Europe is freezing

[Cainkane1]

I realise that humans are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but so why is it so cold? I mean I live in georgia USA and its 27 degrees fahrenheit here.

[Darat]

TQlHaGhYoF0

[arthwollipot]

Strangely enough, it's pretty cold down here, too. We had snow on the snowfields today. Two days from the summer solstice!

What is the world coming to?

[DC]

all our effort to reduce greenhouse gases was far to effective......
oh wait a minute, have we done any effort yet? :boggled:

[Damien Evans]

Strangely enough, it's pretty cold down here, too. We had snow on the snowfields today. Two days from the summer solstice!

What is the world coming to?

In our case it's due to La Nina.

[Thunder]

I realise that humans are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but so why is it so cold? I mean I live in georgia USA and its 27 degrees fahrenheit here.

and the Middle East had a huge heat wave a few weeks ago, leading to Israel's worst forest fires in its entire history.

Global Climate Change requires you to look at the BIG picture, not just little corners of the Earth.

[Infoexcavator]

TQlHaGhYoF0

What an obnoxious laughtrack.

[Big Les]

It's not a laughtrack, it's a live studio audience (or a recording being played for one as part of a ticketed live recording of other segments of the show).

[Trakar]

I realise that humans are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but so why is it so cold? I mean I live in georgia USA and its 27 degrees fahrenheit here.

It is called "Winter."

[Belgian thought]

It is called "Winter."

Bloody Occam! :)

[lomiller]

It is called "Winter."

Indeed. NASA is saying we are on track for the warmest year on record, yet we get one storm and the scientifically illiterate are wondering about the cold.

I won’t even bother to get into the fact that more violent storms are longstanding predictions of global warming...

[TraneWreck]

Except for Russia which has had its warmest winter in history. They're suffering from massive forest fires and other environmental fallout.

[casebro]

Indeed. NASA is saying we are on track for the warmest year on record, yet we get one storm and the scientifically illiterate are wondering about the cold.

I won’t even bother to get into the fact that more violent storms are longstanding predictions of global warming...


I'd thought my reading indicated that NASA says we are on track for a 2003 year, while 1997 is the "warmest on record"? Which to my own pea brain looks like a plateau. . ca 95 'til now?

So far as storm forecasting goes, where have all those heinous hurricanes been? Remember, all those the Katrina year predictions? So, I take that as another indication of a plateau.

But you do realize that your opinion is damn near unfalsifiable; hot=warming, cool equals warming, storms = warming, calm= warming, cooling = warming.

But the latest I've learned, shrinking glaciers may be caused by COOLING, since cooler air brings less moisture to the glaciers to fall as snow.

But now, on to more immediate concerns: I wonder what is for lunch around here?

[Thunder]

the average temperature of the Earth is indeed slowly increasing. and yet, we are seeing crazy weather all over the world, including a hate wave in the Middle East last month, and two tornadoes and a powerful microburst..all in 30 minutes..in NYC in October.

and yet, the less scientifically sophisticated amoung us simply cannot fathom or comprehend the paradox of over-all global warming, and yet lots of snow.

Fact: lots of snow does NOT mean temperatures are getting colder world-wide. However, it could mean that certain regional climates are getting WETTER.

Oh, and btw, as temperatures get warmed up towards 32 F, snowflakes get bigger. So warming would actually mean higher snow accumulation. Oh...the paradox!!!!

comprende?

..oh, and southern California is getting MASSIVE rains.

[Thunder]

Except for Russia which has had its warmest winter in history. They're suffering from massive forest fires and other environmental fallout.

this is what the Warmers want you to believe!!!

:D

[shadron]

But you do realize that your opinion is damn near unfalsifiable; hot=warming, cool equals warming, storms = warming, calm= warming, cooling = warming.

So much for the prediction that global warming will lead to banal weather, eh?

[Soapy Sam]

Thunder- Is that Santa in your avatar?

[One Skunk Todd]

Don't the global warming predictions indicate a general warming trend with localized extreme weather swings?

[icerat]

Not only that, they predict colder winters. Europe for example is having colder winters because it's warmer in the arctic. This warmer air (which is still bloody cold) is being pushed down over Europe.

So the air is actually warmer than normal, it's just it's arctic air where it normally wouldn't be.

Throw in the fact that warmer tropical air holds more water than usual, when it hits colder air - lots of snow.

Colder European winters were predicted by many to regularly result from global warming.

[Ivor the Engineer]

the average temperature of the Earth is indeed slowly increasing. and yet, we are seeing crazy weather all over the world, including a hate wave in the Middle East last month, and two tornadoes and a powerful microburst..all in 30 minutes..in NYC in October.

<snip>

Only in the last month?

[Fnord]

Seems it never rains in southern California.
Seems I've often heard that kind of talk before.
It never rains in California, but girl don't they warn ya,
It pours, man it pours
(http://sciencedude.ocregister.com/2010/12/20/flash-flood-watch-for-orange-county/117422/)
The coming of potentially heavier rain prompted the National Weather Service (http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/sgx/display_product.php?sid=SGX&pil=ZFP) to issue a flash flood watch (http://forecast.weather.gov/wwamap/wwatxtget.php?cwa=sgx&wwa=flash flood watch) Monday for much of Southern California...

[fetchbeer]

What is this freezing you speak of, it's 76 °F down here in Fort Worth Texas, which seems to be another record high for this year over the 72 °F record back in 2004.

Also what is this snow you keep talking about too?

[Macgyver1968]

What is this freezing you speak of, it's 76 °F down here in Fort Worth Texas, which seems to be another record high for this year over the 72 °F record back in 2004.

Also what is this snow you keep talking about too?

From what I hear...It's kinda like a frozen Margarita falling from the sky...except without the tequila, triple sec and lime juice. :)

[Aepervius]

I realise that humans are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but so why is it so cold? I mean I live in georgia USA and its 27 degrees fahrenheit here.

Average temperature is increasing, but if I recall correctly temperature deltas get to be bigger. Plus you can have local "cold" witner colder than others, we are speaking of trend over 10 years.

To see what i mean see both of those serie, with average in () :

1 ; 11 ; 5 ; 7 : (6)
-1 ; 15 ; -3 ; 17 (7)

It is clear the avg numbers in serie 2 is higher than avg of serie 1, but still you get to have lower local minima, only the delta are much different.

Keep in mind that over a long trend for climate change, we are speaking of something of the order of celsius, but from 1 year to the next you can have delta which are much higher than that trend. For example 1 winter in Dresden we had -25C , other -10C as minimum over the winter. That is 15C delta...

[Thunder]

Thunder- Is that Santa in your avatar?

no that's me. I am an albino mountain gorilla. didn't you know?

:)

[Fnord]

From what I hear...It's kinda like a frozen Margarita falling from the sky...except without the tequila, triple sec and lime juice. :)
Well, that explains all the salt on the roads.

;)

[Thunder]

when Europe is freezing in July, then you can compain that GCC is fake.

[lomiller]

I'd thought my reading indicated that NASA says we are on track for a 2003 year, while 1997 is the "warmest on record
You are thinking about 1998 which is still not the warmest on record in NASA’s rankings. 1998 is behind 2005 in a tie with a couple other years for second. Even if it were, it was a 2 sigma outlier back in 1998 so you need to apply “creative” (as in wrong) statistics to claim it was some form of plateau.

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20100121/418335main_land-ocean-full.jpg

But you do realize that your opinion is damn near unfalsifiable; hot=warming, cool equals warming, storms = warming, calm= warming, cooling = warming.?

Only to the scientifically illiterate. The predictions are a good deal more specific then you are claiming and that’s when you are not repeating outright lies about what’s actually been predicted. I will agree that any claim is “unfalsifiable” to someone willing to lie about what was predicted.


But the latest I've learned, shrinking glaciers may be caused by COOLING, since cooler air brings less moisture to the glaciers to fall as snow.?

A glacier that shrinks due to reduced precipitation has characteristic traits not being observed except in very rare cases. A glacier shrinking due to reduced precipitation despite cooling has an even narrower range of traits that are all but absent in real world observations.

[Tiktaalik]

the average temperature of the Earth is indeed slowly increasing. and yet, we are seeing crazy weather all over the world, including a hate wave in the Middle East last month, and two tornadoes and a powerful microburst..all in 30 minutes..in NYC in October.

and yet, the less scientifically sophisticated amoung us simply cannot fathom or comprehend the paradox of over-all global warming, and yet lots of snow.

Fact: lots of snow does NOT mean temperatures are getting colder world-wide. However, it could mean that certain regional climates are getting WETTER.

Oh, and btw, as temperatures get warmed up towards 32 F, snowflakes get bigger. So warming would actually mean higher snow accumulation. Oh...the paradox!!!!

comprende?

..oh, and southern California is getting MASSIVE rains.


One reason a lot of people call it "Global Climate Change" or "Anthropocentric Climate Change" rather than Global Warming...

[Thunder]

Global Warming..is still correct.

But unfortunately, many people on our planet are too stupid and/or too gullible for the lies of anti-Scientists and other wackos, to deal with the often paradoxical nature of Global Warming. Some places will get MORE snow and MORE rain, and this seems to confuse some people too much.

So, we also call it Global Climate Change, to help the stupid amoung us cope.

[Macgyver1968]

Well, that explains all the salt on the roads.

;)


Actually...in D/FW, they don't put salt on the roads...because no one wants their cars rusted out. They just use sand....which is why only a couple of inches of the white stuff brings the entire city to a halt. :)

I know here in the metroplex, the "El Nino/La Nina" cycles have a strong effect on our weather...due to the repositioning of the jet stream. It's the middle of ***** December and we are running the A/C today. But like they say...if you don't like the weather in Texas..just wait a few days.

http://belo.bimedia.net/WFAA/weather/stills/7day.jpg

[Oliver]

when Europe is freezing in July, then you can compain that GCC is fake.


Actually, and if I remember correctly, global warming could lead to an Ice Age in Europe. But I have to look it up to explain why that was one of the scenarios of climbing average temperatures.

[Thunder]

Actually, and if I remember correctly, global warming could lead to an Ice Age in Europe. But I have to look it up to explain why that was one of the scenarios of climbing average temperatures.

if enough arctic ice melts...it could pour cold water into the bering strait, and shut down or drastically alter the path of the earth's warm water currents.

these warm water currents is the only thing that keeps Europe from looking like an ice cube all year round.

[plumjam]

If this continues then expect to see Al Gore lobbying Governments to subsidise SUVs (built by companies he has hastily bought shares in).. and then him winning another Nobel Prize for saving Eskimos while simultaneously drowning Polar Bears, Eskimos remaining marginally of more value than Polar Bears, despite widespread cynicism on the topic.

[Walter Ego]

It is called "Winter."

Actually it's called Autumn or, if you prefer, Fall. The first official day of Winter is tomorrow, December 21. It has been unseasonably cold in the last few weeks here in Georgia, USA, with nighttime lows in the teens and high barely above freezing on some days.

W.E.
(knows the difference between climate and weather.)

[Safe-Keeper]

the average temperature of the Earth is indeed slowly increasing. and yet, we are seeing crazy weather all over the world, including a hate wave in the Middle East last month, and two tornadoes and a powerful microburst..all in 30 minutes..in NYC in October.Pretty sure that's at best an indirect effect of AGW:p.

[Damien Evans]

Actually it's called Autumn or, if you prefer, Fall. The first official day of Winter is tomorrow, December 21. It has been unseasonably cold in the last few weeks here in Georgia, USA, with nighttime lows in the teens and high barely above freezing on some days.

W.E.
(knows the difference between climate and weather.)

You Americans pick the silliest date on which to change your seasons. Changing halfway through a month, on a landmark that is astronomically the middle of the season. It's very strange.

[fishbob]

I realise that humans are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but so why is it so cold? I mean I live in georgia USA and its 27 degrees fahrenheit here.

It's winter.

[TraneWreck]

You Americans pick the silliest date on which to change your seasons. Changing halfway through a month, on a landmark that is astronomically the middle of the season. It's very strange.

Yes, those arbitrarily placed solstices and equinoxes.

[Walter Ego]

Yes, those arbitrarily placed solstices and equinoxes.

Well, wadda expect from those Aussies? They have Christmas at the beginning of Summer (the sidewalk Santas are wearing red Bermuda shorts!) and the water swirls down the drain in the wrong direction.

It must be very confusing. I guess all that beer they drink helps them cope. :D

But seriously, January is a terrible time to start the New Year. The Romans started the New Year in March which was much more sensible. Until Pope Gregory screwed things up. (Yeah, I know the Roman calendar was screwed up, too.)

[barium]

the average temperature of the Earth is indeed slowly increasing. and yet, we are seeing crazy weather all over the world, including a hate wave in the Middle East last month

The cold temperature of Europe is probably linked to the heat in the middle east.

Normally we get our winter air mainly from the mediterranean region, which makes that area a bit cooler and increases rainfall there, but now with this negative phase north atlantic oscillation crap we get winds from sibiria and the arctic instead. I think the NAO influences the eastern climate of north america in a similar way. So negative phase = colder Georgia unless I've got my geography wrong.

[barium]

Actually it's called Autumn or, if you prefer, Fall. The first official day of Winter is tomorrow, December 21. It has been unseasonably cold in the last few weeks here in Georgia, USA, with nighttime lows in the teens and high barely above freezing on some days.

W.E.
(knows the difference between climate and weather.)

I'm guessing winter comes later the more south you get. If the mean temperatures are below freezing it's winter if you ask me.

[Eddie Dane]

So environmentalists, where is you global warming now?

This was the headline in a local right winged publication (Elsevier).

You have to wonder if they are really this stupid, or are just telling their readers what they want to hear.

BTW, I could have built an Igloo from the amount of snow I had to remove from my car this morning. First time in my life that I found my car buried under this much snow.

[Thunder]

i'll bet the cold in Europe has something to do with high pressure systems..and low pressure systems.

something like that.

[bokonon]

..oh, and southern California is getting MASSIVE rains.
So, is that warmer or cooler?

All I know is that we had the coolest summer in decades.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/las-summer-ends-with-a-chill-it-was-the-coldest-in-decades.html

[Thunder]

So, is that warmer or cooler?

All I know is that we had the coolest summer in decades.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2010/09/las-summer-ends-with-a-chill-it-was-the-coldest-in-decades.html

again, anti-Science folks just can't grasp that AGW and Climate Change is not determined by small isolated incidents, but long-term trends.

I have no idea if today's rains in LA are due to climate change, or just an anamoly.

It could be both. But I am assuming it is climate change.

[Damien Evans]

Yes, those arbitrarily placed solstices and equinoxes.

Yes, which are the midpoints of the seasons astronomically, and thus a very silly place to call the start of a season, as I already pointed out.

[Region Rat]

Yes, which are the midpoints of the seasons astronomically, and thus a very silly place to call the start of a season, as I already pointed out.

It doesn't automatically start getting warmer in the northern hemisphere now that we've passed the solstice. This is not the midpoint of the cold season.

[CoolSceptic]

Yes, which are the midpoints of the seasons astronomically, and thus a very silly place to call the start of a season, as I already pointed out.

Quite right. In principle, the winter solstice should be the middle of winter, not the beginning. In practice, the temperature lags a little from the change of insolation. Meteorologists usually use the calendar months Dec, Jan, Feb (1st Dec - end Feb) to define the NH winter period, as this is the coldest period.

That said, from #12, TraneWreck seems to think that the winter in Moscow is June, July, August. Just one of dozens of scientific errors from the CAGW side of the debate on this thread. This doesn't surprise me one bit.

The present weather system over western Europe is a blocking system, causing cold air to hang around over many countries and bringing unusually cold weather. This actually parallels the Russian summer event, which was also a blocking event, that time holding warm dry air over Moscow and surrounding areas. These are just normal weather patterns.

The problem, especially from the UK perspective, is that most people have had warming drummed into them, and scientists telling them that snow would become a thing of the past (e.g. here (http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html), from ten years back, currently #1 most read article in the Environment section of the website). This is now the third winter in a row that we have had unusually cold conditions and problems with snow and ice.

Now, I know (as many others do) that weather events tend to cluster more than you would expect by pure chance alone, and know that this little cluster of unusual weather events is just weather as normal, but most people don't understand this and will misinterpret these events as some kind of deterministic trend.

(Hmmm, why does that sound familiar?)

But if you want to sell climate change to people, if one of your few claims are that snow will be a thing of the past, then you need to make sure that actually happens. If you don't know what is likely to happen, then perhaps you would be better off doing a bit more research (no shortage of that to be done - perhaps go off and try to find the missing heat?)

[Beerina]

Climate is not weather. The weather varies a tremendous amount -- from a "common sense" perspective, you would think you would notice actual GW effects, but really, a few degrees average isn't noticeable on a personal level, especially since it's really just a running average over many years that even begins to have a statistical meaning.


I recall for the year after Katrina, lots of people, including meteorologists, made predictions it would also be a horrible, horrible hurricane season. I knew of "regression to the mean", and predicted they would be wrong. I was right, they were wrong. It was very mild.

And it had nothing to do with GW and everything to do with mathematical illiteracy and disasterbation, of which these people should know better.

[catsmate1]

Quite right. In principle, the winter solstice should be the middle of winter, not the beginning. In practice, the temperature lags a little from the change of insolation. Meteorologists usually use the calendar months Dec, Jan, Feb (1st Dec - end Feb) to define the NH winter period, as this is the coldest period.
In Ireland Winter is taken to be November, December and January so the solstice (today) is approximately in the middle of the season.
It's still snowing heavily though...........

[kittynh]

I sorta think Europe is "unprepared".
Hello, running out of "deicing" fluid?

[sphenisc]

no that's me. I am an albino mountain gorilla. didn't you know?

:)

Don't take this personally but you look like a Lowland Gorilla to me.


...Is that racist?

[Trakar]

Climate is not weather. The weather varies a tremendous amount -- from a "common sense" perspective, you would think you would notice actual GW effects, but really, a few degrees average isn't noticeable on a personal level, especially since it's really just a running average over many years that even begins to have a statistical meaning.


I recall for the year after Katrina, lots of people, including meteorologists, made predictions it would also be a horrible, horrible hurricane season. I knew of "regression to the mean", and predicted they would be wrong. I was right, they were wrong. It was very mild.

And it had nothing to do with GW and everything to do with mathematical illiteracy and disasterbation, of which these people should know better.

Regardless of the various and multiple popular media and man-on-the-street perspectives, the science generally indicated that hurricanes would on average decrease in frequency but increase in intensity. I'm not sure exactly which evidence you see as confirming your biases, but this has been the position of the science for quite a while with regards to how Hurricanes will respond to increasing global temps.

http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-spm.pdf

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/sap3-3/final-report/sap3-3-final-Chapter3.pdf

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_warming/science_and_impacts/science/hurricanes-and-climate-change.html

http://www.pewclimate.org/hurricanes.cfm

With perhaps this last giving some insight into the discrepancies you mention, in that it explains how hurricane activity in a season can be greatly increased while there are no major landfall events in a given area.

[lomiller]

Actually, and if I remember correctly, global warming could lead to an Ice Age in Europe. But I have to look it up to explain why that was one of the scenarios of climbing average temperatures.

It wouldn’t be an ice age, and it’s an unlikely scenario to begin with.

if enough arctic ice melts...it could pour cold water into the bering strait, and shut down or drastically alter the path of the earth's warm water currents.

these warm water currents is the only thing that keeps Europe from looking like an ice cube all year round.

You are definitely overstating it. The Gulf Stream is a wind driven effect, short of the earth no longer spinning it won’t shut down. What can happen is reduced salinity in the arctic can move the point at which the gulf stream sinks into the deep ocean southward. This would mean the winds that come from the west into Europe would be coming from cold arctic water rather than warm water from the gulf of Mexico.

This is the leading candidate for the sharp cooling of the Younger Dryas and other similar events. The key point here however is the Younger Dryas would have involved massive fre4ahwater seas forming as the glaciers in north America melted, then flowing into the arctic or north Atlantic very quickly. There currently is no such freshwater sea in Greenland so if this type of event occurs it won’t happen any time soon. Perhaps later on as Greenland continues to melt it may become plausible.

[lomiller]

Climate is not weather. The weather varies a tremendous amount

The natural variation in weather is fairly well quantified, it doesn’t explain global trends. Furthermore, weather doesn’t explain changes in ocean + atmosphere heat content, and the amount of energy the oceans have absorbed over the last few decades is truly staggering.

from a "common sense" perspective, you would think you would notice actual GW effects,.

And the common sense answer is that the people who pay attention are noticing the changes. Given that even plants and animals are noticing and trying to change their migration and ranges I suspect it’s not so much that others are not noticing as you being oblivious.


I recall for the year after Katrina, lots of people, including meteorologists, made predictions it would also be a horrible, horrible hurricane season. I knew of "regression to the mean", and predicted they would be wrong

Scientists are actively debating the effect global warming will have on hurricanes. On one side wind shear and el nino events make hurricanes harder to get going, on the other warmer water promotes hurricane formation and makes them stronger. The suspicion is that hurricane numbers will stay about the same but the storms themselves will be stronger.

*This* is the is the state of the predictions for hurricanes. I don’t care if you have misinterpreted these predictions or are simply referencing non-scientists who have misinterpreted them arguing against something other than what’s actually being predicted is a strawman.

[TraneWreck]

Yes, which are the midpoints of the seasons astronomically, and thus a very silly place to call the start of a season, as I already pointed out.

Completely misread your first point. Sorry.

You're right, of course, it's a silly convention. For some reason I thought you argued the dates were arbitrary, but you were clearly referring to the 4 events.

Serves me right for trying to be snide.

[Damien Evans]

It doesn't automatically start getting warmer in the northern hemisphere now that we've passed the solstice. This is not the midpoint of the cold season.

And what has that got to do with my post? I never even mentioned weather.

[Damien Evans]

In Ireland Winter is taken to be November, December and January so the solstice (today) is approximately in the middle of the season.
It's still snowing heavily though...........

Down here we do Summer as December, January and February, which makes sense due to the warm weather lagging behind solar position by a few weeks.

[Region Rat]

And what has that got to do with my post? I never even mentioned weather.

Maybe nothing. I had always associated seasons with the prevalent weather in said season. Summer is hot. Fall gets cooler and leaves turn colors. Winter is snowy and cold, and Spring gets warmer and things bloom. I didn't really associate them with the particular place in the orbit that the planet happened to be. If the cold season generally doesn't take hold until the solstice, then that's when winter starts. Nothing unscientific about it.

[kittynh]

the saying is "there is no bad weather with the proper clothing".

The UK just got the offer of the military to clear runways today....too LATE as most of the grunt work has been done (and face it I hope the military has security clearance).

Getting the military or reserves in to help during a winter crisis is common place. Heck in Belgium they used to call out the military when football fans from the UK got out of control (and send the UK hooligans home in military transport planes).

It's not about global warming, it's about next year how about a few more snow removing machines, NOT running out of deicing fluid in DECEMBER (I could see perhaps end of February? I mean how much did they have for the entire year?). How about having a plan in place that would have the military involved from the beginning?

It's not the weather or climate, it's the planning. I mean these are 10 foot snowfalls.

[Thunder]

err...question.

how is this affecting flights out of Switzerland?

[Architect]

The UK just got the offer of the military to clear runways today....too LATE as most of the grunt work has been done (and face it I hope the military has security clearance).



IIRC, Cameron offered the army to help with the London airports.

Incidentally, the army helped out in Edinburgh last week but the army billed them for the time involved.

[Flo]

err...question.

how is this affecting flights out of Switzerland?


I'm flying out of Geneva tomorrow, and it looks like there won't be major problems. Snow is expected over Paris in the evening so there may be disruptions.

Where are you flying from and when ?

[Darat]

It is about time we went back to having the new year start at a sensible point in the year - i.e .around March/ or April; talk to anyone and they will say (unless they are thinking about it) "Yes the weather was bad last year" but what they are referring to is a spell of bad weather in January or February of this year, we seem to default to the new year starting with spring. Join my campaign to have the new year start where it should do! (Total members: 1 and rising! - People who are upside down have no say in this matter.).

[let`s talk]

Except for Russia which has had its warmest winter in history. They're suffering from massive forest fires and other environmental fallout.

Not there only. Their neighbours have plus 18 Celsius in Tokyo today. Oops... not Europe..

[DC]

I'm flying out of Geneva tomorrow, and it looks like there won't be major problems. Snow is expected over Paris in the evening so there may be disruptions.

Where are you flying from and when ?

you hope you will :D

[megaresp]

...unfortunately, many people on our planet are too stupid and/or too gullible...seems to confuse some people...we...call it Global Climate Change to help the stupid...

How are you getting on with your mission to help the stupid?

[DC]

How are you getting on with your mission to help the stupid?

not at all, they are still reading hacked mails and hope to find a smoking gun or atleast more stuff they can take out of context and then lie about it.

[CoolSceptic]

Climate is not weather. The weather varies a tremendous amount -- from a "common sense" perspective, you would think you would notice actual GW effects, but really, a few degrees average isn't noticeable on a personal level, especially since it's really just a running average over many years that even begins to have a statistical meaning.
Of course, climate also changes, and the behaviour of natural climate variability is a disputed topic in the literature. It all depends on exactly how the clustering effect I was referring to above extends to lower frequencies (centennial, millennial, etc.). It has a surprisingly large impact on our current assumptions about climate.

I recall for the year after Katrina, lots of people, including meteorologists, made predictions it would also be a horrible, horrible hurricane season. I knew of "regression to the mean", and predicted they would be wrong. I was right, they were wrong. It was very mild.

And it had nothing to do with GW and everything to do with mathematical illiteracy and disasterbation, of which these people should know better.
Yep, and Ryan Maue has a nice pic to illustrate exactly that (here (http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg)). The plot by Ryan is a measure of accumulated energy, so includes both hurricane frequency and intensity. It is now running near record lows (in the satellite era).

[armageddonman]

I realise that humans are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but so why is it so cold? I mean I live in georgia USA and its 27 degrees fahrenheit here.

Weather != Climate

[Thunder]

How are you getting on with your mission to help the stupid?

not soo good, I'm afraid.

not soo good.

[Thunder]

I'm flying out of Geneva tomorrow, and it looks like there won't be major problems. Snow is expected over Paris in the evening so there may be disruptions.

Where are you flying from and when ?

friend flying from Zurich Friday morning.

[ZirconBlue]

But like they say...if you don't like the weather in Texas..just wait a few days.

They say something like that about the weather in every state I've lived in. Although, in Kentucky, the expression was most commonly stated as ending with ". . .just wait a few hours"

It is about time we went back to having the new year start at a sensible point in the year - i.e .around March/ or April; talk to anyone and they will say (unless they are thinking about it) "Yes the weather was bad last year" but what they are referring to is a spell of bad weather in January or February of this year, we seem to default to the new year starting with spring. Join my campaign to have the new year start where it should do! (Total members: 1 and rising! - People who are upside down have no say in this matter.).

Sign me up. Do you have a newsletter?

[Furcifer]

They say something like that about the weather in every state I've lived in. Although, in Kentucky, the expression was most commonly stated as ending with ". . .just wait a few hours"


In Michigan it's minutes.

[lomiller]

Of course, climate also changes, and the behaviour of natural climate variability is a disputed topic in the literature.


This is wrong, there is no such dispute in the literature. Please don’t bother attempting to cite a single dead end paper in low impact journal as “evidence” of some form of dispute in the literature, this is classic woo-woo behaviour.
It all depends on exactly how the clustering effect I was referring to above


Climate follows energy in vs energy out which is governed by physical laws and as such can’t be written off as “well it just happens randomly, no need to explain why” hand waving.


Yep, and Ryan Maue has a nice pic to illustrate exactly that (here (http://www.coaps.fsu.edu/~maue/tropical/global_running_ace.jpg)). The plot by Ryan is a measure of accumulated energy, so includes both hurricane frequency and intensity. It is now running near record lows (in the satellite era).

Bad example. Hurricane frequency is known to depend on ENSO phase as well as sea surface temperature. The “clusters” you are looking at have real physical causes that can be evaluated and explained and are not just “something you see in random data”.
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/hrd/Landsea/lanina/

[CoolSceptic]

This is wrong, there is no such dispute in the literature. Please don’t bother attempting to cite a single dead end paper in low impact journal as “evidence” of some form of dispute in the literature, this is classic woo-woo behaviour.
LOL, posting papers from the scientific literature is classic woo-woo behaviour now? That's a new one on me. Glad the dozen or so papers I've referenced on this forum from journals such as Geophysical Research Letters can be dismissed so easily without even having to think about the arguments in them. Verrry convenient.

But you don't have to worry. This isn't the science forum, and I'm not planning on citing any scientific papers here.

Climate follows energy in vs energy out which is governed by physical laws and as such can’t be written off as “well it just happens randomly, no need to explain why” hand waving.
Luckily, I've never made such a claim. But feel free to continue building those men of straw. Although there is nothing worse than building a straw man argument and even failing to knock that down.

Bad example. Hurricane frequency is known to depend on ENSO phase as well as sea surface temperature.
Ermm... you do realise the link I provided included global hurricane activity, right? You do realise that during El Nino years, while the atlantic basin is quieter, the pacific basin is more active, and vice versa? And that the global ACE is therefore (somewhat) independent of ENSO. Of course, if you have a myopic US-centric view, you may not realise this. The link you gave - which was about US damages - suggests this may be the trap you are falling into.

The “clusters” you are looking at have real physical causes that can be evaluated and explained and are not just “something you see in random data”.
I agree. The clusters do have real, physical, deterministic causes. Whether they are predictable is the issue. I appreciate you may not understand this nuance.

[DC]

as soon its a bit colder the hecklers show up :rolleyes:

[A Laughing Baby]

It was 55-65 degrees today where I live (the southern United States). On December 22nd. It was 50 yesterday, and is forecasted to be the same tomorrow. Strangely, this won't be trumpeted with Al Gore jokes on Fox and Friends this Sunday, nor will it be cause to start a thread. The classic "weather=climate" conflation will continue, and there's really nothing that we (the United States) as a nation can do to stop it.

[Halfcentaur]

All time record highs here in OKlahoma. We've had 70 and 80 degree weather here this last week. Usually we are frozen by October.

[Xephyr]

Poor poor Arctic Oscillation (http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html) in its current negative phase...
Always getting ignored, neglected, and never getting the credit where credit is due.

:cry1

[A Laughing Baby]

Poor poor Arctic Oscillation (http://nsidc.org/arcticmet/patterns/arctic_oscillation.html) in its current negative phase...
Always getting ignored, neglected, and never getting the credit where credit is due.

:cry1

That's a pretty cool site, thanks for the link.

[CoolSceptic]

as soon its a bit colder the hecklers show up :rolleyes:
Ah, the good old "I can't find anything wrong with their claims so I'll complain about their presence" line. A classic from a bygone age :p :D

It was 55-65 degrees today where I live (the southern United States). On December 22nd. It was 50 yesterday, and is forecasted to be the same tomorrow. Strangely, this won't be trumpeted with Al Gore jokes on Fox and Friends this Sunday, nor will it be cause to start a thread. The classic "weather=climate" conflation will continue, and there's really nothing that we (the United States) as a nation can do to stop it.
Is that perhaps because climate scientists have not made direct claims that 55-65 degrees in your location will become a thing of the past?

Let's study the form here:

1. Climate scientist makes claim that snowfall will be a thing of the past in the UK
2. UK enjoys three consecutive years of cold winters with plenty of snowfall
3. Sceptics point out original alarmist claims were ridiculous then, and are falsified by observations

And you seem to think the problem occurs at step 3, not at step 1. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that one.

[DC]

Ah, the good old "I can't find anything wrong with their claims so I'll complain about their presence" line. A classic from a bygone age :p :D


Is that perhaps because climate scientists have not made direct claims that 55-65 degrees in your location will become a thing of the past?

Let's study the form here:

1. Climate scientist makes claim that snowfall will be a thing of the past in the UK
2. UK enjoys three consecutive years of cold winters with plenty of snowfall
3. Sceptics point out original alarmist claims were ridiculous then, and are falsified by observations

And you seem to think the problem occurs at step 3, not at step 1. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that one.

I can't find any evidence backing their claims so I'll complain about their broken record.

[Trakar]

Ah, the good old "I can't find anything wrong with their claims so I'll complain about their presence" line. A classic from a bygone age :p :D


Is that perhaps because climate scientists have not made direct claims that 55-65 degrees in your location will become a thing of the past?

Let's study the form here:

1. Climate scientist makes claim that snowfall will be a thing of the past in the UK
2. UK enjoys three consecutive years of cold winters with plenty of snowfall
3. Sceptics point out original alarmist claims were ridiculous then, and are falsified by observations

And you seem to think the problem occurs at step 3, not at step 1. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that one.

Step 1 is only a problem when you cherry pick the scientist's quote out of context of his actual statements and attribute to it a time frame and significance he did not place upon it. Regardless of what the idiot reporter titled the article.

the original article: http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

...According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".

"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said.
...
Heavy snow will return occasionally, says Dr Viner, but when it does we will be unprepared. "We're really going to get caught out. Snow will probably cause chaos in 20 years time," he said...


Viner was most likely a bit hyperbolic in his statement, but I wonder how far off his actual assessment will end up being. The changes occurring over the next decade look to be significant if not dramatic, but many of us will be around to find out.

[BenBurch]

It is about time we went back to having the new year start at a sensible point in the year - i.e .around March/ or April; talk to anyone and they will say (unless they are thinking about it) "Yes the weather was bad last year" but what they are referring to is a spell of bad weather in January or February of this year, we seem to default to the new year starting with spring. Join my campaign to have the new year start where it should do! (Total members: 1 and rising! - People who are upside down have no say in this matter.).

The Romans were way ahead of you. April 1st was New Year's Day in ancient Rome.

[mummymonkey]

Forecast for my town tomorrow. Average for this time of year is +4.

http://fcas.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/temps.jpg
It's been very, very cold now for a month. I doubt if it's got above freezing at all.

[CoolSceptic]

Step 1 is only a problem when you cherry pick the scientist's quote out of context of his actual statements and attribute to it a time frame and significance he did not place upon it. Regardless of what the idiot reporter titled the article.
As you yourself note, it is more than just the reporter - the climate scientist made claims which were "a bit hyperbolic" (I would use stronger language myself, but let's stop at a point we can agree on).

Being critical thinkers, I would *hope* that pro-AGW people would be critical of Dr Viner making such claims that are so clearly going to give ammunition to sceptics. And, to be fair, TShaitanaku does just that (kudos).

But the default reaction of many on the pro-warming side is to attack the sceptic for having the audacity to point out a mistake by a climate scientist (how dare they!!!). DC is a classic example here. This is a failure of objectivity.

[CoolSceptic]

Forecast for my town tomorrow. Average for this time of year is +4.

It's been very, very cold now for a month. I doubt if it's got above freezing at all.

I've noted the highlands have really taken a hammering - and several of my friends have headed up there from down south for the holiday season. Rather them than me! :eek:

[shadron]

Global Warming..is still correct.

But unfortunately, many people on our planet are too stupid and/or too gullible for the lies of anti-Scientists and other wackos, to deal with the often paradoxical nature of Global Warming. Some places will get MORE snow and MORE rain, and this seems to confuse some people too much.

So, we also call it Global Climate Change, to help the stupid amoung us cope.

mqMunulJU7w

Ignore the silliness and wait for the meat, and you shall see where "climate change" came from.

[mummymonkey]

I've noted the highlands have really taken a hammering - and several of my friends have headed up there from down south for the holiday season. Rather them than me! :eek:
I'm almost at sea level though!

[DC]

As you yourself note, it is more than just the reporter - the climate scientist made claims which were "a bit hyperbolic" (I would use stronger language myself, but let's stop at a point we can agree on).

Being critical thinkers, I would *hope* that pro-AGW people would be critical of Dr Viner making such claims that are so clearly going to give ammunition to sceptics. And, to be fair, TShaitanaku does just that (kudos).

But the default reaction of many on the pro-warming side is to attack the sceptic for having the audacity to point out a mistake by a climate scientist (how dare they!!!). DC is a classic example here. This is a failure of objectivity.

pro-AGW? im not pro-AGW, i am against it, we have to fight AGW.

[lomiller]

LOL, posting papers from the scientific literature is classic woo-woo behaviour now?

When it's one paper that has been rejected by the scientific community and you insist it overturned thousands of papers in the worlds most prestigious journals and every major science organization in the world, absolutely. Do you think ID suddenly becomes credible when someone cites the paper Behe published?



Luckily, I've never made such a claim.



Either climate change has a knowable cause or it doesn't you can't have it both ways so why not take this opportunity to clarify your position. Is climate just changing randomly or is it, as the worlds scientific community says, being cased by human CO2 emissions?


Ermm... you do realise the link I provided included global hurricane activity, right? You do realise that during El Nino years, while the atlantic basin is quieter, the pacific basin is more active, and vice versa?

And?

I certainly know this but unless you are trying to claim the two exactly offset you are not saying anything at all. If you are claiming they exactly offset, then provide some evidence.

[Damien Evans]

In Michigan it's minutes.

Melbourne wins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne#Climate

We've probably got the most daily variation in weather of any major city on the planet.

[PhantomWolf]

when Europe is freezing in July, then you can compain that GCC is fake.

If you go with The Day After Tomorrow, that'd be because of GCC too.

[lomiller]

Let's study the form here:

1. Climate scientist makes claim that snowfall will be a thing of the past in the UK
2. UK enjoys three consecutive years of cold winters with plenty of snowfall
3. Sceptics point out original alarmist claims were ridiculous then, and are falsified by observations

And you seem to think the problem occurs at step 3, not at step 1. I guess we'll have to agree to differ on that one.



Let's study the form here:

lets...



Climate scientist makes claim that snowfall will be a thing of the past in the UK

Except it wasn't scientists at all it was an article in the popular press.


UK enjoys three consecutive years of cold winters with plenty of snowfall


Indeed, and some people proceed to insist this proves the climate scientists "were wrong" dispite the fact there was never any such conclusion to begin with.



Sceptics point out original alarmist claims were ridiculous then, and are falsified by observations

Even though they invented the claims themselves. They of course become very worked up when real skeptics point out no such predictions were made by the scientific community.

[DC]

As you yourself note, it is more than just the reporter - the climate scientist made claims which were "a bit hyperbolic" (I would use stronger language myself, but let's stop at a point we can agree on).

Being critical thinkers, I would *hope* that pro-AGW people would be critical of Dr Viner making such claims that are so clearly going to give ammunition to sceptics. And, to be fair, TShaitanaku does just that (kudos).

But the default reaction of many on the pro-warming side is to attack the sceptic for having the audacity to point out a mistake by a climate scientist (how dare they!!!). DC is a classic example here. This is a failure of objectivity.

well after spending hours reading hacked emails being taken out of context and then have to read the stuff in context pretty much convinced me that the deniers dont look for misstakes of science, but rather try to lie about the mails and other stuff.

that is a failure of Objectivity.

[catsmate1]

It is about time we went back to having the new year start at a sensible point in the year - i.e .around March/ or April; talk to anyone and they will say (unless they are thinking about it) "Yes the weather was bad last year" but what they are referring to is a spell of bad weather in January or February of this year, we seem to default to the new year starting with spring. Join my campaign to have the new year start where it should do! (Total members: 1 and rising! - People who are upside down have no say in this matter.).
Excellent idea. In fact I'd recommend an elongated New Year celebration starting with St. Patrick's Day and ending (appropriately) on April Fool's Day.

[lomiller]

that is a failure of Objectivity.

For a failure of objectivity one need look no further then the existence of this thread. According to NASA we are likely headed for the hottest year on record yet we have a thread wondering why it’s so cold. This goes beyond mere failure to be objective.

[ScannerHead]

and the Middle East had a huge heat wave a few weeks ago, leading to Israel's worst forest fires in its entire history.

Global Climate Change requires you to look at the BIG picture, not just little corners of the Earth.
How many absurd comments in just one thread.

The earth is a dynamic, fluid, complex thing. Global warming, climate change, call it what you want, has been shown to be a lie and a hoax.

Stick around. There will be colder days to come, and warmer days to come. This planet isn't going any where soon

For being a place for critical, skeptical thinking, the global warming blind acceptance is just laughable.

[DC]

How many absurd comments in just one thread.

The earth is a dynamic, fluid, complex thing. Global warming, climate change, call it what you want, has been shown to be a lie and a hoax.

Stick around. There will be colder days to come, and warmer days to come. This planet isn't going any where soon

For being a place for critical, skeptical thinking, the global warming blind acceptance is just laughable.

no, it hasn't, daily new supporting evidence is collected.

[Architect]

The earth is a dynamic, fluid, complex thing. Global warming, climate change, call it what you want, has been shown to be a lie and a hoax.


Erm, you do know that climate change has happened many times over the last couple of thousand years, don't you? The question is not whether it exists, but rather whether it is due to human activity.

[Thunder]

The earth is a dynamic, fluid, complex thing. Global warming, climate change, call it what you want, has been shown to be a lie and a hoax.

by who...conspiracy theorists, Creationists, Big-Footers, and Flat Earthers?

[CoolSceptic]

When it's one paper that has been rejected by the scientific community
1. I've quoted dozens of papers here to support my position, it is not based on one paper. But I see how that straw man claim might appeal to you
2. Science works by falsification, the papers have not been falsified, your "rejected" idea is not scientific

and you insist it overturned thousands of papers in the worlds most prestigious journals and every major science organization in the world, absolutely.
Given that your previous statements about randomness show you don't even understand my claims, you're not really in a terribly good position to explain what is wrong with them, are you?

Do you think ID suddenly becomes credible when someone cites the paper Behe published?
Nope. Behe's paper is trivially falsified. At that point your analogy is pointless and irrelevant.

Either climate change has a knowable cause or it doesn't you can't have it both ways
You mean you don't understand how a system can be deterministic and yet unpredictable? Science 101 fail right there, fella. With regard to clarifying my position: it is ably described in several presentations I have linked, and I have answered questions from many people on the subject. Since understanding is not an algorithmic process, I cannot make you understand how it works. I see no value in flogging that dead horse. If you do not understand how a deterministic system can become unpredictable, then you do not have the basic building blocks to understand the points Prof. Koutsoyiannis is making.

Is climate just changing randomly or is it, as the worlds scientific community says, being cased by human CO2 emissions?
Nice false dichotomy. Hmm, perhaps there might be more than just those two options. Who'd have thought it?

I certainly know this but unless you are trying to claim the two exactly offset you are not saying anything at all. If you are claiming they exactly offset, then provide some evidence.
I didn't claim they are exactly offset, but thanks for the strawman.

You made a specific claim that ENSO was the cause of the downturn (which is ridiculous on its face, since the downturn is five years long and includes both El Nino and La Nina conditions), with supporting evidence that discussed one basin only. Your evidence is irrelevant to a global metric.

So now we have estabilished that you have failed to evidence your claim correctly, you demand that I provide evidence to show your claim - for which you have no evidence - is wrong?

Not how science works, chap. You are the one with the claim.

Besides which I used the graph to show Beerina's point - "regression to the mean" of hurricane activity after 2005 - which is exactly what the graph shows. Even if it was ENSO (a point you claim which makes no sense whatsoever for the reasons above and that you have singularly failed to evidence), Beerina's point still holds, and the graph strongly supports that claim.

[CoolSceptic]

well after spending hours reading hacked emails being taken out of context and then have to read the stuff in context pretty much convinced me that the deniers dont look for misstakes of science, but rather try to lie about the mails and other stuff.
Sure. Many climate sceptics make claims which are unsupported by evidence and lack any ability to critically assess them.

But that doesn't mean it is a good idea to copy their style.

[CoolSceptic]

Except it wasn't scientists at all it was an article in the popular press.
So the direct quotes attributed to Dr Viner don't count as the views of a scientist?



Indeed, and some people proceed to insist this proves the climate scientists "were wrong" dispite the fact there was never any such conclusion to begin with.
Still struggling with the idea that Dr Viner is a scientist who works for the met office?

He wasn't the only one to make the claim, either.



Even though they invented the claims themselves.
Are you saying Dr Viner did not make that claim???

Or Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt, in their 1999 letter to Nature?

Or met office employees Barry Grommett or Wayne Elliott?

Or Dr Nigel Taylor (who, to be fair, is not a climate scientist), or Dr Peter Stott (who is a climate scientist)?

All of these people have been directly quoted as making the claim that we can expect less snowfall, or snowfall will become a rare event in Europe, or similar claims. And no matter how many times you tell yourself these people did not say these things, and it is all some evil sceptic conspiracy, it won't change the facts.

[Trakar]

So the direct quotes attributed to Dr Viner don't count as the views of a scientist?




Still struggling with the idea that Dr Viner is a scientist who works for the met office?

He wasn't the only one to make the claim, either.




Are you saying Dr Viner did not make that claim???

Or Drew Shindell and Gavin Schmidt, in their 1999 letter to Nature?

Or met office employees Barry Grommett or Wayne Elliott?

Or Dr Nigel Taylor (who, to be fair, is not a climate scientist), or Dr Peter Stott (who is a climate scientist)?

All of these people have been directly quoted as making the claim that we can expect less snowfall, or snowfall will become a rare event in Europe, or similar claims. And no matter how many times you tell yourself these people did not say these things, and it is all some evil sceptic conspiracy, it won't change the facts.

The did not make the claim that snow fall in the UK was already "a thing of the past," at least not that I've found.

[Furcifer]

Melbourne wins:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melbourne#Climate

We've probably got the most daily variation in weather of any major city on the planet.

I noticed in the second paragraph the comparison to "the lake effect" in the US. Michigan is of course the hotbed for lake effect being surrounded by Lake Michigan, Lake Huron, Lake St. Clair and Lake Erie. No doubt they share similar climes.

[lomiller]

1
Behe's paper is trivially falsified. .

As are your claims.


You mean you don't understand how a system can be deterministic and yet unpredictable



There are many deterministic systems that can’t be predicted in practice, which is different than impossible to predict. This doesn’t prove predictions can’t be made of a particular system, but it’s exactly what you are trying to do


Nice false dichotomy. Hmm, perhaps there might be more than just those two options. .

False dichotomy? There isn’t even a second option let alone a third. Above quantum scales physical phenomenon occur due to physical causes. Even if we choose to evaluate a system statistically, this doesn’t change.


with supporting evidence that discussed one basin only. .

Are you deliberately lying or did you simply fail to read the reference provided?

[lomiller]

All of these people have been directly quoted as making the claim that we can expect less snowfall, or snowfall will become a rare event in Europe,

Of those the only prominent climate scientists are Schmidt Shindal and at most they have said “it will become rare” not that it should be rare now.

If you really want to know what climate scientists are predicting you need to stop getting your information from a retired TV weatherman and read some people who actually do climate research.

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2010/12/cold-winter-in-a-world-of-warming/

[UnrepentantSinner]

I realise that humans are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but so why is it so cold? I mean I live in georgia USA and its 27 degrees fahrenheit here.

When you posted this on Mon. it was 79° at D-FW Airport. On Tue. it was 85°.

What is this freezing you speak of, it's 76 °F down here in Fort Worth Texas, which seems to be another record high for this year over the 72 °F record back in 2004.

Also what is this snow you keep talking about too?

Are you being completely sarcastic or were you not here last winter? I'm glad most of the limited precip events we've had this decade were snow.

Actually...in D/FW, they don't put salt on the roads...because no one wants their cars rusted out. They just use sand....which is why only a couple of inches of the white stuff brings the entire city to a halt. :)

I know here in the metroplex, the "El Nino/La Nina" cycles have a strong effect on our weather...due to the repositioning of the jet stream. It's the middle of ***** December and we are running the A/C today. But like they say...if you don't like the weather in Texas..just wait a few days.

I left my balcony door open continuously from Mon. morning until Tues. night. Last night I wish I had some logs for the fireplace. :D

-eta TexDot and city crews also put down a chemical ice melt on bridges and overpasses and at intersections. They'll also use it if there's an overnight refreeze after a melt.

Actually it's called Autumn or, if you prefer, Fall. The first official day of Winter is tomorrow, December 21. It has been unseasonably cold in the last few weeks here in Georgia, USA, with nighttime lows in the teens and high barely above freezing on some days.

W.E.
(knows the difference between climate and weather.)

Like MacGyver said it's a combo of La Nina and the Jet Stream (just like last year except it was El Nino). That's why GA is cold, southern AL got snow and Dallas was 20 degrees warmer than Miami on Tue.

[Ducky]

I realise that humans are spewing greenhouse gases into the atmosphere but so why is it so cold? I mean I live in georgia USA and its 27 degrees fahrenheit here.

Come on up to Minnesota, you pussy. ;) That's like summer weather to us. ;)

[UnrepentantSinner]

I'm guessing winter comes later the more south you get. If the mean temperatures are below freezing it's winter if you ask me.

Using that metric about 2/3rds of the U.S. would never experience winter.

BTW, I could have built an Igloo from the amount of snow I had to remove from my car this morning. First time in my life that I found my car buried under this much snow.

Last winter we had 3 snows and I had to work each day (and unlike most people in Texas, I have a decent snowbrush/ice scraper). While we're unlikely to see such events again, I was prompted to move into a new apartment with an attached garage.

So, is that warmer or cooler?

All I know is that we had the coolest summer in decades.

Must have made the 113° in LA on Sept. 27th quite the exclaimation point then.

But if you want to sell climate change to people, if one of your few claims are that snow will be a thing of the past, then you need to make sure that actually happens. If you don't know what is likely to happen, then perhaps you would be better off doing a bit more research (no shortage of that to be done - perhaps go off and try to find the missing heat?)

I can't remember if it was on Daily Show or Colbert, but during Snowmageddon they were dissecting the Fox News "analysis" and mockery of Al Gore. The punchline was footage of Gore dubbed and saying something like "If it ever snows again I'm a liar".

How many absurd comments in just one thread.

The earth is a dynamic, fluid, complex thing. Global warming, climate change, call it what you want, has been shown to be a lie and a hoax.

Stick around. There will be colder days to come, and warmer days to come. This planet isn't going any where soon

For being a place for critical, skeptical thinking, the global warming blind acceptance is just laughable.

:id: