One difficulty with the attribution to man-induced gases is that solar output did increase over the last few decades. Also, the warming is in the lowest 10% of the projections. This doesn't mean that the projections are wrong, just that the vast majority may be over predicting the coming warming.
A further note, there is a lot of noise about a coming solar minimum.
Re: the "pause." Much is made by skeptics that there has been a pause in the temperature rise. This suggests that the model are wrong. On the other hand, perhaps, this should have been a period where temperatures fell, but they did not because of higher greenhouse gas concentrations. Hard to tell.
No scientific data measuring earth's temperature disputes the planet is warming. NASA measurements of the Sun shows no increases in radiation. In fact it is slightly decreasing. No substantial emissions of CO2 or methane from the earth-earthquakes, shifting plate tectonics. Mountains of data confirming human caused CO2, methane and nitric acid.
Houston! we have a problem.
One of several actual answers (none of which did I see here): oceans are getting warmer, just a few degress mind you, but enough to put more moisture into the air, which results in more extreme weather. Hotter warm weather and colder cold weather. More, and more violent, hurricanes. More, and longer lasting, droughts. We've all observed that, even the deniers.
You didn't answer the question. Why? For example: What is changing in the upper atmosphere? And why are air currents changing and with it weather patterns and, ultimately, climate?
We must remove Trump. He is threatening life on earth.
1
I have read with interest many articles about Climate Change. Many learned people have weighed in, expensive research has been done, historical statistics have been compared and analyzed. Its clear to me that the Earth is warming and its also clear that there is nothing we can do to stop it. I'll grant you that if we go back to the Horse and Buggy Days everywhere on this planet we may be able to mitigate this Gigantic Snowball rolling down the hill and getting bigger and bigger. (perhaps not the best analogy)
China, Japan and East Asia countries to name a few are rapidly expanding the building of Fossil Fuel Plants and transportation. The Paris Accord is a feel good measure that will accomplish nothing except satisfy Insane Green Sector demands to stop the End of the World from happening.
None of these demands will be met. Air Travel will increase, Fossil Fuel will continue to be the primary and most affordable energy source and Clean Nuclear Energy will not go away despite fears of radiation.
Show me the first country to implement any of these drastic changes and I'll show you a country that ceases to be part of the worlds Economic order. It just is not going to happen.
France tried to implement a very tiny change along these line and look at the results.
AI is a bigger threat than Climate Change. We have about 500 years to get off this planet and I have no doubt it will happen.
We can see the effect of climate change in the coastal Pacific Northwest. Glaciers are shrinking rapidly and not coming back during Cascade winter snowfalls. Glacier calving is far more frequent in Alaska. Places where summers were typically cool have become so hot that people are buying air conditioners and installing heat pumps for climate control. Summer rain was never frequent but now it's becoming rare. Our marine climate is feeling more and more like a Mediterranean climate.
None of this is good for anyone.
Snow cover extent is decreasing (in a certain Nordic nation by 40 percent since 1969). Spring arrives several weeks earlier. Global temperatures are rising. A few cold snaps do not mitigate the catastrophic overall trend. We reap what we sow.
8
It should also be pointed out -- some commenters here have -- that global warming actually increases the frequency of certain types of cold snaps. Not being paid to educate the public, I am apt to tell the clowns who ask the "why is it cold?" question to read the Wikipedia articles on "Jet Streams", "Rossby Waves", and "Polar Vortex"; then they can come back and maybe we'll talk about it.
9
Ice does not move quickly. Ice cold water moves very quickly. When ice melts, the ice-cold water released can move much further south than icebergs ever could.
Thus the ice sheets of the poles, Greenland, and elsewhere serve as a buffer against dramatic climate change. When the ice sheets stop their melting, they will be gone, and upon that time climate change will drive biodiversity and humanity to decline.
We can prevent this happening. We can launch large balloons like Echo 2 was in the 1960's to reflect away from the earth 1.7% of the sun's illumination over icepacks and tropical places where the heat is having greatest effect. Obviously, we must also strive to minimize carbon dioxide emissions and other greenhouse gases, but the orbiting big balloons will save us from rapid onset disaster.
2
Folks need to stop using the term "global warming" and instead use "climate change." Then one has to try to explain the polar vortex and how climate change renders it unsteady, which influences the jet stream (becomes wobbly) and allows cold air south and warm air north.
9
@LawyerTom1
The only thing I would add is that global warming is not the same thing as climate change. The greenhouse effect causes the planet to warm, which causes climate to change.
The answer might be easy for you but how does it compare to weather decades ago? Weren't unusual weather patterns although not the norm happening before climate change? Note I said climate change so I'm not denying it but stating weathered extremes are extremer because might work as a general state but it is to broad for a given weather event. It's like a religious person saying it's God's will. It may be true but scientist has to be more specific.
I like to point out Lake Travis was a few years was almost emptied few years ago. Last year it was overflowing it banks. Hundreds of years ago the region was under a 70 year drought which wasn't due to man's influence. You're asking for us to have faith you're right when you need to prove You're statements. Where's the calculation for a given event?
1
The problem with climate change acceptance lies in the title "global warming." As long as we call it "warming" the specious arguments will continue. It's verbiage not theory that's at issue.
3
When someone says “They used to call it global warming, now they call it climate change”, I try to explain that global warming is the process, climate change is the effect.
Sometimes, it works.
13
My question about climate is why are global temperature measurements from the gold standard of satellites so much cooler than climate models predicted (in percentile running about 5th percentile and should be +/- 1 SD)? And why not recalibrate the climate sensitivity used in models with the last 20 years of empirical data? Always easier to fight a strawman and avoid the tough questions.
2
@Aaron S
Why do you say "the gold standard of satellites"? They measure temperature at particular altitudes, not on the surface. Actually, they measure photons of infrared radiation from greenhouse gas molecules in the atmosphere, and those measurements are processed by software to produce temperatures. The processing is done primarily by two groups in the US, "REMSS" at the University of Washington and "UAH" at the University of Alabama, both of whom use the same raw satellite data. The most recent software revisions from both projects produce temperatures very similar to surface thermometers (carbonbrief.org/explainer-how-surface-and-satellite-temperature-records-compare ). In any case, the former directory of REMSS, Carl Mears, has said he considers the surface temperature record more reliable than the satellite one (remss.com/blog/recent-slowing-rise-global-temperatures/ ).
3
Here is the problem: when it gets very hot, or there are big storms or forest fires, this is evidence of climate change; when it gets extremely cold, record setting cold, coldest ever, it is just weather.
7
@gbc1
That may be a problem for you, but the global community of climate science specialists agrees that extreme winter weather can be partially attributed to climate change: (scientificamerican.com/article/earthtalks-global-warming-harsher-winter/ ). If you don't trust working climate scientists, why would you trust anyone else on the subject?
6
@gbc1 Not really. See comment above. What you suggest as phrasing is not accurate, though I admire the effort.
As average temperatures rise, there's more energy in the atmosphere. Hence more wind, hence more extreme temperature variations.
In more detail, and for those with a physics background, this is an illustration of the second law of thermodynamics: The troposphere is a heat engine that converts the temperature difference between ocean (T_o) and the tropopause (T_p) into the mechanical energy of wind. The Carnot efficiency of this (or any other) heat engine is
1 - T_p/T_o.
Through global warming, T_o increases while T_p remains constant. Hence the heat engine becomes more efficient at making wind, and hence the memorable blasts of arctic air. As mean temperatures increase, temperature fluctuations also increase.
10
The Northern ice cap sits on water, and is already displacing the amount of water that its ice would create by melting. The Northern ice cap melting won't raise sea level. And last I heard, the Southern ice cap, which sits on land, is thickening. So if the seas are rising, their science isn't explaining why.
4
@Jaje Wheeler
There's a lot of ice on Greenland (called "land" for a reason) that could raise sea levels if it melts and flows into the ocean. Also, water expands as it warms, raising sea levels.
@Jaje Wheeler - It is not thickening over the entire Southern Ice cap, only the Eastern - Southern Ice Cap is thickening slightly while the Western - Southern Ice Cap is thinning rapidly and the glaciers are declining in record numbers. The Eastern part of the ice cap is likely thickening a bit due to increased snow amounts, which will happen when air temperature increases, i.e. warmer air holds more moisture. So even the partial thickening that is happening is due to global warming.
There have been many outbreaks of arctic air into the lower 48 United States. However, the outbreaks that have occurred in recent years have not been as widespread or as long-lasting as the ones that used to occur and that could be a result of climate change. In particular, none of the recent outbreaks can hold a candle to the great outbreak of February, 1899. That one lasted about two weeks and affected every state east of the Rocky Mountains. It brought a foot of snow to Houston, Texas and 2.5 feet of snow to Washington, DC. Here in Florida, if brought sub-zero temperatures to Tallahassee (the only sub-zero temperatures every recorded in Florida) and snow as far south as Fort Pierce (which is only about 120 miles north of Miami). Records were set for the coldest temperature ever were set in cities in almost every state east of the Rockies and, most remarkably, a freeze (with crop damage) was reported in Cuba which, on those days, had a United States-operated weather station. There has been nothing like that in recent times.
5
The expansion of the polar vortex is probably due to global warming. It's not just weather -- it's climate. Imagine a freezer with salty stock in it that warms up enough for the stock to melt. It leaks through the rubber seal (the gasket) on the door and now the door opens a bit. Cold air comes out -- not cold enough to keep the stock frozen but a lot colder than the air in the kitchen. So it gets colder near the freezer, for a while, even as the freezer warms up a lot and more things melt and spoil.
That's what's happening to us.
6
Of all things to get paranoid about, the weather seems to be the silliest. Yet, with all the time that media spends on weather one would think that more time could be devoted to explaining to the citizenry such apparent contradictions as global warming and the record-breaking cold we have experienced this year. True, some weather forecasters are just talking heads, but others we are told are actually meteorologists and have the expertise to at least speculate for their audiences about the causes of various weather phenomena.
1
Best way to address this is to let folks know that no matter how much greenhouse gas in the atmosphere, in the winter the north pole gets little to no sun. There is no heat to trap! A large bubble of cold air forms there. The bubble doesn't stay trapped, it slips occasionally (like a bad hair piece) and where it comes we get very cold WEATHER. Even if things get worse with greenhouse gasses, the winter axis tilt will result in cold air.
12
A simple way of explaining this is to show the decreasing number of ski days at resorts in the U.S. and Europe. It doesn't matter how cold or snowy it is on any particular day, it's the total number of days of real winter a year that determines the economic viability of the ski industry. At some point in time it will not make economic sense to open a resort for the number of days of skiing that can be historically predicted. This is a $20 billion industry, that employs about 20,000 people. This is a lot bigger hit to our economy than a 400 job factory in Indiana.
15
Answer: Well, it gets X degrees here in the summer, but that doesn't mean Global Warming will happen this July. Do you think you know why? It's the same question, turned around.
Do you know what the temps are in Australia right now? So, why would that matter?
They cancel us out! The average temp over a year barely changes from year to year.
So, if it all cancels out, why are scientists worried, do you think?
It's because just that tiny change from year to year actually mean a lot, since it's spread out all over the entire world, all day, every day. There's lotta lotta ice, but more keeps melting when it's warm. Less freezes back to ice when it's cold - the hot's hotter! And the cold is hotter, too!!
If the Earth's average temperature rises by only *2 degrees*- that'll melt more & more ice along the way of getting to that 2 degrees. By the time Earth gets there the ocean will flood all the coasts. Some islands will be under water. Some *cities* will be under water!
But that's not all. Hurricanes form partly because of the water temp, and how *strong* a hurricane is depends a lot on the water temp underneath it. So more & stronger hurricanes!! And that's just one thing. Because more water's being evaporated it throws out whole climate out of whack. Everything gets more extreme - the heat waves, the blizzards, the rainstorms. As summer starts a little earlier and a little later, on average, trees dry out sooner and have to wait longer for rain.
etc etc
4
Sadly, it appears humanity is not going to get a handle on climate change anytime soon.
5
".. when the thermostat suddenly hits 70 degrees"
Looks like Google has been fiddling with Nest's algorithms again :-)
Pretty silly when you think about it. Do we ask "why is the beach so much wider?" before the tidal wave comes slamming in?
3
Re: "...For a Climate Reporter, a Dreaded Question: ‘Then Why Is It So Cold?’ ...When temperatures dip, we hear it over and over. Here’s the answer - and why it matters..."
I've decided to decrease my carbon footprint via not reproducing, (vasectomy), and NOT replacing my most current car...stolen in the '90's...
Climate change is NOT merely a matter of dealing with local temperature swings!
It is a matter of changing earth's relatively, stable, (in human terms), long, term weather, 'N, climate...an anomaly, in itself...to chronically, unstable weather, 'N, climate, with the resulting havoc on food production, 'N, political instability, among MANY other issues!
Aka: human-accelerated climate instability is approaching, a potential Hominid_Extinction_Event, although it is STILL possible, to avoid it!
3
The joke I heard is: "If the earth is warming, then why are my feet cold?"
1
Tell people it’s called Global warming and not Midwest winter warming for a reason.
4
Thank you New York Times, for posting something to explain the climate vs weather confusion!!! Could you please confirm whether the polar vortex is breaking more often because of climate change? Based on my knowledge of it breaking twice in the last two years, and my parents telling me they never even heard about the polar vortex, let alone it breaking when they were young, the connection to global warming seems obvious. However, I haven't seen anything on the news to confirm my hypothesis. Either I am looking at the wrong media channels, I am wrong, or scientists in the area just haven't gotten enough evidence to prove it yet.
4
@KaOne of the early model experiments showed that the upper level winds increased in speed when the carbon dioxide was increased in the simulation. If that holds true to the atmosphere, the atmospheric vortex would increase in diameter bringing more arctic air south for a few times in winter. That seems to be happening but there aren't enough occurrences for a solid statistical study. yla
1
This article does nothing to explain the extreme climate shifts and why it is so cold. Misleading headline. What about polar vortex and the weakened jet stream?
1
@Brigid Wit It has been explained in the news on the weather stations and in all the media.
1
@Brigid Wit
One of the early model experiments showed that the upper level winds increased in speed when the carbon dioxide was increased in the simulation. If that holds true to the atmosphere, the atmospheric vortex would increase in diameter bringing more arctic air south for a few times in winter. That seems to be happening but there aren't enough occurrences for a solid statistical study.
1
It's not rocket science!
If one does not comprehend the profound difference between weather and climate, please consult a middle-school science textbook.
If your level of erudition is that of our president, please consult a 5th grade science textbook.
6
you can lead a horse to water but you can't make them drink. Dorothy Parker used that old saw to make a pun with the word 'horticulture' . Reminds me of our Climate change deniers:
You can lead them to the well of science but you can't get them to drink.
4
Journalists should not ask questions they do not try to answer, as in this article, even if it's just by giving clear examples.
3
Dear trump, please read this article so you are just a little less ignorant and dangerous to this planet and the rest of the humanity.
2
Aside from asking how bad we are going to let things get, we need to know now if there is really still time to significantly reduce human-generated greenhouse gas emissions in order to prevent average temps. from rising much more. It seems to me that, unless the US, China and India suddenly decide to take drastic action to reduce their emissions, then it is already too late to stop climate change from moving beyond our ability to influence.
3
People certainly forget how variable is weather.
But there is no evidence that hurricanes, floods, wildfires and drought are getting more intense. That's another example of people (including some climatologists) forgetting how variable is weather. Last year's severe hurricane is no more an effect of climate change (which is real) than last week's cold snap is evidence against it.
They are anecdotes, not data. And there are plenty of anecdotes of severe hurricanes, floods, wildfires and drought in the 19th Century (pre-warming) and before.
5
@Jonathan Katz
One of the early model experiments showed that the upper level winds increased in speed when the carbon dioxide was increased in the simulation. If that holds true to the atmosphere, the atmospheric vortex would increase in diameter bringing more arctic air south for a few times in winter. That seems to be happening but there aren't enough occurrences for a solid statistical study.
One of the early model experiments showed that the upper level winds increased in speed when the carbon dioxide was increased in the simulation. If that holds true to the atmosphere, the atmospheric vortex would increase in diameter bringing more arctic air south for a few times in winter. That seems to be happening but there aren't enough occurrences for a solid statistical study.
1
I read the article and every comment. My initial impulse was to write a brilliant paragraph explaining climate change. After all, I was an Air Force meteorologist for 22 years, and the USAF sent me to NYU for one year and MIT for two years to get a great education in meteorology. I also have degrees in mechanical engineering, aeronautics/astronautics, and computer science and was promoted to colonel 7 years early. I have been a member of the American Meteorological Society for nearly 60 years.
Climatology is weather described in statistical terms. The comments show that the term average aka mean seem well known, but how about mode, median, standard deviation and variance. These terms relate to how variable average values can deviate about the average value. Why are water vapor, CO2, and methane (CH4) greenhouse gasses while oxygen and nitrogen are not? The answer involves quantum physics and the electromagnetic spectrum absorption properties of gases. O2 and N2 not active in the infrared spectrum.
One question I will address. Why do some prominent meteorologists deny climate change? Could it be that they are paid consultants to Big Energy? Read “Physics of Atmospheres” by Sir John Houghton. He was the editor of the first few IPCC reports, and an ardent Christian.
7
Well written, clear and concise explanation of the difference between weather & climate. Unfortunately, this reality will still fall on deaf ears.
2
Climate isn’t weather—unless it’s really hot or California is burning. Then global warming fearmongering is everywhere in the media.
As in every aspect of life, the devil is in the details. And the details of how temperatures around the world in cities, rural areas, functioning democracies and chaotic dictatorships are taken currently as well as how they were taken a hundred years ago matter. And just how and why those temperatures are adjusted and why those adjustments are done differently than in the past matters. Climategate and the way too many of the global warming elite act matters. And the fact that those who question any aspects of global warming will not find positions in universities or certain government agencies (not to mention newspapers with a permanent Climate section), so alternative views are rarely seen. Finally, the Green New Deal makes it clear that many of the global warming proponents are inextricably linked with the socialism now proponents—more reason to be skeptical. If the NYT is really interested in the threat of global warming/climate change, it needs to consider the details with an open mind and share them with its readers.
1
Stories involving long-term predictions are hard to tell. Thanks for trying, Ms. Pierre-Louis. Keep it up.
Forty years ago, writer John McPhee published an article (in the New Yorker) called Los Angeles Against the Mountains. https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/1988/09/26/los-angeles-against-the-mountains-i It's about the inexorable crumbling of the San Gabriel Mountains north of that city, and about the consequent mudslides. It's about peoples' decisions to rebuild below the mountains and in the canyons after mudslides obliterate their houses and roads.
He wrote,
"On the geologic time scale, debris flows in the San Gabriel Mountains can be looked upon as constant. With all due respect, though, the geologic time scale doesn’t mean a whole lot in a place like Los Angeles. ... Mountain time and city time appear to be bifocal. Even with a geology functioning at such remarkably short intervals, the people have ample time to forget it."
It's human nature to remember last week's cold snap, but not remember the flood six years ago. Climate change doesn't happen on a geologic time scale, but it still happens more slowly than the human time scale.
I hope you journalists, and all of us, can work out how to tell these stories of inexorable change.
7
Think of 'climate change' as being the ebb and flow of the tides.
Think of 'weather' as being the individual waves that roll onto a beach. Someone seeing a wave roll onto the beach that reaches a bit higher than the previous wave can declare to someone (think climate scientist here) who says that the tide is receding:
'See, you are wrong, the water is actually coming higher on the beach'.
1
This article doesn't really provide me with a way to answer the president. I would have liked to see a few sentences that give us a few statistics (isn't science supposed to be about hard, statistical facts?). Something which would have said, for example, although we had 16 days last winter of below-freezing temperature, in 1876 we had 25 days.....or something like, although we had 16 days last winter of below freezing temperature, our average daily temperature between October 1 and April 30 was 42 degrees, whereas in 1904 (or 1932, or whatever) it was 36 degrees (or whatever)... this vague terminology of "Climate" vs."weather" doesn't really carry enough punch....
6
More than international efforts, I believe that each country should preserve its own forests and animals. Limit human growth and migration. Animals in Brazil, India and Africa to be given protected status. Tigers, wolves and lions need to have their space and territory. Humans are the encroachers. Ever notice where there are trees, the temperature is cooler. More forests. Act locally.
4
Concurring that climate is, roughly averages of weather....
My take (in N.Y.S.) is that while there is a warming trend, the weather events have become somewhat noisier. My fear is that we are starting to witness the breakdown of what had been a rather wondrous, large scale air conditioning mechanism which used Earth's tilted rotational axis, and a viscous atmosphere and ocean, to moderate temperatures worldwide.
4
@Tom Mcinerney Yes. That describes the polar vortex a few weeks ago that visited the Midwest after the jet stream became erratic and created a huge wave into the lower attitudes.
2
Climate change, with extreme swings in bigger and badder snow storms, tornados, hurricanes, flooding, freezes, heat waves, droughts, resulting in dying off of coral in the ocean because it's becoming more acidic and therefore threatening the very ecosystem of the oceans, melting of the Antartica. Causing damage to our crops, you know the food we need to grow to feed ourselves, and the livestock that needs to eat that stuff so we can eat them. Raising the cost of everything because of the rising cost of electricity that runs everything. All very, very scary stuff. It's not just the temperature of the planet getting higher, which it is by the way. This is what the newspapers need to keep pounding out and explaining in simple words to all the climate change deniers (are you listening GOP? White House? Fox News?).
2
Another fact that may be less known, is that the amount of water vapor that a parcel of air can hold is dependent on its temperature. Warm air can hold more water in vapor form than cold air. If you take a cold can out of the refrigerator, the can will lower the temperature of the nearby air below the dew point, and moisture will form on the can, unless you live in a very arid region. The condensation of water vapor releases a large amount of energy, which can result in stronger storms. I am not saying that taking a cold can out of the fridge causes storms. I mention the can only to show that warm air can hold more water vapor. Next subject: adiabatic cooling. When warm air rises, it expands because air pressure decreases wth with increasing altitude. Expanding air cools. This is the most important cause of precipitation. Really, these are all things that people should learn in high school. Weather affects everything.
5
well the problem with this rather arrogant piece of journalism is that the climate scientists and reporters try to do the same thing when the weather suits their theoretical bent. Thus a year ago we had several major atlantic hurricanes (after having no major hurricanes hit the US for 12 years) and the hurricane activity was blamed in part on climate change -- they were more intense they said. Here in this paper. Unfortunately, the historic record showed that 2017 was not a particularly unusual year for hurricanes. And then we try to blame black bear hibernation shortening on warming, heavy rain storms, the polar vortex, wildfires. Anytime an extreme weather event occurs out come the climate reporters and scientists trying to link this "unusual" activity to climate change. BUT -- the evidence is at best shaky.
And the fundamental problem is how shaky the actual temperature record is. Declarations like -- 4th warmest year on record -- are meaningless when much of the earth does not have a continuous history record since 1880, but the temps have been estimated and adjusted. In short, the temp record is nothing more than hot air -- with makes me rather tepid on global warming.
2
@Ralphie
So, the peer-reviewed publications of thousands of climate scientists around the world, documenting the causes and effects of anthropogenic global warming in detail, are all made up to support their theoretical bent? If that's the best you can do, you're not helping the denialist cause much.
3
Excellent article. I'm glad that reporters are using the term "Climate Change" rather than "Global Warming", even if the change has been towards warmer temperatures. Few people can argue that things in nature change over time. Warming refers to change in a particular direction and the concept is immediately vulnerable were the globe tend to cool for a couple of years.
Two challenges remain to convince skeptics. How much of the change is due to human activity?
And how do you convince a population which largely lives paycheck-to-paycheck (and therefore in the moment) to look at longer time spans?
"Overall, New York state’s temperatures on average are about 2.4 degrees higher since 1970." Somehow, most people can't relate to a 50-year window - and are unable to grasp that 2.4 degrees is significant. Especially when discussing average temperatures.
2
One writer said to label this "climate instability" .
That would help- because people like Trump distort the science. Sorry I cant remember who said it, but it makes a lot of sense because floods, fires, mudslides, huge snowstorms, etc are things people have experienced due to disturbing natural systems.
3
My thoughts exactly. The term, "weather instability" leaves the three extreme deniers I talk to, regularly, looking like moose in the headlights. Stunned. Jaws dropped. Also, while I appreciate everyone's well thought out comments, reporters don't have space to explain the scientific underpinnings, especially when climate change has become such a strong trigger for people opposing it to...well, oppose it. I choose to use, "weather," not, "climate," bcs even just "climate" has become such a trigger word.
4
There was a young midwestern farmer going around the terminology to educate other farmers who could not hear the words “climate change” without turning an agricultural issue into a political one.
@cathy
Good proposal.... All that said - with "climate change" the stock denier response is "but the climate has always changed". With "climate/weather instability" the response will be "but the weather/climate has always been unstable". And then they'll say "see how it's changed from 'global warming' to 'climate change' to 'climate instability'" while at the same point giving a sage raising of the eyebrow.
1
I think the best way to talk about global warming is to talk about climate over a time period as a series of temperatures. The series forms a distribution. The mean temperature of that distribution is rising. There will always be temperatures much less than the mean but more and more temperatures greater than the mean-- a mathematical fact.
@PeterE
The world would be a so much better place if people thought in terms of means and distributions.
But they don't.
Many people, after all, retreat from trying to understand such "complexities" to examining whether they trust the speaker. If they trust a climate denier more than they trust you, you can forget convincing them with mathematical modeling of empirical phenomena.
1
@PeterE No. The mean is rising, but there may not be more and more temperatures greater than the mean.
For example: Suppose all temperatures rise by 1 degree. The mean rises by 1 degree. But the number of temperatures greater than that (rising) mean doesn't change.
How the actual distribution changes is not known. It may simply move upward, keeping the same distribution about its (rising) mean, but that is not necessarily true.
Explaining the complicated science of climate change can help people understand it. But it seems to me that the biggest barrier to understanding isn't that it's complicated. The biggest barrier is that many of our leaders tell us not to listen. I think a big step to create understanding is to explain to people why that is happening.
7
I have read several answers to questions about the relationship between climate change and global warming, only to find the issue more muddied. I find it simple enough to put on a bumper sticker - global warming causes climate change.
1
@David Minch Warming is part of (one manifestation of) climate change. It doesn't "cause" it. Greenhouse gases cause it.
Good attempt to try and create some understanding among the vast majority who know little about science.
And of course many only believe what they already believe, so taking in something that contradicts that is often next to impossible. As we know, tump calls climate change a hoax.
Another way of answering is: weather is the momentary state of the atmosphere. It's what you see when you look out the window.
And yes, it can be extremely cold on any given day especially in winter (in part a result of a weakening polar jetstream), even though the long term trend is that the average T of the entire planet is gradually rising over the decades.
As the author says the climate is the long term behavior of the atmosphere. Or said another way, it is the sum total of all momentary states over at least 3 decades or longer (measured regionally as well as over the entire planet).
Climate is described by statistical measures of temp, precipitation, pressure, humidity, wind and so forth made over those decades.
And besides averages of those components of climate, it includes the statistics and frequency of extreme weather events, and thus indicates how those may be changing with time.
It's always amazing to me after 7 decades on the planet how those with no training in science seem to believe they have expertise. Ignorance does not = expertise.
Thanks for trying to raise awareness, though. All you can do is try.
9
There is a big difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE. Weather is what happens every single day and varies from season to season. Climate is what weather tends to be like over long periods of time, such as over the span of years, decades or even centuries.
As a Master Gardener, for example, I have seen CLIMATE CHANGE push the plant hardiness zone in my area from Zone 6 to Zone 7, and this is within my own lifetime. It is clearly WARMER here, with the "last frost dates" moving from May to April in the Spring and from September to October in the Fall. I am also seeing bugs and birds here that belong to more southerly climes. Parts of Pennsylvania have changed from a "New England" type of climate to a "Virginia" type of climate, with hotter, wetter summers and wetter nearly snowless winters.
If I, as just a layman, can notice the change in prevailing climate, then why can't other people? I guess it is because most people do not garden or farm and have no real interest in CLIMATE because it does not immediately affect them as much as the local weather does. This is why people keep saying that there is no climate change--they don't know the difference between climate and weather.
11
@Elizabeth Moore Excellent reply. Most older farmers have the same perspective as an older Master Gardener, but I have some farmer friends who no longer believe what they told me 10-15 years ago because the issue has become political for them. They know that their planting is getting earlier and harvests can go later and dairy farmers are moving out of the Carolina's into S. Michigan, but now climate change is a Liberal thing. The Grandchildren and Great-Grandchildren will have to sort this out.
3
I loved this piece by Kendra, but too bad she didn't offer an explanation of the fact that all the record cold in the mid-latitudes is symptomatic, not ironic in the face of climate change. A frigid polar air mass, spinning with the Earth's rotation, acts like a tennis ball on the end of a string. Centrifugal force drives it as far as possible away from the center of rotation, and that's towards the equator. Since cold air is heavier than warm air, the hotter the air gets in the mid-latitudes and tropics, the easier it becomes for the polar air to push the warm air out of the way and take its place. The warm air can't leave the Earth and has no option to replacing the polar air at the poles. In this admittedly simplified (but accurate) description, the Earth is like a very large room with the ceiling at the poles and the floor at the equator. Everyone knows that hot air "goes up" and cold air "goes down."
11
@J. Sterling Crandall These cold days weren't all-time records. In the '80's in St. Louis we once reached -12 F; the coldest this winter was about -4 F. There really wasn't anything that needed explanation, and this winter's cold snap, though unusual, didn't differ in essence from cold snaps that have occurred as long as we have had records.
The problem with the explanation here is that the arctic has warmed more than temperate regions. So the temperature difference that this writer thinks drove the polar outbreak is less than is was before warming.
2
3 questions to the confused:
1 - How is the weather?
2 - How is the climate?
3 - See the difference?
Great article but come on, do you really think our planet, with its complex weather patterns, ocean currents and plate tectonics is that simple...that everything warms uniformly? Earth is not a glass of water heating up in a microwave oven. People should take time and read and increase their knowledge a little bit. Scientists know much more about nature than those who ask the "Dreaded Question."
2
@a goldstein It's not uniform in a microwave oven either. The middle of your glass of water may be superheated (watch out---it can boil over suddenly, a standard classroom demonstration) while the outside is below the boiling point.
1
I love that this question is being raised. Everyday questions like these should have crystal clear answers. Then everyone who read it, can easily repeat it to those that didn’t.
Unfortunately, the article seems too wordy, argumentation is scattered, and the answer not clearly formulated.
Better luck next time?
3
@Mark
No answer to the question "why is it so cold?" can be crystal clear, if the audience doesn't understand that weather and climate are complex phenomena with multiple layers of causation. Even a high-school physics course would help, but how many Americans have not only taken such a course but remember what they learned?
Kendra. Thank you for your work trying to educate the public.
As best I can tell, two key reasons behind climate-change denial are Christianity and conservative political ideology.
Many Christians believe the Bible gave homo sapiens dominion over the all the plants and animals, rocks and minerals. For such people, if there is a resource like oil or coal, God has essentially commanded us to use for our benefit. God would not have put oil in the ground if extracting it and using it were a bad thing.
No amount of talking about local and global averages and trends will convince them otherwise. They may or may not agree that the data is valid. But even if they acknowledge the data, they will only infer that God's plan must be good.
For those with a political conservative ideology, the catch is that if you admit to global warming, you have to admit that the perfection of the market is not taking into account massive externalized costs. And you subsequently have to admit that a collective entity such and the government must add laws and regulations to make a decent fraction of the externalized cost explicit in the political economy. But collective action is anathema to people with an outsized belief in "free" markets. Since they must reject the conclusion, they also have to reject the antecedent. Better to close your eyes, stick your fingers in your ears, and sing "la la la la", than admit that markets alone are the only mechanism for distributing resources.
25
@NA Expat, as an add-on to your point. Climate change has been made into a political topic, which means for a conservative to even deign acknowledging the validity of climate change they must agree with a "liberal" issue which is just not going to happen.
2
We have learned from history that whenever a big volcano erupted its ashes covered the sky and give cold temperature on the ground.
Perhaps this phenomena could give an insight to deal with our present events.
It's amazing to me that we have thousands of scientists that say global warming is a hoax and we see story after story of global warming scientists getting caught faking data.
In my life I've seen cycles of warming and cooling. It was just a few years ago that the Great Lakes were almost entirely frozen. Why isn't New York or Florida under water? Isn't that what Al Gore predicted. What caused the last "Ice Age" to end? Man made global warming? And historically speaking it wasn't that long ago that we had a mini ice age which we're still coming out of.
In short, global warming seems to be a attack on Freedom by a political class that thinks we should all sacrifice while they live like kings.
4
@Chriswyse
Not everything you see on the Internet is true. How do you know those "thousands of scientists who say global warming are a hoax" are actually qualified to say that, if they even exist? How do you know the people who propagate "story after story of global warming scientists getting caught faking data" aren't trying to fool you? Given that annual revenues to the fossil fuel industry are in the $100s of billions (see, for example, abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=5503955 ), shouldn't you be more skeptical?
Of all the ways humanity has invented to explain and predict the universe, only science is more successful than divination with a sheep's liver. It takes hard training and stern discipline to discern truth from comforting illusion. Science relies on empirical observation and intersubjective verification, as a way of trying not to be fooled. The global peer community of working climate science specialists are genuine experts, and they've formed an overwhelming consensus that the globe is warming and humans are the cause. If you don't trust them, why would you trust anyone else?
6
Interesting. WE MASTER GARDENERS have been paying attention to CLIMATE for years. Weather, especially daily weather, is important, but it is not the main thing. With Gardeners and Farmers, CLIMATE matters. It is climate that tells us the first and last frost dates, when to begin planting and end planting. It is climate that tells us when crops are done producing and when they begin to produce. We watch the skies and the Almanacs like a hawk. This is the essential difference beween US and most people.
In my part of PA, we have gone from being planting zone 6 in 1990 to planting zone 7. That means that our climate has changed from a New England type-climate to a Virginia/North Carolina style climate. This means a lot to farmers and gardeners.
I am seeing BUGS that do not belong here and BIRDS that do not belong here. Summers are hot and extremely wet now, to the point that fruits and veggies native to this area are rotting before harvest. Most people in the US eat IMPORTED veggies from South and Central America, so they do not see the changes based on their supermarket shopping. But it is just a matter of short time until all of them as also "Trapped".
18
I hope this doesn't sound cheeky, because that's not how I want to come across; why did you use "dreaded question" in your title? I am just wondering why, not trying to criticize (plus my English teacher is trying to teach us to question why authors choose the diction they do). Won't a climate scientist know that the cold is just weather, not something that can disprove climate change, and therefore not dread the question? What about the possiblity readers would think you were saying the cold does disprove it, as I wondered when I saw the article?
Thanks!
5
@Anonymous
She answers quite clearly why the question is "dreaded":
"It’s a question that frustrates a lot of climate scientists and climate reporters, both because the answer is obvious to us, and because some of the people asking the question seem to be using it as part of an effort to sow misinformation about climate change. "
2
If it's as obvious as the sun's absence during the nighttime sky, why does the mainstream press get so defensive about "the dreaded question" when it is asked? It sounds like someone having their belief system questioned! Silly me, I thought it was all about science!
1
@David Godinez I dread the "why so cold" question in conversation because I haven't figured out how to answer it without suppressing an eye-roll. Some suggestions here, like "unstable weather patterns and worse storms" are helpful.
Behavioral economists have identified the "availability bias" and the "confirmation bias." Conversations which try to challenge those biases are difficult. "It was very cold last week" plays into the availability bias for everybody, where "remember superstorm Sandy?" doesn't. And "climate change is a real thing" challenges confirmation bias for many.
It's easy for scientifically trained people to ignore those biases in conversation. But when we do that, we often come across as arrogant, and the conversations are counterproductive.
2
@David Godinez
As Ms. Pierre-Louis explained, having her belief system questioned isn't what she dreads. It's trying to explain the complex mechanisms of anthropogenic climate in a way that's easy to understand and won't be misinterpreted. It *is* about science: as every scientist knows, explanations should be as simple as possible, but no simpler!
2
Pierre-Louis suggests that global warming skeptics are quick to deny climate change, when the weather turns cold. Yet global warming enthusiasts are quick to yell ‘climate change,’ when we have a summertime heat wave.
3
When the Polar Vortex is down here it's not up at the pole, so it's colder down here but warmer up there. It's just a redistribution of the cold air and has no impact on the earth's average temperature. Instabilities in the Polar Vortex are caused by the fact that the Artic is warming faster than the lower latitudes, so this is a predicted effect of climate change.
7
Great article -- more like this, please; and explain these extreme events wrt jet stream meandering and polar vortex splitting. We can also look to large scale changes in the ice sheets, sea ice, alpine glaciers, and the corals to inform on the rapidly changing state of our home planet.
1