When temperatures go up, it's evidence of climate change. When temperatures go down, it's evidence of climate change. Climate change zealots always win.
2
Something is causing all the ice in the Arctic Ocean to melt. Something is making the Northeast wetter and colder while the Southwest gets warmer and drier. Something is causing the ocean to rise. Hard to deny. Unless you are a fossil fuels billionaire or the propagandists who work for one, of course.
10
Well enjoy that frozen air. Things will be different when there is no more ice to melt...it won't just be polar bears and penguins who will be starving....
3
The lord on high could come down to earth and tell climate change deniers that it's real, and they would still point to ice cubes in their freezer as proof that it isn't.
7
The irony here is if the middle latitudes have colder winters and hotter summers, the energy needs for heating and cooling will both increase. So if we don't cut our fossil fuel use, our fossil fuel needs may double.
2
Reading these comments, I still do not understand who precisely are these so called "Climate change zealots" that are being "enriched"? Several posts on this thread have repeatedly claimed that climate change is somehow a gimmick or fraud, promulgated by scientists for ulterior motives. Last time I checked, the multinational petrochemical firms that produce the energy and chemical products that our industrialized economies consume and depend on to support our life styles (and concurrently generate the excess CO2 which exacerbates global warming) are the ones who are being enriched. Ironically, our lifestyle is the product of exemplary R&D conducted by scientists / engineers, and yet when the same scientists/engineers now identify the link between CO2 and climate change and identify the long term dangers to us all, they are castigated. Why do you people feel so threatened? Even Exxon Mobile recognized this causal link back in the 1980s! See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5125622/
11
First the Climate wasn't warming that way they predicted so they changed it from Global Warming to Climate Change, now they are freezing so they're blaming it on the supposed warming as well. Next when we all have to hack our way out of a ice berg, what will be the excuse? Excessive CO2 causes ice bergs to form?
5
I don't believe you read or understood the article. The article offers a possible explanation that might link the warming of the Arctic (which the data shows that it is in fact certainly warming) to the recent cold spell on the East Coast. It did not offer it as a certain explanation. While scientists are carefully considering possibilities, you appear to have already decided what this all means on your own. If we only had your intelligence and insight.
2
Gasping for straws after Global Warming turned out to be a hoax. Yes, it's complex. But throwing politics into the mix, doesn't solve or explain the complexity. Best answer is: We don't know. All we know is that climate is cyclical.
5
What I think will be interesting to see and which is very likely is when the weather starts to affect the crops and industries of certain areas. For instance, the orange groves of the south. If winters do deepen and hard freezes go further south that will damage the citrus crops and drive up prices. Global warming is happening very slowly (relative to our attention span) but it will cause greater swings in intensity and duration of various weather related events. These will undoubtedly cause issues with crops, animals, insects, and so on. What will be the interesting part is how humans will deny it in the face of real events. How long will we keep hitting ourselves in the face with a hammer before we decide it's not a good idea? I expect the collective set of us will always enjoy a hammer in the face.
3
I am tired of hearing that climate change is to blame for everything. If it's hot it's attributed to climate change. Unusually cold? Climate change. Rain, snow draught? Climate change! It ridiculous. Not to mention that certain people are making tons of money off "climate change".
11
Please, for the sake of your children, crack a book or two on science, or at least read Scientific American or National Geographic. Further, Rush Hudson Limbaugh III is a college dropout, not a climatologist.
7
Start getting used to it. And stop complaining about what you don't want - or lack the ability - to understand.
6
Um no, lots of people are losing money off of climate change, Houston, Florida, Puerto Rico, California, ...
Whether you like it or not climate is complex. Global Warming will cause more rain in some places and less in others. It may also cause temporary colder weather in certain places (as this article suggests). If you don't want to make the effort to understand, you might at least trust the experts.
There is no such thing as weather. The weatherman is displaced by the climate change person. One can no longer say you never know what the weather will bring you. Now we know it’s just all climate change. So there is no longer weather whether you like it or not.
2
Sorry but this is just that climate affects the weather. California's climate is such that we never have to worry about snow (except in the mountains), Wisconsin's climate means that you get rainy weather in Summer that we don't. There's still weather, but it's within the parameters of the climate.
Scientists can't predict every Harvey that comes along, but they can, and have, predicted that we'll have more of them due to Global Warming. Yes, this is somewhat complex stuff, but if you don't want to try to wrap your head around it, how about just trusting the scientists.
I have to admit that I truly regret that the NYT is often so slow in publishing comments in its comment section.
The only way to obtain a thriving democracy, is to obtain well-informed citizens, and you can only obtain well-informed citizens if you enhance rational debate between citizens.
Many false arguments are being repeated below, and many people clearly believe those arguments to be true, so the only way to get more informed citizens is to be able to have real, respectful debates.
If it takes hours before a reply to a comment is published, many people posting comments will already have moved on to other articles, so they will never read the arguments refuting their own, false opinions - let alone reply to those arguments.
And as often tens of new comments are published simultaneously, many of them aren't even read by others in the first place ... .
Climate change is too important and way too dangerous for a high-quality international newspaper such as the Times to limit its intervention to high-quality articles like this one alone. People also urgently need the technological tools to have real debates about what is written in those articles. If not, fake news will continue to wield enormous power over what happens in this country and as a consequence, on this planet ... !
9
I suggest you take a look at comments in the Washington Post. They don't adjudicate comments unless a post is rank racist or putrid sexist, and then it is done by machine. The number of stone cold muddle heads who can immediately post any kind of drivel - and counter debate drivel- is astounding. Not worth reading
The NYT is not a debating club and the Times does have "Picks."
Pick your poison.
5
I have seen some pretty nasty arguments on comment boards. I think the care the Times takes helps keep the comments more thoughtful. Remember on any climate related story, there are a lot of paid trolls, too. Who is the wealthiest fossil fuel baron on Earth? Vladimir Putin.
The weather although cold was nothing unusual. Cold weather happens every so many years and has been going on for centuries. What has changed is the reporting. Minnesota will have a high of +40° and everyone will claim it's climate change.
4
This picture does not look to me to be the brink of Niagara Falls? I can't remember any wooded sections near the brink of the falls. Instead, if I might guess) this image bears a likeness to Letchworth falls. Of is it some other falls in Upstate New York?
Nope. It looks like the section called the Bridal Veil Falls, and the picture was taken from the Canadian side at Niagara falls, ON.
3
Plots of ice in the Arctic make the problem more, uhh, graphic and obvious:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The Arctic is melting rapidly. The cold air that should be up there, keeping it frozen, instead slides down here from time to time. The longer we keep our heads buried in the - very temporary - snow drifts, the worse the problem will be later in this Century.
6
It was predicted 10+ years ago that the jet stream would dip. Why is this news?
3
Are scientists disregarding the laws of "thermodynamics" in attempt to explain the past few weeks of cold temperature in the Northeast due to climate change?
Perhaps when it comes to "Climate Change" the zealot scientists choose to disregard the 2nd law of thermodynamics. The consequence of Entropy is not their friend?
Huh? Do either of you really believe that you know more physics than climate scientists? Would you like to engage one in a debate? How long do you think you would last?
1
A common red herring in these conversations goes like this “If scientists cannot even predict whether it is going to rain in a week, how can they predict global warming?” This is used as a convenient way to escape unpleasant truths. But the fact is that climate scientists understand very well by the weather cannot be predicted with more than a couple of weeks accuracy. And the math tells us that, because the way chaotic systems behave, we cannot improve in our predictions. But we can still make pretty accurate long term predictions. I can predict that one hundred years from now the average temperature in January in NY will be lower than in July.
There are many scenarios, under global warning, that portend much closer winters for some places. For example, a slowing of the gulf current would bring MUCH colder winters for Europe. Uncertainty about whether this is going to happen is no cause to rest easy. On the contrary, hedging is needed precisely because of uncertainty. What is inescapable is that the pumping of energy into the system because of greenhouse gases is going to bring change. Get ready for it. BTW, it was 117F in Southern Australia this week, breaking all records.
3
do you see the contradictory qualities of your comment?
1
So, this cold and storm went up the coast certainly wasn't fun, but also wasn't anything out of the ordinary. This seems like a stretch to attach global warming to this....
2
It was so far "out of the ordinary" that it had a special name - "BOMB CYCLONE". Sounds "out of the ordinary" to me.
3
Surprisingly, both sides of this debate have completely failed to appreciate the difference between weather and climate.
3
Sorry Miguel, you're just choosing the single definition of "climate" that suits "climate change" ideology. The Websters definition for climate allows for both long term and short term events. You on the other hand "have failed to appreciate" that some of us can read. Thanks.
1
As it's politicians who created two sides here, and scientists who are now supposed to be on ONE side (with (American only!) conservatives claiming to belong to the other side): what makes you believe that scientists, who INVENTED the difference between the notions of weather and climate in the first place, somehow would "completely fail" to appreciate it ... ?
Any concrete ideas?
3
I really think scientists have no real Idea what is going on or what is happening. Mother Nature does what she wants, we have hot summers, we have cool summers, we have no rain we have too much rain, we have cold and not so cold. Weather isn't linear and historical data is only a guideline not an absolute.
4
When the added CO2 in the atmosphere traps heat that formerly would have been irradiated into space, what happens to the extra heat that is retained? Maybe you might want to think about it.
6
irradiated into space? how are you going convince somebody of what you believe when you don't know what the words you use mean or the scientific concepts that support your theory are called?
2
I have not doubt that mankind's activities have produced changes that would not have occurred if we never existed. But the notion people can predict what the future will hold is akin to claiming one can predict the crop yield in future years.
Weather changes irrespective of what mankind does. And the silly notion that we can "save the planet" is so fallacious it surpasses the Socialist claims that they believe in peoples freedoms.
2
"But the notion people can predict what the future will hold..."....What are the odds that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning? Well duh. Just because scientists don't know everything is not proof that they don't know anything.
1
the sun does not rise. the earth rotates. words are important
4
Excellent article and comments; the comments surely help my understanding.
1
The Climate Zealots counter attack here is that this cold weather climate change EVENT is limited to the US. That is, to put it Kindly, a prevarication. At the moment people in Europe have died and are dying because of a similar Climate Change event. Just another indication of why Climate Change zealots will take a single event and argue en mass that it is meaningless. Science is not settled by virtue of populism, stridency or loud vocal attack. Be happy for the Polar Caps and hapless polar bear(s).
Rosanne Rosanadana - with climate change zealots "IT
3
Add to above: Rosanne Rossanadana - with climate change zealots "IT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING (else)".
Why do the vast majority of climate articles sound as if they were written by Michael Wolff?
The difference between journalism and celebrity gossip should not be comparable to the difference between scientific findings and eye-popping conclusions.
7
It's a little weird that an article first appears in the Times on January 3rd but then shows up on the front page January 8th. So we get to read a forecast of the storm that happened almost a week ago.
Our local paper was taken over by Hearst and 95% of the home page is soft news recycled over and over and over. I get the economics of why it's happening but really sorry to see NY Times let that model leak into its digital publication.
5
Uh ... this article is about a four-decades long study, and somehow you want to claim that if it is published on January 8th rather than 3rd, it's no longer newsworthy and became obsolete ... ?
I suppose you're confounding weather and climate?
This article is about the climate and how it changes, and how those changes might have effected previous weather patterns (and may effect future weather patterns). So it's not a weather forecast at all. It's an article informing us of the fact that during "last fall" a climate science study was published that is important for us to know if we want to know where science stands on the question of any possible causal link between the current, already proven climate change, and extreme weather patterns.
Any serious, high-quality newspaper should write articles like this, and we should thank them for doing so, because without this kind of information, ordinary citizens cannot possibly be well-informed, and a democracy without well-informed citizens cannot possibly thrive ...
1
If E=MC^2 then M=E/C^2 which means everything is energy like the quantum science folks are telling us. That means thoughts are energy and if, like the metaphysical folks are telling us, thoughts create things then a constant focus on global warming helps produce it. I believe it may be true. All of us focused on Donald Trump and look what happened.
3
Hilarious comment. About time there was some humor on the topic. Meanwhile, it unseasonably warm in Vancouver Canada ('Canada' for Americans who don't know there is also a Vancouver, Washington (State)).
If climate scientists cannot even predict the weather for the next day, I don't see how they can be so confident about the cause of global warming.
15
First, it happens that scientists are very good at predicting weather day to day. More important, if you had been paying attention, weather is what changes from day to day, whereas climate change occurs over decades.
7
Good point. I had thought the historic 2008-9 financial crisis educated the general public on our inability to model complex events. Few things are as complex as global climate trends.
Future generations will mock our misguided hubris.
Climate scientists do not predict the weather for the next day.That would be a meteorologist.
1
Tragedy of the commons. Shareholders in fossil fuels are willing to destroy the planet to make money.
8
It was explained to me more simply: Melting ice from the polar regions cools the Gulf Stream, so the weather that had been warmed by it is colder.
4
That's the hypothetical scenario in the "The Day After Tomorrow" movie.
Scientists think that it might have been what triggered massive temperature shifts during the last glacial period, some tens of thousands of years ago (not to be confounded with an ice age, in other words a period where both poles are permanently covered in ice (as is the case today) and which is itself divided in colder periods (glacials) and warmer ones (interglacials): ice ages typically last hundreds of millions of years).
Such huge temperature shifts could arise when the Gulf stream slows down enormously or even completely shuts down, because of a gigantic mass of fresh cool water coming in from the melting Arctic.
As far as I know, however, until now official climate institutes have confirmed that this is NOT happening yet.
Global warming could provoke it though, and if so it would indeed bring colder weather (winter and summer) to Europe and North America, even when on average the global temperatures are higher.
The jet stream (mentioned in this article), on the other hand, is a movement not of sea water but of air (and there are actually 4 of them, 2 per hemisphere). In this case, changes have already been observed and are real. What is more difficult to determine is whether they're causing this or that particular storm or cold, but a less stable jetstream cannot but cause, overall, more extreme weather.
3
Where's Al Gore when we need him?
7
Flying around in his private jet and lecturing us on how bad fossil fuels are for the environment.
2
OK, I give! The climate is changing, and most likely getting warmer.
Now, what would you like me to do about it?
3
first stop eating beef . its easy and good for you. do not use air travel for pleasure. turn the heat down and put on a sweater. like jimmy carter said. walk or ride a bike instead of driving short distances. don't use your car for pleasure. don't use air conditioning. stop expecting politicians to solve this problem.
2
Vote for reality-based politicians, namely, Democrats. Contract with your electricity utility for 100% non-fossil power.
4
Burn less fossil fuel. Waste less food. Have a little bit less stuff. Pretty straightforward, really.
3
Hilarious! When "global warming" and "climate change" can be the causal factor in any and all weather phenomena, there is obviously a fundamental flaw in the so-called hypothesis.
24
Nope, just thoughtful people trying to understand phenomena that they agree aren't fully understood. Science denial is easy, science is hard.
5
Right now, with all weather phenomena, AGW has a contributing causal factor equivalent the average warming in temperature, about 1.4 degrees F (0.8 C) or so. Why would it be otherwise?
Weather is not climate, but the notion that weather and climate have nothing to do with each other is incorrect. Climate is essentially weather computed over a longer time scale.
2
What is it about "extreme" weather events that you don't understand ... ?
2
I think there are as many hypothesis as there are scientists and what seems to bring this entire issue to the forefront is the constant reporting of weather conditions by various news sources as front page news or lead story on the hour by radio stations. They make it seem as if EVERY storm will have catastrophic results. Stop scaring me already.
For as long as I can recall (and I'm well past my prime), there have been extremes in summer as well as in winter. There have been extreme droughts as well as extreme flooding. Since when has nature ever played by the rules on a constant, consistent basis? She's Mother Nature and she's in charge.
Years past, weather extremes were blamed on El Niño or La Niña. New lingo like "polar vortex" and "bomb cyclone" are now being used with regularity. Sometimes I feel like weather stories and reports are "beefed up" and exaggerated primarily for the ratings and for a bigger audience draw.
If we were to experience yearly extreme warmer temps in winter and frost and colder temps in summer, THEN I would begin to wonder and worry what the heck is going on with our environment. Until then (and hopefully it never will), I prepare for the periodic extremes - plenty of food and water (and chocolate) and a generator in case I lose power. The smart money is on being prepared and actually listening to a weather report from time to time. Wondering where the flashlight and batteries are after the lights go out is pretty amateurish.
10
You ask yourself whether, where you're living, previous winters/summers had temperatures that were extremely different from what they are today, and can't recall any such differences. You seem to have good memory, as indeed, studies have shown that in general, there haven't been any extreme temperature differences in the Midwest during the last 25 years.
In that case, why are the media more and more talking about the climate and changes that, according to them, should apparently make us afraid, when they're commenting on the daily weather?
Because they're talking about the link between weather events, and the overall, global climate.
Scientists agree that the average global temperature has been constantly going up for almost 2 centuries now - and going up much faster than EVER before, in the history of our planet.
Such a fast increase (in geological terms, even though from our individual perception we don't notice any differences, of course) cannot but increase the number and intensity of extreme weather events (and many other, more dangerous things).
The question then becomes: is THIS or THAT extreme weather EVENT (= a severe winter storm that only occurred 8 decades ago, for instance) caused by this rapid global temperature increase, or not?
That's what this article is about, and here work still can be done, even though some things have been proven already, such as the shifts in the jet stream.
Climate change itself though has been proven, AND is VERY dangerous.
2
The 'smart money' would listening to the science and doing something about climate change.If not for us oldies then for our childrn.
1
Marge -- here's the deep dark (web) secret of climate extremes. If you slice and dice enough (type of weather event) x regions (zillions of those) x duration etc. each year we will have weather extremes. The alarmists will try to use those to convince everyone the sky is falling.
It's like this year's hurricanes. Yes, 3 big ones hit the USA. But in the 12 preceding years, nary a one. In fact, this year wasn't particularly unusual. We've had Atlantic hurricane seasons in the late 19th century and early 20th where we had as many major hurricanes and more tropical storms. And back in those days, due to lack of weather satellites, underpopulated areas, less shipping, hurricanes & trop storms were under reported.
It's the coldest Jan 10th ever in my back yard. It lasted for 3 minutes. The horror, the horror. Anyone can play the weather extreme game.
The trick is can you predict and can you design research where the CC theory is falsifiable if every extreme weather event becomes evidence for CC.
3
Wow! I think some people don't understand the difference between climate an weather. Weather changes constantly. Climate slowly evolves. Come on people.
7
This is an incorrect distinction. The better way to think of this is that climate is the probability distribution of weather. If accusing people of not thinking, please be more thoughtful yourself.
Anon, Your "better way" works fine if you choose to view the issue statistically.
But an historian might make a different distinction. Or a farmer or fisherman. Or a maker of outerwear.
Calculations of probabilities are not always useful. Ms. Kushner's concept of the slow evolution of climate can be a much better way for some of us to perceive and deal with the world we inhabit.
The Polar Vortex is indicative of an Artic that is leaking. Eventually at the rate we are emitting CO2 it will leak out completely and then be gone. Think about it this way. It took about 300 million years to form the fossil fuels that hold all the CO2 that humans will release via their actions in about 3000 years.
3
I wonder if there is an interaction between the Gulf Stream and the Polar Vortex. When the Gulf Stream fails, what'll the Polar Vortex do?
2
Unfortunately we may find out.
1
Nice headline - "May Be", "Part".
But why Climate Change? Almost anything "may be" "part" of the answer - sun, volcanoes, global warming, anthropogenic global warming, global cooling, anthropogenic global cooling, nuclear tests, change in planetary animal and plant distribution, the law of the way the cookie crumbles for weather events, Harry Reid's aliens in their UFOs. Why to choose to write about Climate Change?
9
So now they are saying it is cold because the planet is getting warmer. Do these so called climate scientist realize how stupid that is?
10
At the same time Boston is freezing Alaska is experiencing record warmth. You don't measure climate change by what happens to the weather for one week in Boston, you measure climate change by collectively summing up what is happening everywhere on earth over decades. But if you would listen to what scientists are saying you would already know that.
4
What climate scientists have shown is even worse than that: at the very moment that Canada is going through an exceptionally cold winter storm ... they claim that Australia is going through the exact opposite, an exceptionally hot summer! HOW could that be possible, you'd think?!
Problem: it's enough to take a plane to Australia tomorrow, to see with your own eyes that indeed, it's pretty hot over there. Then ask your aunt to send you pictures of Canada, and you'll know that it's STILL cold at home.
Conclusion: yes, this is a quite big planet, so cold weather in one place does NOT mean a colder average global temperature. Climate scientists all over the world (and from all walks of life and cultural, religious and political background) did NOT all of a sudden become crazy ... ;-)
Now that's an easy one, you'll object. That's just the difference between the northern and southern hemisphere. But a couple of thousands of years ago, people thought this idea was crazy too, as there wasn't any science taught in school yet (nor any science at all, basically).
Today, scientists indeed know that a rapidly increasing average global temperature disturbs planetary winds called "jet streams", which are no longer horizontal, but get "dented". And THAT's how cold, polar winds now reach the US and Europe, whereas before those continents were protected by stable, horizontal jet streams.
Did this article explain this idea clearly? No, not at all. But that doesn't mean it's false ... ;-)
1
Yes, any and all extreme weather events are caused by global warming. And all political events are caused by Don Trump. The two fundamental beliefs of the NYT editors. Both global warming and Don Trump can be legitimate problems without the NYT view that they are the only things going on on this planet.
14
It is called Editorial Guidelines. Once NYT elects a guideline it is like a religion, and the confirmation bias gets to the extreme we find in this article.
10
Climate change is certainly real, however, using an isolated cold spell as justification for it is bad journalism.
11
Wow what garbage, there is no science in this article just justifying a predetermined position. No wonder people don't believe what was once global warming re-characterized as climate change. This article gives creditability to phony science. You do more harm then good.
17
Maybe you should try to click on the link "study published last fall", because THAT's the scientific result that is being discussed here, remember?
And that study examines the evolution of the "polar vortex" and jet stream (specific winds at the north pole), and shows that it's weakening.
Could you please explain why an article about such a study all of a sudden makes you doubt the well-established data that confirm that for two centuries now, the average global temperature is going up, and going up much faster than ever before in the earth's entire history?
Do you realize that those are two DIFFERENT scientific questions, to start with ... ?
As to "justifying a predetermined position": I hope you read the sentence that said that "as with any single weather event, it's difficult to directly attribute the influence of climate change to a particular cold spell"? If yes, HOW can you talk about "justifying a predetermined position", and WHAT is that predetermined position you seem to have noticed, more precisely?
Thanking you in advance (no irony).
'Studies "suggest" that "one" factor "could" be...'
Well, then I guess there's no room for doubt. Case closed.
7
8 million Elvis fans can't be wrong. Nor apparently can the climate scientists whose grants, books, tenure, publication depend on having findings. A finding that everything is OK wouldn't make you a star in the climate world.
Ralphie....Lets put it on a real basic fundamental level. CO2 traps heat that would otherwise be irradiated into space. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat that is trapped and retained. The extra heat that doesn't get lost to space will necessarily show up somewhere on earth.
1
According to the article, when considering the recent period of "bitter cold", the question that immediately arises is "What's the influence of climate change"?
If this is our stance, then the next question that should arise to a scientist is: "Are there any data that would be inconsistent with climate change?" If there are no possible observations that could disprove it, then the theory is religious dogma, not science.
19
I suppose that your question actually is: could we IMAGINE data that would be inconsistent with climate change? And if yes, how to try to obtain those data? Which experiments and measurements to invent in order to be able to obtain them, IF they would exist?
You don't need to be a scientist to answer this question. The current climate change is one of "global warming", which means that the average global temperature goes up.
ALL measurements and calculations of the average global temperatures that would result in showing that it goes down, would be inconsistent with the idea that the current climate is warming up. And all measurements and calculations that would result in showing that it doesn't go down nor up but remains stable, would be inconsistent with the idea that the climate is changing.
Scientists all over the world, from all walks of life and all kinds of religious, social and political background have been doing these measurements for decades and decades now.
The result?
They ALL show that the average global temperature is indeed changing (= "climate change"), and that it's going up (= "global warming").
That's why it's science, not religious dogma, you see?
As to the current cold: nobody is using it AS proof of climate change, as you seem to believe. Scientists are examining WHETHER there's a causal link between the proven global warming, and this particular extreme weather event. This article summarizes some hypotheses that MAYBE could explain a link.
15
Agreed - some years ago "climate change" morphed from a science into an anti-capitalist ideology. I'm amused some are still fooled, including the NY Times.
11
Prof Emeritus NYC....What is your subject, art appreciation? It's simple really; CO2 in the atmosphere prevents heat that would other wise be radiated into space from leaving the earth. Sooner or later that additional heat is going to show up somewhere. My sincere apologies to every one who follows science and also appreciates art.
1
Maybe we are heading into the next ice age, after all, Earth has spent most of its existence in various ice ages stretching into 100s of millions of years while the interglacial warming periods have typically lasted a few 1000 years. The entire human civilization is based in the time when the last ice age ended about 10,000 years ago and the glaciers retreated towards the poles. Nobody really understands why the earth periodically slips into ice ages and why it suddenly warms up for a few 1000 years only to slip back into another prolonged ice age. If I had to stay awake at night and worry about something, I would worry about the next ice age rather than global warming.
14
You don't have to worry about ice ages (we're in one today ... and for 120 million years already; an ice age is defined by permanent ice on both poles), you're simply confounding an "ice age" and an "glacial period" (= some 40 to 100,000 years of slightly colder global temperatures, inside an ice age, and which alternate with "interglacial periods").
Interglacials and glacials are supposed to alternate because of the cyclic wobbling of the earth's axis, called "Milankovitch cycles".
Explaining the beginning and end of an ice age, on the contrary, is much more difficult. Most attempts to explain use different events for different ice ages. The previous ice age, for instance (called "Karoo", and the fifth one the earth has ever known), is supposed to have started soon (= a couple of million years) after land life took off, because of the enormous amount of CO2 that was all of a sudden taken out of the atmosphere through the photosynthesis mechanisms used by plants, whereas its end is supposed to have been caused by a gigantic eruption of Siberian volcanoes situated near huge coal fields, which started to burn for so long that it dramatically increased the average global temperature.
In the meanwhile, what is absolutely certain is that normally (= until now) changes in the average global temperature happen extremely slowly, not in 2 centuries, as is the case today, and that many organisms can't adapt that fast. So THAT's what scientists are worried about, you see?
20
Thanks Ana Luisa for an excellent explanation!
1
Ana Luisa:
"...changes in the average global temperature happen extremely slowly, not in 2 centuries..."
I suppose it depends on how one defines "changes". Changes of at least one degree within any given 50 year period are not at all uncommon. And the change in temperature approximately 4 degrees about 9,500 years ago occurred within about two centuries.
http://www.muller.lbl.gov/pages/IceAgeBook/history_of_climate.html
1
It would be useful in this article if it were mentioned that this idea is highly controversial within the climate science community itself and that studies have mostly not found a particularly large effect.
4
I don't see how that could be true.
A theory is considered to be "highly controversial", in a certain scientific field, when there's not enough evidence to create a consensus, whereas some (often a minority) claim that it is certainly true and others (often a minority too) that it is certainly false - each based on the partial information they managed to gather.
In this case, however, you don't find such "extremist" scientists. Nobody is claiming that this particular cold in North America is absolutely certainly caused by the current, already proven global warming, and nobody is claiming either that there is absolutely certainly no link at all.
Climate scientists are simply still developing their tools for trying to link a particular weather event to local and global climate conditions in a way that can be entirely proven, so there are already some results pointing into the direction of a direct link in the case of THIS cold, but not enough (not for those interviewed here, as this article explicitly states, nor for those who didn't work on these particular studies) to be able to obtain a situation of complete certainty.
Finally, don't forget that it's not because a study does NOT find a causal link yet, that it means that that same study proves that there's NO causal link. It only proves that with THAT kind of methodology and for THAT kind of event, no causal link has been detected yet ...
9
Ana Luisa below misunderstands this comment. The commenter ("m") is correct that there is little evidence from models that variations in the jet stream would become more extensive, or more "sticky" causing extended periods of extreme temperatures. Models robustly show a decrease in wintertime variability in the mid-latitudes (i.e. most of the U.S.). Of course, reality may be different from the results of models, so we should measure and wait and see, but there is also little evidence from observations that cold extremes are increasing. The predominant signal of climate change in the U.S. Midwest right now is an increase in mean wintertime temperatures. The statistics are not good enough to determine yet if there those warmer average winters will have occasional much-colder-than-before spells.
2
some questions:
1) could the intense cold be explained without invoking climate change?
2) How, if we now theorize that all extreme weather events are due to climate change, do you design a study where CC theory could be falsified?
3) The "puzzling" colder winters in North America and Europe over the last 25 years...I'm puzzled as well as that is not what the NOAA temp data base shows.
4) However, other things being equal, Europe and North America -- the US in particular -- have much greater density of temp measurement stations so I would tend to believe their temp record over say, the rest of the world, where there were very few weather stations until 1950 or later and in most of the ROW there still is very little coverage with temp stations.
5) Do the Times journalists on the climate beat ever ask tough questions, or are they so involved in sounding the climate alarm that they just take dictation from the climate scientists?
12
You might be interested in "The Conversion of a Climate Skeptic," by Richard A. Muller, published in the Times on July 28, 2012. A scientist and skeptic, he asked many, many tough questions, then designed studies to address them. It's worth a read.
1
Owen, I've visited his website Berkeley Earth many times. His data, rather than supporting CC shows how weak the global data set is.
I would have thought that the Climate Change zealots, who have bombarded us with predictions of armageddon in polar region, would be celebrating in the streets. After all our record Cold temps have halted the loss of the polar cap. But NO, with the zealots every positive event is immediately dismissed with 100's of concocted negatives.
I'm a skeptic but freely agree that the Current cold weather is due to CLIMATE CHANGE. That "climate changes" is unarguable, the question is whether the bulk of Climate Changes are due to Anthropomorphism. The zealots would have us believe that good science is dictated by majority, the loudest voices or popular rule, it isn't, if it was the earth would be the center of the universe and flat too boot.
This Current cooling event is the reason why the Climate zealots abandoned the Global Warming/ Cooling monikers if favor of "CLIMATE CHANGE" - which conveniently covers ALL POTENTIAL CONTINGENCIES. Be happy for the hapless polar bears.
18
Here's where you're mistaken: what you call "this current cooling event" is only taking place in the US (and only for a couple of weeks, by the way).
At the same time, the severe winter weather in the US must be combined with for instance the exceptionally warm summer weather in Australia before you can know whether all of a sudden the GLOBAL average would be going down too, or continues to go up.
And unfortunately, ALL scientific reports for the moment indicate that indeed, it continues to go up, and go up fast.
So no, it's not because New York has a few winter days that are more severe than usual that all of a sudden the Arctic ice cap would be growing again.
You don't even have to be a scientist to know that IF you want to know something about the AVERAGE GLOBAL temperature today, you cannot possibly take the temperature today in ONE place on earth, and then imagine, as you're doing, that it must be the same everywhere else.
Finally, nobody, in the scientific community, "abandoned" the notion of global warming for climate change. The climate has been changing ever since there is a climate on earth, AND it has been proven for decades now that CURRENTLY, since 2 centuries, the average global temperature is going up - and going up much faster than ever before.
That global warming creates more EXTREME WEATHER events does not mean that it wouldn't be happening anymore - quite on the contrary. Which means that LESS extreme weather is not expected to happen anytime soon.
36
Thank you Luisa for your lengthy rebuttal to my reasoned, but arguable, opinion. BTW, I AM A SCIENTIST. Sorry Luisa, the Climate Change zealots have stolen the term and morphed it into a quickspeak for Anthropomorhic Climate Change. I have merely pointed out the actual meaning of CLIMATE CHANGE, didn't I?
In conclusion Luisa, in the words of Rosanne Rosanadana (SNL), when it comes to Climate Change Zealots - "IT'S ALWAYS SOMETHING". Thanks for taking the time.
2
you're one of those loud people that think just because you're throwing out big words you must be right - (you are using a lot of the words wrong, by the way) - but you remain wrong nevertheless.
The reason people use the term "climate change" more now is because most idiots can't comprehend that since it's cold in their neighborhood, then global warming must be a hoax and we get tired of hearing "guess global warming was fake, huh, huh, huh."
2
That explanation is really grasping at straws. These Global Wamers, supposedly people of science, will give any reason, no matter how flimsy or disconnected, to keep their theory on track. Are there any scientists doing non-political research on this matter?
18
That's not how science works. You have to clearly distinguish your hypotheses, if not they're too vague to be tested.
So first there's the hypothesis "during the last 2 centuries, the average global temperature is going up".
Then there's the hypothesis "it's going up faster than ever before".
Those 2 hypotheses have been proven to be true for decades already.
Then there's a 3rd question: "does a rapidly increasing global temperature create more extreme weather events?"
A lot of evidence is already showing that indeed, such increases create the conditions for more extreme weather events.
Finally there's the question: "is the current cold weather in North America an example of such an extreme weather?" or is it happening for reasons that have nothing to do with the proven increase in average global temperature?
THAT's the question where proving something with sufficient solidity isn't possible yet. This article gives an overview of possible mechanisms that COULD explain a link between both phenomena, according to scientists who are trying to test all possible hypotheses for the moment.
The evidence isn't "flimsy" though, as you can see here. But it hasn't been entirely proven yet either. That doesn't mean that scientists aren't doing their job, quite on the contrary.
That apart from that American conservatives (and only American ones ...) now ask their voters to reject science, doesn't turn scientific work into "political research" though ...
18
Pretty much all of them. The fact that their data doesn't support what you want to hear is not the same thing as them making it up. After all, you can easily access any of the thousands of scientific studies and papers addressing this very topic from that magical device called a cell phone, never mind a computer (available for free at any library near you, by the by). So if you aren't convinced by what you see on the news, you are perfectly welcome to research the data yourself. Matter of fact, you can buy a thermometer and measure the trend over the next couple of decades, if you like. Nothing is stopping you.
2
Oooh, lighten UP, Prof!! :o)
Could the jet stream be weakening? Sure. Like any flow of a fluid, if the gradient is high, the flow is pretty direct. When the gradient is low, you get meanders, twists and turns, with frequent changes in course. Example: the Mississippi river with its very gentle slope to the Gulf of Mexico has a vast number of twists, meanders, old paths (Oxbow lakes) etc. and a full time job for an Army Corps of Engineers to fail to keep it in place. For water, the gradient is height.
If the temperature difference is reduced from the arctic to the tropics--and climate change was predicted to and has caused a significant reduction in the temperature difference--then, like every normal fluid, you will get meanders in the flows. In this case it is the jet stream--and our weather is strongly influenced by the jet stream. For air, the gradient is (now decreasing) temperature difference.
This article makes the normal NYTimes mistake of ignoring the basics. The quotes from scientists acknowledge uncertainty in details. Predicting specific meanders in the jet stream is not a solved problem, nor is predicting specific meanders in the Mississippi--but we know they will happen. We also know weather is guided by the jet stream. Unseasonable weather layered over an increasing base temperature is the expected outcome.
I doubt that any serious climate scientists are "puzzled" about the data as described in the article.
7
Yes of course, but for simple folks with limited perspectives, who only look right in front of themselves, it may sound like contorted reasoning.
To determine if the whole Earth is getting warmer, look at the whole Earth.
2
Why isn’t “it’s a cold snap” a good enough description? They’ve happened before, without reference to climate change. This kind of just-so story makes the whole theory sound non-falsifiable.
11
Alright alright... Pollution is terrible and burning fossil fuels is a total detriment but come on folks it is winter time after all.
8
Already several have posted the usual fallacious denier talking points below. I'm a scientist and this is a complex topic for which 2 min explanations don't exist.
The UCS gives a good overview:
"With cold temps and icy conditions leaving the continental US reeling over the New Year, it might seem counter-intuitive to say that we’re still experiencing global warming. But as my colleague puts it, saying that climate change isn’t occurring because of the cold in the eastern US is “like saying if everyone around me is wealthy then poverty is not a problem…local weather is not an indicator of changes in climate.”
"Scientists noticed an unusual winter pattern in the jet stream that started around the year 2000. Before that time the jet stream was typically fast with small waves that kept the cold air contained in the Arctic region. However, the jet stream began slowing down, and its waves meandering more" ... This allows more cold outbursts to reach the southern US.
"Global warming is exactly that: global. The total area of the US is only about 2 % of the Earth's surface. A map below shows the deviations from average T's ... much of the US may be unusually cold right now but most of the rest of the world is well above average."
https://blog.ucsusa.org/brenda-ekwurzel/the-polar-vortex-winter-storm-gr...
Also see: https://geosci.uchicago.edu/~rtp1/papers/PhysTodayRT2011.pdf
60
Excellent post. I will never fathom why the general populace holds scientists as their salvation (when manifested in the form of the wondrous technological world we live in with new gadgets and medical break throughs all the time) yet then demonize science and scientists when told unpleasant truths. Climate change is real, and we must be prepared See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5125622/
1
Im a scientist also and know that the science of Climate Change nor their models are not as sophisticated as the press or many Climate scientist would lead us to believe, as evidence by the lack of the predictive abilities of their models. Yet, these same scientists would have the world spend trillions of dollars radically changing our energy sources. I say let spend a fraction of that money and get the science right before we spend outsells into the grave.
3
Any rational person understands that human activity causes damage to our environment. Participation in global efforts like the Paris Climate Agreement not only help reduce pollution, but provide a vehicle for countries to cooperate on common issues.
That said, speculation like this and so much of what has been published as "climate science" gives the impression of pulling bits and pieces of information to justify a predetermined position. The egos, politics and money of climate change (on every side) damage the credibility of scientific research.
Maybe we should exercise some humility about the vast amount we don't know rather than pretending we have all the answers. That way we can concentrate on the enormous impact of pollution and how to reduce it.
13
What you call "rational person" is actually someone who was lucky enough to have received enough serious education to know how to distinguish truly scientifically proven theories from pseudo-scientific or false hypotheses, AND who knows where to find this kind of information.
Someone who never learned to do this isn't less "rational", as a "person", he simply lacks the tools to be able to know what's scientific and what isn't, and as a consequence, tends to blindly believe what journalists sharing his own political convictions write about science, without knowing how to fact-check them.
That's why science isn't some kind of innate skill/talent. Science had to be INVENTED, and human beings living before it was invented weren't less rational people, they just didn't have such a powerful tool to prove or debunk hypotheses yet.
And yes, science advances through speculation and subsequent testing. That's exactly what this article is showing here.
The title, for instance, says that climate change "may" be at play. And that it may be "part" of the answer. Because "some" scientists say that they "may" be related. "But the importance of the relationship is not fully clear yet".
And so it goes on and on. THIS is the kind of "humility" that characterizes scientists at work, NOT the idea that all you need to obtain their proven results is to simply "be a rational person".
It's also why you won't be able to prove that there are lies on this issue "on every side" ...
12
People who believe the world and humans were created in perfection, that the world and man then fell into imperfection, and who are waiting for the return of a perfect world, will never believe any evidence. Faith is completely evidence-free.
Likewise Capitalists, who worship Money, the one true God (including those who claim to be Christians, Jews or Muslims), only care about how well they live...until they die. What comes after death doesn't concern them.
The vast majority of world leaders fall into one of the two categories above. I'm glad I will probably be dead within the next 15-20 years. The world is only going to become an uglier and uglier place to live.
28
Right about the time our Supreme Court decided for us that we'd have George W Bush instead of the climate-consious Al Gore, we were beginning research on an increasingly loopy jet stream. Prof. Jennifer Francis at Rutgers has been saying essentially the same thing for a number of years now:
The polar cold meeting warmer air from the south makes for a strong wind current which we call a jet stream. It flows west to east with the spinning of the globe. It seems obvious that if you warm the polar air (and it is warming at unheard-of rates) you will reduce the temperature difference and end up with a trickle rather than a jet.
Trickles meander, just like that trickle of water from your garden hose meanders down the driveway. Turn the hose up and the curves will straighten out.
So we've got this increasing ring-yang of big loops with warm air driving way north on one side and polar air plunging south on the other. Was crops should I plant? Heat and drought resistant ones or cold and wet resistant varieties? Well, with all the variability of these slow-moving loops, you'll just have to guess.
So it isn't just uncomfortable. It's about food, migratory patterns, the whole darn ecosystem.
We can keep studying it, but we'll also have to eat. Serious action on climate is even more critical now that when Francis' research came out.
If you'd like to offer your child a livable planet, work as hard as you can to get this corrupt regime out of office.
74
thank you. sharing your comment in a screenshot on twitter. hope you don't mind.
1
Thank you Mr. Science. I am sure your ancestors were able to explain why the world was flat with such simple analogies.
1
Well explained. Weakening jet stream letting warm air push far north and arctic cold air push far south, with the warming of arctic air at fault for weakening the jet stream. Still the deniers raise voice every time they get on the rightwing radio, Fox news says its hoax, and Trump twits wanting more global warming. America is now a country where scientific truth is decided by who twits more and faster, whose voice is louder on radio waves, and who spreads more outrageous lies on Fox news entertainment channel. And, SCOTUS still believes they didn't do anything to make the climate change worse. When the earth meets its climate destiny and the culprits are lined up, those in the Rehnquist Court who selected G.W.Bush will be at the front line.
2
When winters in Europe and North America are unseasonably warm, the NYT articles explain it as, of course, the effect of man-made global warming. When winters are very cold, articles in the NYT discover that there’s an overall trend of colder winters.
We get it, so let’s cut to the chase: everything bad or weird, droughts, floods, hurricanes that are more frequent or more rare, phenomena that seem to point in very different directions, it’s all because of man-made global warming.
13
Your reasoning should go further: If heat and cold are proof of our imminent destruction, surely a combination of these, warmth or pleasantness, would be even stronger proof that we are killing the planet.
aren't legitimate scientific theories supposed to be falsifiable in principle?
1
What makes you believe that global warming, as a scientific theory, isn't falsifiable?
It's precisely because it is that so many studies have already been able to prove that it's correct, you see?
It's only theories that cannot be falsified which cannot be proven either, and remain just that: hypotheses.
4
What would make the idea of man made global warming falsifiable?
Oh, well, I'm sure it's connected to climate change, but not that it matters. We have a White House and controlling party in Congress that refuses to accept any aspect of climate change.
Our dear children will pay a big price, in every respect, because of our national willful ignorance to act, either for the sake of the planet or our own economic self-interest.
In the meantime, we can discuss whether the latest pattern of weather anomalies, 117 degrees in Australia and record lows up here, is related to climate change.
We know enough that the increasing Co2 levels will bring about change. The climate record tells us how this will happen. But never before have these levels risen as rapidly, and the outcome may be disastrous for our children. But who thinks of them in this very selfish era? That will be our collective legacy. We will be known as the selfish generation(s).
2
When I was a boy a new theory of the causes of continental glaciation was proposed - that it was causally related to periods when the Arctic Ocean was ice-free. See the paper
"Ewing, Maurice and William L. Donn. 1956.”A Theory of Ice Ages” Science 123:1061-6, Vol 123 No. 3207 June 15, 1956"
The authors later retracted their theory, but the correlation remains intact. If you look at the map accompanying this article you can sort of see the outline of areas glaciated during the Wisconsinian and Wurm glacial events.
I don't see a return of the ice sheets in our near future, but I do see the possibility of years of bitter cold winters ahead.
3
The climate has been cooling in fits and starts since the Holocene Climate Optimum peaked between 7,500 to 5,000 years ago, when temperatures were much warmer than today. The cooling is produced by the Milankovitch Cycle—predictable changes in the Earth’s orbit—which combines with changes in the tilt of the earth orbit and the present positioning of the continental plates to produce very long glacial periods (ice ages) and very short interglacial periods (warming periods). The glacial periods last millions of years while the interglacial periods average about 10,000 years. In geological time, the current interglacial period has a few minutes still to go. There have been other brief warming periods during the cool-down similar to the one we are now experiencing. The only difference is that manmade carbon emissions are now contributing to the present warming period. If manmade carbon emissions can prolong the current interglacial period, they may be doing as much good as harm. However, it is unlikely that manmade carbon emissions will offset the Milankovitch Cycle. The probability is that the ice sheets will soon return, once again covering the northern tier of the United States beneath kilometers of ice.
7
You're confounding "ice ages" and "glacial periods".
Scientists call "ice age" a period where both poles (north and south) are permanently covered in ice, winter and summer alike. That's why today (since 120 million years), we're in the sixth ICE AGE. An ice age typically continues for hundreds of millions of years, as do the periods in between ice ages.
Within each ice age, however, temperatures tend to slowly fluctuate, creating cycles where "glacial periods" (colder ones), and "interglacials" (warmer ones) alternate. THESE are supposed to be mainly controlled by Milankovitch cycles. They typically last 40-100,000 years.
Today, since 11,700 years, we're in such an interglacial. That means a period within an ice age where the poles are still capped in permanent ice, but where the average global temperature is a bit higher.
The fluctuations in the average global temperature that lead to a shift from one "period" to another and even one "age" to another, are VERY slow. They take tens of thousands of years.
Today, however, for the first time in the earth's history, they are going up VERY fast, and in less than two centuries.
The problem with such a fast increase is that animal and vegetal life doesn't have the time to adapt, so we're now in the sixth Great Extinction. And that may soon increase temperatures even more and even faster, setting off a loop-back mechanism that may well destroy the very basis of the human food chain.
And yes, that's VERY bad news.
47
How do you know about these past changes in climate? By the same observations, and sophisticated monitoring techniques, that correlate the rise in carbon dioxide and the last two hundred years of global warming. That's how you know. Plus the chemistry involved, which is also two hundred years old and which was developed before anybody thought that burning so many tons of fossil fuels would increase the amount of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere.
Sure, climate has fluctuated over millennia in the past. But what's happening with global warming is affecting the world now, like with tropical diseases moving into North America. We can't afford to wait ten thousand years for a possible cooling, any more than you would say in a violent rainstorm, "Well, the sun comes out every few days, so there's no need for me to take a raincoat now."
5
The climate has been remarkably stable through the entirely of human civilization. The cycle causing the ice ages and inter-glacial warming periods includes long stable climates, with fairly gradual changes (at least compared to our current rate of change).
There is outstanding correlation between average global temperature and CO2 content. There is also a very clear, very easy to demonstrate, ability of CO2 to absorb radiation from the earth and reflect it back down, warming the earth and cooling the stratosphere (like a blanket--or a greenhouse). Ice core measurements show the temperatures (from pollen) and CO2 concentration (from bubbles) for over a million years, through multiple Milankovitch Cycles.
The Milankovitch Cycle solar forcing is a small effect compared to the effect of pouring CO2 and methane into the atmosphere. An ice free arctic will absorb more of the incoming solar radiation, and the CO2 and CH4 will more efficiently keep the heat from escaping into space. These effects far more important than the impact of Matankovitch Cycle.
Search the phrase "cancelled the next ice age" for a number of references describing how our dumping CO2 and CH4 into the air has overwhelmed the Matankovitch Cycle and will do so for the next 100,000 years or so.
Cherry-picked information leaving out the most significant climate drivers is not science, not true, not honest, and not a good way to deal with the reality that mankind is now responsible for its climate.
4
Mount Everest and Mount Kilimanjaro were supposed to be bereft of snow by now, and winters and snowfall in the northern USA just a memory, according to "climate scientists." Hurricanes would become more frequent and more powerful. Years ago they stated we'd reached the point of no return! Prediction after prediction these kooks made haven't come true. So they just forget about them, like earlier kooks forgot about the Population Bomb that was going to cause global starvation, Peak Oil, etc.
Now when blizzards happen that don't fit their models, they scramble desperately to come up with some sort of rationalization. So now Global Warming means it's going to be colder and snow more! And this week Friday and Saturday, when the temperature in NYC reaches the forties and fifties, they'll crow "See? Global Warming!"
18
The glacier on the northern side of Mt Kilimanjaro "lost more than 140 million cubic feet (4 million cubic meters) of ice in the past 13 years. The loss "in volume is approximately 29 percent since 2000". https://www.livescience.com/41930-kilimanjaro-glaciers-shrinking.html 2013.
Hurricanes are more powerful and drop more water than those just a few decades ago.
2
"The entire northern ice field, which holds most of Kilimanjaro's remaining glacial ice, lost more than 140 million cubic feet (4 million cubic meters) of ice in the past 13 years, said Pascal Sirguey, a research scientist at the University of Otago in New Zealand." https://www.livescience.com/41930-kilimanjaro-glaciers-shrinking.html 2013.
2
Now? Scientists predicted more severe storms for all seasons a long time ago. So yes, this cold snap could well be part of that. https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/news/climate-change-and-extreme-snow-us.
And are you conveniently ignoring two of the worst hurricanes, one after the next, that ravaged Houston and destroyed Puerto Rico? Seriously? Do you even know that Australia, again, is having record-breaking heat? Nobody's desperately coming up with rationalizations. All of these severe consequences have been predicted. The fact that the snow pack of Kilimanjaro has recovered (a bit) is all you got? Nearly every glacier in the world is retreating, but you pick one mountain to make your argument. I suggest you learn the difference between weather and climate. That would be a good start on the road to reality.
8
I am still waiting for some real science to show me why this is happening. AND why isn't anyone talking about the south pole getting bigger and colder. Guess it doesn't help the narrative.
14
Let me Try.
Our Planet Earth with its Round /Spherical Shape and therefore the Varying Distance from the Sun, even as it rotates, as also the Angle at which the Various parts of the Earth receives the Sunlight and the Warmth, that does change from Winter to Summer and so on; (but) Makes these Temperature Zones which are Extremely Cold like the North and South Poles, and those areas at Equator that are a lot Hotter from the Constant Bombardment of the Sun, as well as other regions that are moderate in temperature zone. (The Role of Geometry on Temperature difference on the Earth)
While the Heat received from the Sun does not keep accumulating as our Planet Earth Rotates on its axis as well as around the Sun, and the Areas that receive the Heat in the Daytime, loses the Heat when away from the Sun at Night (and Our Space being a Cold and Dark Place!). In ideal and Stable Conditions, these Temperature Zones would Stay put where they are, without their Air or Atmosphere unduly disturbed, vary or stirred by external forces and events. (Equilibrium of the Temperature on the Earth). cont..
The reality is lab results, nor real science would answer any of the global warming questions. The 'climate science' comes from correlation (historical C02 levels) fed into models. In fact, using the word science to describe climate change is a perversion. This has nothing to do with whether or not I believe it is happening (it probably is to some extent). Climate change and 'believing the science' is more like a religion than science.
What is science? Anyone remember the scientific method from their science fair? It is a systematic testing of an hypothesis. Climate change produces no real world, testable, hypothesis. There can be no control for the globe. So people make these models, but models are only as good as the people who make them. Is this a catch-22? OF COURSE! But that is what the word science demands.
4
https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/11/a-major-new-us-repor.... Oh, but I'm going to predict with a high level of confidence that you won't consider the exhaustive report that's linked in the article, as "real science." I'm sure it's just a conspiracy of thousands of devious scientists to boost the sales of solar panels.
2
It's been 117 deg F in Sydney lately, a temperature that's not been seen for eight decades. It's summer there in case you didn't know.
The jet stream has been acting up more and more every winter but I still see comments, paid commenters most likely or just stupid ones, saying "it's cold so there's no climate change".
The water off the Gulf of Maine was warm just before the bomb cyclone hit, above usual in fact, so when that cold air hit the warm water near the Gulf it picked up even more moisture then combined with another front it dropped it on the east coast and you got the the storm that dropped all that frozen water
at once.
It may be cold back east but it's warm here in Washington, 46 degrees in Redmond before sunrise, and it's another year on the way to break records for precipitation and the whole west coast is missing out (snicker) on the cold jet stream.
To those who believe it's hoax it's only going to get even more weird and difficult to understand when you can't believe what's happening in front of you.
55
Yeah we've never had blizzards in January before.
4
The comments here aren't being updated in a timely fashion so I'll just remark that you're talking about weather and not climate. The NYT article itself doesn't do a good job of delineating weather and climate or the why weather changes when the climate changes.
Just Google "bomb cyclone weather records" and you can find lots of references like "The blast of arctic air that engulfed portions of the East Coast broke cold temperature records from Maine to West Virginia, stunned sea turtles in Florida, and was blamed for more than two dozen deaths". Not to mention frozen thresher sharks.
1
What if you believe it's not a hoax, that it is real, but that it is NOT a catastrophe.
As long as I can still move up north, bring it on.
Warmth in one place can create coldness in another. Proof of this is the gas refrigerator. A flame is used to create energy that drives the refrigeration process.
8
The last time I looked nobody thought the planet behaved like a refrigerator.
Temperature anomaly maps indicate most of the planet is warmer. The Arctic region, home to glaciers and an icecap on Greenland is warming at a greater rate than the rest of the planet. Think about a place that is white and cold and icy and then turn the thermostat up. An ocean suddenly is not under ice cover for 6 months and has 24 hours a day of sunlight. Warm that ocean. Melt Greenland's ice.
Say goodby to coastal cities world wide. Florida gone. NYC, London, etc..
I hate to burst a bubble but science beats belief.
2
Some people have trouble grasping the idea that heat in one part of the earth can lead to extreme cold in another. So I offered the gas refrigerator as an example that many people might understand, where a heat source is used to produce a cooling effect. In my example, the heat of the gas flame produces coldness in the refrigerator.
Our wise and great leaders in Washington claim there is no such thing as "climate change." You may want to rethink your headline and the premise of this article to conform to current policy. Otherwise, the same wise leadership could accuse Mr. Fountain of disseminating "alternative facts."
1
If man is the cause of global warming, what was the cause of the great ice age, and the subsequent warming that produced the tropical environment that allowed the dinosaurs to flourish?
11
Man is not the cause of global warming; man is CONTRIBUTING to climate change happening more quickly than otherwise.
6
We are still in the 6th ice age. It began 120 million years ago, so that's not what changed the dinosaur population (which only began existing after the end of the 5th ice age, called Karoo, 250 million years ago, and ended in the middle of our current ice age, the Quaterny ice age, probably due to a gigantic asteroid touching the earth, 65 million years ago).
Scientists talk about an "ice age" to refer to periods where both of the poles are permanently covered with ice (winter and summer). They typically last hundreds of millions of years.
Within each ice age, the average global temperature can be a bit higher for 40-100.000 years (= called "interglacial period"), or lower ("glacial period"). Both periods were until now mainly caused by "Milankovitch cycles", cycles that have to do with the "wobbling" of the earth's axis, bringing it closer or further away from the sun (or that's at least the scientific theory with the most evidence supporting it, today).
Since 11,700 years, we're in an interglacial period. However, during interglacials, the average global temperature never goes up as fast as it did during the last two centuries, and atmospheric CO2 is known to have an important impact on global temperatures (a huge reduction in CO2 due to the beginning of vegetal land life is supposed to have caused the onset of Karoo, 480M years ago). Since the 1800s, atmospheric CO2 doubled, with no natural explanation possible, whereas at the same time, human CO2 emissions exploded.
12
Global warming is really a misnomer....it really should be called global weirding.
Because what it's really doing is changing weather patterns in ways that make the weather less predictable and more severe, not just warming up the planet overall.
6
Why so cold? clearly donald did it--to refute any concern about global warming.
6
There are a lot of skeptics out there as to whether there is in fact Climate Change or Global Warming, etc. And if so, is it the result of excess carbon dioxide being spewed into the atmosphere by 1000's of coal fired power plants, or just natural causes.
If only polar bears could talk. They are on the front line and possible extinction because their winter hunting grounds are no longer frozen over. I'm sure they have a strong position on climate change, and who's to blame.
8
@cherrylog754,
Very righteous indignation. Except a small detail - the polar population is increasing. 2005 - 22,500, 2015 - 28,500. I agree with you - If only polar bears could talk.
4
There is one parameter about the burning of Fossil fuels I have never read about; besides the addition of greenhouse gases being emitted into the atmosphere that reflects infrared energy back to Earth, why is there no mention of the heat generated by all that fuels combustion that is added to the atmosphere? I wonder about it's significance compared to the trapped solar infrared energy.
2
Because the heat generated by burning the fossil fuels is tiny compared to the heat retained on earth because the carbon dioxide prevents heat from the sun from being radiated back to space.
4
The contribution of waste heat to the global climate is 0.028 W/m2. In contrast, the contribution from human greenhouse gases is 2.9 W/m2. Greenhouse warming is adding about 100 times more heat to our climate than waste heat.
11
You ask an intelligent question, for which thanks, and Mike O provides an information-packed answer. It would be great if this forum provided more such education, and fewer statements of the form "This is the way it is, and you shut up."
2
Wouldn't you know it, here's a convenient new theory to explain why "global warming" can make it colder in some places.
Yes, we humans can influence the environment, but when it comes to climate our understanding of these impacts is still very rudimentary. One test of a theory is its ability to predict future events; and we can barely predict from one day to the next whether it will rain or not, much less when and where major events like hurricanes and "polar vortexes" or even heat/cold waves will occur.
Some politicians and "green" activists and the mainstream media are still snatching at any straw to try to support so-called "global warming;" indeed, when global warming was pretty much debunked the media and pundits started using the even broader--and harder to understand and document--"climate change."
The planet Earth has undergone major climatic shifts over the millennia and eons, the causes for which are still not fully understood. Let's not take a half-baked idea--"global warming"--and try to cook it into a full-fledged religion that is based on faith, not facts and predictability.
25
Suppose you have an open pot of water on a stove (that's the earth) with a burner underneath (that's the sun) and the temperature in the pot has reached an equilibrium somewhat below boiling. Now I put a lid on the pot (that's carbon dioxide) that prevents some of the heat from escaping the pot. I can tell you that the water in the pot will get warmer because of the additional heat retained. I cannot tell you second by second what the temperature will be at any particular spot in the pot because how it warms is chaotic, but that it will warm is certain.
That's what additional carbon dioxide is doing to the earth. The earth is warming. Climate change is caused by the earth's warming and long established patterns are breaking down causing extremes to occur with more frequency.
Yes, the earth has undergone major climate shifts over the eons. The last time that carbon dioxide was at the level it is today was in the age of the dinosaurs. And that climate would not have supported the population of humans we have today nor allowed civilization to develop. But as with the pot of water, the temperature does not immediately rise when you put the cover on. What takes minutes for the pot of water to reach a new equilibrium, could take thousands of years for the earth to reach a new equilibrium.
45
One would hope that by now, with all the news about climate change, that people would recognize the difference between climate and weather. You are right about one thing though: one test of a theory is its ability to predict future events. Here is a short list of the many grimly accurate predictions that have been made by climate scientists: rise in average temperature, less snow pack in mountains, shrinking glaciers and ice sheets, melting of permafrost, longer droughts, increased wild fires, increased storm intensity leading to flooding, ocean anoxic zones, spread of tropical diseases, desertification, spread of insect invasions, and increased extinction rate. Based on your correct statement that theories can be affirmed by their predictions, the theory of anthropogenic climate change must be valid.
87
Why don’t you ask any Midwestern farmer over sixty if the climate has changed. These people are pretty conservative, but will tell you about longer growing seasons. The “theory” predicted this. They plan accordingly.
So here’s a prediction: more severe weather east of the Rockies all year round. There will be more severe spring storms - lots of tornadoes - hotter summers, and colder winters.
11
Very interesting take on the weakening Jet Streams as I believe all weathermen rely on the jet stream data to predict weather.
I have a theory about why the weather seems to be this way. I do believe that global warming is occurring and will continue as long as we drink the fuels like drunken sailors, but I think that with the advent of Global warming, the need for fuels to heat structures and generate electricity will subside with the increase in average atmospheric temperature, thus reducing the need for fuels resulting in a leveling off of the increase in global temperatures.
1
Hey Patrick - What about the increasing energy needed to COOL structures in a warming world? Check out this article: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/oct/26/cold-economy-cop21-g...
Plus, the current amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is enough to keep Earth warming for several thousand years into the future.
2