Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age

[stormchazer]

I know it is taboo to suggest that we do not know near enough about Global Warming and climate changes, but I thought this was an interesting read.


Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, February 25, 2008


Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

lgunter@shaw.ca

[HURAKAN]

I have just one thing to say: One year is not enough evidence.

Just look at the 2005 hurricane season.

[x-y-no]

Oh my ... where to begin ...

I know it is taboo to suggest that we do not know near enough about Global Warming and climate changes, but I thought this was an interesting read.

Not taboo, but if you're going to post stuff this silly expect a response.

Forget global warming: Welcome to the new Ice Age
Lorne Gunter, National Post
Published: Monday, February 25, 2008


Snow cover over North America and much of Siberia, Mongolia and China is greater than at any time since 1966.

OK, that's interesting, but what does it have to do with refuting global warming? If anything, greater amounts of precipitation in some regions is an expected effect of a warmer climate. In general, with global climate change it's reasonable to expect regional climate change as well. Whether this particular change is a long-term trend or an anomaly is unknowable at this point.

The U.S. National Climatic Data Center (NCDC) reported that many American cities and towns suffered record cold temperatures in January and early February. According to the NCDC, the average temperature in January "was -0.3 F cooler than the 1901-2000 (20th century) average."

That's the North America average and we happen to be having a major La Nina event. It would be truly stunning if the NA average temperature were not low this year.

China is surviving its most brutal winter in a century. Temperatures in the normally balmy south were so low for so long that some middle-sized cities went days and even weeks without electricity because once power lines had toppled it was too cold or too icy to repair them.

Again, all very interesting but what's the global average doing? This article doesn't say, because the answer isn't conducive to the denial agenda.

There have been so many snow and ice storms in Ontario and Quebec in the past two months that the real estate market has felt the pinch as home buyers have stayed home rather than venturing out looking for new houses.

In just the first two weeks of February, Toronto received 70 cm of snow, smashing the record of 66.6 cm for the entire month set back in the pre-SUV, pre-Kyoto, pre-carbon footprint days of 1950.

Again - can anyone point to any part of the voluminous body of climate change research that suggests Canada should not have this kind of snow anomalies in a warmer global climate?

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

There's this phenomenon called "winter." The author might want to investigate that.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

OK ... "many places." What fraction of the total Arctic ice cover is that? We're not told. But the author won't let little details like that get in the way of a good screed.

OK, so one winter does not a climate make. It would be premature to claim an Ice Age is looming just because we have had one of our most brutal winters in decades.

Ahh ... yup.

But if environmentalists and environment reporters can run around shrieking about the manmade destruction of the natural order every time a robin shows up on Georgian Bay two weeks early, then it is at least fair game to use this winter's weather stories to wonder whether the alarmist are being a tad premature.

If the evidence for global warming really were this sparse and anecdotal, then sure. But that's not the case. The case for anthropogenic global warming is not a mere collection of disconnected anecdotes. The fact that - in addition to the body of scientific research - anecdotes get told as well does not invalidate all that work. So no - this isn't "fair game" at all. The proper response to anecdotal evidence is not to say "OK lets all pretend anecdotal evidence is all that matters." It's to dismiss it in favor of serious research. This is nothing but a cheap tactic designed to throw the baby out with the bath water.

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

Again, that's all very interesting (and I've long argued that a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation is quite unlikely) but this is a sideline - surely not part of any "dogma". Whether or not ice melt could cause sufficient freshening to shut down the THC has no bearing on whether the Earth's climate is warming.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

I'm going to assume the author has just got something wrong here. Large scale circulation in the Atlantic basin was my father's primary field of research for decades and it's just nonsense to say the role of prevailing wind patterns wasn't appreciated. It sure would be helpful if the author would point us to what research this is supposed to be about. I'll see if I can find it by other means.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

OK ... how has he showed anything of the kind? We have quite an array of satellites monitoring insolation at this point. Where's the evidence of any change?

He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.

OK ... what reason is there for believing that sunspot activity won't pick up soon? None that I've ever seen.

The last time the sun was this inactive, Earth suffered the Little Ice Age that lasted about five centuries and ended in 1850. Crops failed through killer frosts and drought. Famine, plague and war were widespread. Harbours froze, so did rivers, and trade ceased.

This is hilarious. A 100 year warming trend verified in everything from commercial shipping records to pristine ice cores can be waved away with the implication that record keeping was less comprehensive and thus less reliable before 1972. But the accuracy and quality of seasonal variances and sun spot records beginning in 1350, made in part by a handful of Chinese astrologers and Bedouin tribesmen centuries before the invention of the modern solar telescope, are indisputable.

It's way too early to claim the same is about to happen again, but then it's way too early for the hysteria of the global warmers, too.

lgunter@shaw.ca

Look ... I'm sorry to rant but this kind of dishonest presentation is dumbing down the conversation. The author relies on us to be too lazy to actually examining the claims and arguments being made and the gist is "oh it's all so complicated and everybody makes bogus arguments so just forget it, have another drink and watch Britney prancing around without her panties." It just makes me furious.

I know I shouldn't let it get to me this way because then I can be dismissed (as I have been) as just automatically attacking any skeptic argument. But really - that's not the case. I would love to engage in real, fact-based discussion of climate change issues but instead this kind of stuff is what we get - over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over again. It might not be so frustrating if there were an occasional novelty, but I haven't seen a truly new argument in a long time.

[Squarethecircle]

I personally believe that neither side of the argument is technically correct at all, specifically because of how far the arguments tend to stretch: typically, the side advertising global warming is very far off on exactly how bad the situation actually is, and the side denying global warming generally tends to ignore most of the facts altogether.

But, like the above, I am also very frustrated that the side of denial tends to repeat its arguments instead of conducting any research of its own. People might be more likely to believe them if they went out and gathered their own hard facts.

When the next ice age or relatively cool period comes along, this will probably be a thing of the past, but while it is still a thing of the present, I think people need to treat it as such.

[wbug1]

Global warming data is based on average yearly global temperatures. For example, in Finland we have had an exceedingly warm winter, and right now it's been about 1-2 degrees for 7 days in a row. So based on this evidence, I could say that it's getting warmer because it's been way, way above the average temp since records have been kept since the early 1900's. I would be correct for this small area, but it's only a small part of that global average.

Anecdotally, while T.O has had a lot of snow, overall it seems to have been pretty warm there.

Fortunately, CO2 emissions will now start to go down because oil is expensive and will remain so. Of course, there's a lot of coal left in the ground, so maybe not. CO2 air concentration is at 385 ppm and every year another 2 ppm or so is added to that. China and India have enormous populations and are starting to buy lots of cars. China's use of coal is skyrocketing. The rate of addition of CO2 could increase rapidly if a positive feedback loop really starts to get going.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Whether AGW is real or not, we need nuclear plants. People who tout hydrogen fuel cells neglect that hydrogen is more a storage medium than a fuel, as it tends not to exist in its useable state. More nuclear plants, fewer coal plants, fewer oil plants. Natural gas plants, by simple chemistry, are the least carbon producing of all fossil fuels.

By nuke generated electricity can be used to generate hydrogen in its useful form, and dependence on foreign oil drops.

[stormchazer]

Thanks x-y-no for proving my point that to suggest that GW is not a fully understood event is an imediate call for a beatdown. The point of posting the article is to suggest that there is a lot not known and that GW is not an exact theory.

More ice coverage is now an indication of Global Warming whereas the reduction of ice in Greenland and the Artic is to an indication of GW. This is what is harder for me to take. GW is the greatest hypothosis ever suggested in that any event that occurs is due to global warming. More Hurricanes in 2005.....Global Warming. Well, 2006 and 2007 did not deliver so now Global Warming can cause less hurricanes.

I do find in interesting that....

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

Is this not the linchpin of our coming global doomsday? Melting ice everywhere, because of us?!

And it's not just anecdotal evidence that is piling up against the climate-change dogma.

According to Robert Toggweiler of the Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory at Princeton University and Joellen Russell, assistant professor of biogeochemical dynamics at the University of Arizona -- two prominent climate modellers -- the computer models that show polar ice-melt cooling the oceans, stopping the circulation of warm equatorial water to northern latitudes and triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong.

"We missed what was right in front of our eyes," says Prof. Russell. It's not ice melt but rather wind circulation that drives ocean currents northward from the tropics. Climate models until now have not properly accounted for the wind's effects on ocean circulation, so researchers have compensated by over-emphasizing the role of manmade warming on polar ice melt.

But when Profs. Toggweiler and Russell rejigged their model to include the 40-year cycle of winds away from the equator (then back towards it again), the role of ocean currents bringing warm southern waters to the north was obvious in the current Arctic warming.

Is this factor not interesting to consider or are we now to call the above scientist fruitcakes because they suggest we have more to learn about climate change. It was some of their modeling use to say Global Warming was a reality. They suggest that the data is insufficient so now they are fruitcakes?

Look I know the article is slanted in ways but no more so then "An Inconvenient Truth". My point was, and you gave credence to my arguement, that it is no longer an intellectual discussion because any one who tells the other side of climate change is immediately rebuked.

Thanks for playing along.

[x-y-no]

Thanks x-y-no for proving my point that to suggest that GW is not a fully understood event is an imediate call for a beatdown. The point of posting the article is to suggest that there is a lot not known and that GW is not an exact theory.

Well I'm sorry but I can't agree that presenting false and misleading statements is any kind of way to make a point.

More ice coverage is now an indication of Global Warming whereas the reduction of ice in Greenland and the Artic is to an indication of GW. This is what is harder for me to take. GW is the greatest hypothosis ever suggested in that any event that occurs is due to global warming. More Hurricanes in 2005.....Global Warming. Well, 2006 and 2007 did not deliver so now Global Warming can cause less hurricanes.

You're conflating all kinds of stuff. There has never been any debate or controversy whatsoever (except in the minds of denialists) that there will be as much if not more variability in a warmer global climate.

And I defy you to present anything in the peer-reviewed research or in (for example) the IPCC reports that comes even close to claiming that everything that happens in weather is due to global warming. And issues like the impact of climate change on hurricanes have been hotly debated and examined within the community of researchers who all agree on the overall theory. That's called science. The fact that science vigorously examines ideas is a positive, not a negative. Broad theories are not invalidated by strong disagreements about details.

I do find in interesting that....

And remember the Arctic Sea ice? The ice we were told so hysterically last fall had melted to its "lowest levels on record? Never mind that those records only date back as far as 1972 and that there is anthropological and geological evidence of much greater melts in the past.

The ice is back.

Gilles Langis, a senior forecaster with the Canadian Ice Service in Ottawa, says the Arctic winter has been so severe the ice has not only recovered, it is actually 10 to 20 cm thicker in many places than at this time last year.

Is this not the linchpin of our coming global doomsday? Melting ice everywhere, because of us?!

Again, there's this phenomenon called "winter." It seems that you may need to investigate it too since you are apparently surprised that there is more Arctic ice in FEBRUARY than in AUGUST. And nether is there anything strange about a 20% variation in ice thickness in some undefined region of the Arctic.

Show me one reputable climate researcher who makes any claim that global warming will result in monotonic ice melt everywhere at all times. The claim is simply absurd and I think you know it - so why are you throwing out such crap? All I ask is honesty, and I get precious little of it from all these arguments. I'm so sick of knocking down straw-men I could spit.

...

Is this factor not interesting to consider or are we now to call the above scientist fruitcakes because they suggest we have more to learn about climate change. It was some of their modeling use to say Global Warming was a reality. They suggest that the data is insufficient so now they are fruitcakes?

Who called them fruitcakes? Yet another straw-man argument. As I pointed out in my earlier answer, I've long argued that a shutdown of the thermohaline circulation due to ice melt is quite unlikely. Exactly how does saying that I've long argued for the exact result they suggest amount to calling them "fruitcakes?" Do you even care about addressing what people really say or are you just happy arguing with imaginary opponents? Let me know because if it's the latter I'll save my energy.

Look I know the article is slanted in ways but no more so then "An Inconvenient Truth". My point was, and you gave credence to my arguement, that it is no longer an intellectual discussion because any one who tells the other side of climate change is immediately rebuked.

"An Inconvenient Truth" wasn't perfect but it had one heck of a lot more factual basis than this article. Do you want to have a civil discussion of the strength of the various arguments made or do you want to play more straw-man?

Thanks for playing along.

What's that supposed to mean?

[x-y-no]

Whether AGW is real or not, we need nuclear plants. People who tout hydrogen fuel cells neglect that hydrogen is more a storage medium than a fuel, as it tends not to exist in its useable state. More nuclear plants, fewer coal plants, fewer oil plants. Natural gas plants, by simple chemistry, are the least carbon producing of all fossil fuels.

By nuke generated electricity can be used to generate hydrogen in its useful form, and dependence on foreign oil drops.

No argument from me. Although long-term I think solar and wind can take over - but we need an interim solution over the next half century or so and nuclear is probably it. We need to resolve the waste storage problem, though. There's an irrational fear of the risk in nuclear waste relative to more familiar technologies. I can't explain it - people are just really bad at evaluating relative risk.

[Sanibel]

It's called "amplitude".


As more energy is added to the atmosphere it is able to pull greater swings in temperatures.

Last month, Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as "a drop in the bucket." Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to "stock up on fur coats."

When they tried to say solar activity was causing the warming it didn't work. Now they are saying it will cause cooling. Of course, none of these rigorous skeptics caught that or commented on it.

Watch what the glaciers do...

[Cryomaniac]

I have just one thing to say: One year is not enough evidence.

Just look at the 2005 hurricane season.

Screw that, 100 years is not enough evidence...

[gigabite]

It's called "amplitude".


.... When they tried to say solar activity was causing the warming it didn't work. ...

The Stefan-Boltzmann law

The ratio of the Earth's surface temperature to that of the Sun depends only on the Earth-Sun distance and the solar radius.

[Sanibel]

Basic physics. When you add tons of CO2 to the atmosphere it creates something called the "Greenhouse Effect".

[gigabite]

Yes, the atmosphere having a greenhouse effect is basic physics, but the greenhouse effect is only a fraction of the inbound radiation. A portion of the inbound radiation is reflected before it reaches the troposphere. Over the past few decades the earth sun distance has been shrinking winter, spring, summer, fall. Over the next few centuries the solar distance in the summer will be shrinking. While for the next few decades at least the fall, winter, spring solar distances will be increasing.

My point is to review the greenhouse effect hypothetically without regard to the inbound radiation is starting from a false premise. Although a relative answer is achieved with respect to the expansion of the greenhouse effect to the amount of CO2 the real question should be the expansion of the greenhouse effect to the increase/decrease of the inbound radiation.

[Sanibel]

The Times showed a chart today showing how La Nina's create a dip in temperatures.

Interesting that Florida winter Nina's are supposed to be dry but we were wet this year in south Florida. Last year's winter Nino was supposed to be wet but ended up dry.

[gigabite]

http://my.sfwmd.gov/sfwmd/common/images ... n_year.gif

The East Coast of Florida has more rain than average, but Southwest Florida has less that is because of the strength of the “trade winds” that cause the so called “la Nina.” That is what blew out the 2007 hurricane season.

When the trade winds are weaker the Hadley Circulation is weaker and more moisture stays in the subtropics and Southwest Florida gets more rain. Later in the year I think that rainfall will increase with out regard to the "la Nina."

http://earthguide.ucsd.edu/virtualmuseu ... yCells.jpg

This has to do with the reach of the wind over the water before the wind hits the tree line. I always use the example of the rainfall difference between the corkscrew rain gauge and the Naples gauge. The corkscrew gauge is on the west side of Lake Trafford a good size lake maybe a mile and a half across, the Naples gauge is at the Naples Zoo. There is only 18 minutes in longitude difference but year to date there is an inch and three quarters more rainfall at Corkscrew Headquarters gauge than at the Naples gauge.

Your Island probably gets the same type of effect from the bay and the Caloosahatchee River
River. (One of the crew told me that hatchee means river in Indian, so it is like saying Caloosa river river.)

I think you are right we have been getting more rain than last year. The drought seems to be moving off to the east.

[Sanibel]

We are a lot drier out here because the Gulf keeps the convection cells that form daily just over the mainland around I-75 from forming here. Sometimes we get maritime systems that the mainland doesn't get, but the balance is more on the dry end for us.

But differences of 1.75 inches are quite common due to the rain cell based nature of rainfall down here. When it rains it really pours.

[Ed Mahmoud]

Nothing to do with AGW, probably...


OK, it is almost two weeks away, but 12Z GFS hinting at a White St. Patrick's Day for Dallas!

[Tampa Bay Hurricane]

Interesting stuff wonder what it'll do to the hurricanes this year