ice on rivers and lakes is breaking up earlier, plant and animal ranges have shifted and trees are flowering sooner.

Effects that scientists had predicted in the past would result from global climate change are now occuring: loss of sea ice, accelerated sea level rise and longer, more intense heat waves.

Scientists have high confidence that global temperatures will continue to rise for decades to come, largely due to greenhouse gasses produced by human activities. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which includes more than 1,300 scientists from the United States and other countries, forecasts a temperature rise of 2.5 to 10 degrees Fahrenheit over the next century.

According to the IPCC, the extent of climate change effects on individual regions will vary over time and with the ability of different societal and environmental systems to mitigate or adapt to change.

The IPCC predicts that increases in global mean temperature of less than 1.8 to 5.4 degrees Fahrenheit (1 to 3 degrees Celsius) above 1990 levels will produce beneficial impacts in some regions and harmful ones in others. Net annual costs will increase over time as global temperatures increase.

"Taken as a whole," the IPCC states, "the range of published evidence indicates that the net damage costs of climate change are likely to be significant and to increase over time." ¹

Below are some of the regional impacts of global change forecast by the IPCC:

• North America: Decreasing snowpack in the western mountains; 5-20 percent increase in yields of rain-fed agriculture in some regions; increased frequency, intensity and duration of heat waves in cities that currently experience them.²

• Latin America: Gradual replacement of tropical forest by savannah in eastern Amazonia; risk of significant biodiversity loss through species extinction in many tropical areas; significant changes in water availability for human consumption, agriculture and energy generation.³

• Europe: Increased risk of inland flash floods; more frequent coastal flooding and increased erosion from storms and sea level rise; glacial retreat in mountainous areas; reduced snow cover and winter tourism; extensive species losses; reductions of crop productivity in southern Europe.⁴

• Africa: By 2020, between 75 and 250 million people are projected to be exposed to increased water stress; yields from rain-fed agriculture could be reduced by up to 50 percent in some regions by 2020; agricultural production, including access to food, may be severely compromised.⁵

• Asia: Freshwater availability projected to decrease in Central, South, East and Southeast Asia by the 2050s; coastal areas will be at risk due to increased flooding; death rate from disease associated with floods and droughts expected to rise in some regions.⁶

...................

Gases that contribute to the greenhouse effect include:

• Water vapor. The most abundant greenhouse gas, but importantly, it acts as a feedback to the climate. Water vapor increases as the Earth's atmosphere warms, but so does the possibility of clouds and precipitation, making these some of the most important feedback mechanisms to the greenhouse effect.

• Carbon dioxide (CO₂). A minor but very important component of the atmosphere, carbon dioxide is released through natural processes such as respiration and volcano eruptions and through human activities such as deforestation, land use changes, and burning fossil fuels. Humans have increased atmospheric CO₂ concentration by a third since the Industrial Revolution began. This is the most important long-lived "forcing" of climate change.

• Methane. A hydrocarbon gas produced both through natural sources and human activities, including the decomposition of wastes in landfills, agriculture, and especially rice cultivation, as well as ruminant digestion and manure management associated with domestic livestock. On a molecule-for-molecule basis, methane is a far more active greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide, but also one which is much less abundant in the atmosphere.

• Nitrous oxide. A powerful greenhouse gas produced by soil cultivation practices, especially the use of commercial and organic fertilizers, fossil fuel combustion, nitric acid production, and biomass burning.

• Chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs). Synthetic compounds of entirely of industrial origin used in a number of applications, but now largely regulated in production and release to the atmosphere by international agreement for their ability to contribute to destruction of the ozone layer. They are also greenhouse gases .

On Earth, human activities are changing the natural greenhouse. Over the last century the burning of fossil fuels like coal and oil has increased the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO₂). This happens because the coal or oil burning process combines carbon with oxygen in the air to make CO₂. To a lesser extent, the clearing of land for agriculture, industry, and other human activities have increased concentrations of greenhouse gases.

The consequences of changing the natural atmospheric greenhouse are difficult to predict, but certain effects seem likely:

• On average, Earth will become warmer. Some regions may welcome warmer temperatures, but others may not.

• Warmer conditions will probably lead to more evaporation and precipitation overall, but individual regions will vary, some becoming wetter and others dryer.

• A stronger greenhouse effect will warm the oceans and partially melt glaciers and other ice, increasing sea level. Ocean water also will expand if it warms, contributing further to sea level rise.

• Meanwhile, some crops and other plants may respond favorably to increased atmospheric CO₂, growing more vigorously and using water more efficiently. At the same time, higher temperatures and shifting climate patterns may change the areas where crops grow best and affect the makeup of natural plant communities.

The role of human activity

In its recently released Fourth Assessment Report, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a group of 1,300 independent scientific experts from countries all over the world under the auspices of the United Nations, concluded there's a more than 90 percent probability that human activities over the past 250 years have warmed our planet.

The industrial activities that our modern civilization depends upon have raised atmospheric carbon dioxide levels from 280 parts per million to 379 parts per million in the last 150 years. The panel also concluded there's a better than 90 percent probability that human-produced greenhouse gases such as carbon dioxide, methane and nitrous oxide have caused much of the observed increase in Earth's temperatures over the past 50 years.

http://climate.nasa.gov/causes/

[Pooky 3,825]

From the Royal Meteorological Society ...

Abstract from The Twentieth Century Reanalysis Project

[JohnSmith2007 353]

Yeah, right. To bad it isn't getting warmer. Every prediction, every one of them, has not come to pass. They are batting 0000. You will get it sooner or later. For now I am content with the fact that the EPA is about to have their ability to regulate CO2 taken away from them. At that point you can scream all you want.