UN Dispatch Offers Primer On Weather, For The Hopelessly Confused

In the climate change debate, there is on one level a sensible and ongoing debate where scientists and lawmakers hash out the best policy responses, and then there is another level where people believe that the existence of snow proves that global warming is not happening.

And then there is the tendency of nearly everyone to joke about wintertime cold spells by quipping, "Hey, whatever happened to that global warming stuff!" I'm sure that legit climate change experts make these jokes, for fun, they just dare not email those jokes to one another anymore, for fear that Russian hackers will document it as evidence of a massive cover-up, for reasons too baffling to understand.

WATCH:

The pre-K hosts of "Fox and Friends" recently made such a joke, as a part of their larger attempts to grapple with wit. They are, to be sure, the sort of low-hanging fruit that are best described as root vegetables, but for the sake of a teachable moment, UN Dispatch contributor Matthew Cordell decided to take on "the 'it's cold outside, global warming must be over' meme" by unleashing some junior high earth science. To wit:

From this primer (pdf):

When you watch the weatherman on TV, you often hear about the highs and lows of the day, humidity levels and precipitation. But sometimes on TV you also see advertisements for places to vacation claiming that their location has a hot and sunny beach climate or a cold and snowy location that is great for skiing. If climate and weather both describe temperature and precipitation, what is the difference?

Weather is "the conditions in the atmosphere in a certain place during a certain time. Weather is always changing [emphasis mine]."

Climate is "what the weather is generally like over long periods of time, such as years or decades in a particular area. A place that has little rainfall has a dry climate, and a place that has high temperatures has a hot climate."

So, I hope this is all straight. Temperatures will continue to be "cold" in the "winter," and shall increase as the season changes to "spring" and "summer." This evening, it shall grow dark outside, but DO NOT PANIC: God did not kill the sun, and it shall return tomorrow.

[Would you like to follow me on Twitter? Because why not? Also, please send tips to [e-mail] -- learn more about our media monitoring project here.]

Comments

[realpolitic]

09:56 AM on 01/11/2010

The Met Office further notes:

"After three decades of warming caused by man-made greenhouse gas emissions, why would there suddenly be a period of relative temperature stability -- despite more greenhouse gases being emitted than ever before? This is because of what is known as internal climate variability. In the same way that our weather can be warm and sunny one day, cool and wet the next, so our climate naturally varies from year to year, and decade to decade."

"Before the twentieth century, when man-made greenhouse gas emissions really took off, there was an underlying stability to global climate. The temperature varied from year to year, or decade to decade, but stayed within a certain range and averaged out to an approximately steady level."

"In the twentieth century we have had continued variability, but an underlying trend of warming in the previously steady long-term averages. This is what we observed in the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Now we have seen a decade of little change in the average global temperature -- but that doesn't mean climate change has stopped, it's just another part of natural variability."

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909240021

[goodspkr]

05:01 PM on 01/11/2010

Actually, this is a spin on what is happening. Of course there is natural variability in the weather and climate. But in the period from the late 70s to the late 90s this warming was attributed by the warmists to CO2. The talk of natural variability was squashed by the refrain prove it. "Show us what is causing the warming and be prepared to prove exactly how much it is contributing to warming."

Now that the shoe is on the other foot, we see Ken Trenberth saying that the warmists can't explain the lack of warming and that it is a travesty they can't. Somehow I keep hearing "what's sauce for the goose....." in my mind.

But Latif's warning that we could see another 20 years of cooling based on the AMO and PDO are scientifically sound. But shouldn't we have looked at those same currents when we were in the warming phase?

One thing is very clear. With the IPCC models not showing anything like this, we certainly need to have a better understanding on how the climate works.

[realpolitic]

06:09 PM on 01/11/2010

All the models have underestimated the warming to date. They have underestimated polar ice loss, ocean warming and mountain glacier loss. The warming is still caused by co2. As said, Latif said natural variability may delay or slow an otherwise warming trend. He is a firm believer in anthropogenic climate change. Overall, your writing is muddled and I don't know what you mean. But I can point out what Trenberth said....

"The global mean temperature in 2008 was the lowest since about 2000 (Fig. 1). Given that there is continual heating of the planet, referred to as radiative forcing, by accelerating increases of carbon dioxide (Fig. 1) and other greenhouses due to human activities, why isn’t the temperature continuing to go up? The stock answer is that natural variability plays a key role1 and there was a major La Niña event early in 2008 that led to the month of January having the lowest anomaly in global temperature since 2000. While this is true, it is an incomplete explanation. In particular, what are the physical processes? From an energy standpoint, there should be an explanation that accounts for where the radiative forcing has gone. Was it compensated for temporarily by changes in clouds or aerosols, or other changes in atmospheric circulation that allowed more radiation to escape to space?

[realpolitic]

06:10 PM on 01/11/2010

(Trenberth continued....)

"Was it because a lot of heat went into melting Arctic sea ice or parts of Greenland and Antarctica, and other glaciers? Was it because the heat was buried in the ocean and sequestered, perhaps well below the surface? Was it because the La Niña led to a change in tropical ocean currents and rearranged the configuration of ocean heat? Perhaps all of these things are going on? But surely we have an adequate system to track whether this is the case or not, don’t we?"

Let me end with Trenberth’s science-based call to action, from the Bali Declaration:

Based on current scientific understanding, this requires that global greenhouse gas emissions need to be reduced by at least 50% below their 1990 levels by the year 2050. In the long run, greenhouse gas concentrations need to be stabilised at a level well below 450 ppm (parts per million; measured in CO2-equivalent concentration). In order to stay below 2ºC, global emissions must peak and decline in the next 10 to 15 years, so there is no time to lose.

http://climateprogress.org/2009/11/21/hacked-emails-ncar-kevin-tren

[realpolitic]

09:15 AM on 01/11/2010

U.K. Met Office: "It is not cold everywhere in the world." The U.K. Met Office Hadley Center noted in a January 6 press release that "it is not cold everywhere in the world. North-east America, Canada, North Africa, the Mediterranean, and south-west Asia have all seen temperatures above normal -- in many places by more than 5 C, and in parts of northern Canada, by more than 10°C."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001100009

[realpolitic]

08:39 AM on 01/11/2010

Christian Science Monitor: "Look around and you'll find plenty of warm spots on the planet." In a January 7 blog post, The Christian Science Monitor noted that "[s]ome parts of Northern New Zealand are sweltering in record breaking heat this week. And oddly enough, so are some places in Bulgaria, where a hot spot over the Black Sea has warmed one town to a pleasant 72 degrees. Not bad for a city at the same latitude as Portland, Maine." The Christian Science Monitor also noted, "On Christmas Day, the Australian Weather Bureau reported that Central Pacific Ocean temperatures are now at their warmest in more than a decade. For Australia itself, 2009 was a scorcher, the second hottest year on record after 2005."

http://mediamatters.org/research/201001100009

[goodspkr]

08:49 AM on 01/11/2010

Gosh, RP, it appears you are confusing weather with climate. Here's something about the climate changing for the next 20-30 years.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

Here's the money quote:

"Among the most prominent of the scientists is Professor Mojib Latif, a leading member of the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), which has been pushing the issue of man-made global warming on to the international political agenda since it was formed 22 years ago.
Prof Latif, who leads a research team at the renowned Leibniz Institute at Germany’s Kiel University, has developed new methods for measuring ocean temperatures 3,000ft beneath the surface, where the cooling and warming cycles start.

He and his colleagues predicted the new cooling trend in a paper published in 2008 and warned of it again at an IPCC conference in Geneva last September"

Great article and it explains a lot more about why we warmed so much in the 1980s and 1990s and why we are likely to cool for the next 20 or so years.

[realpolitic]

09:14 AM on 01/11/2010

The article is amateurishly written in that first in makes a case that Arctic ice has rebounded. Arctic ice is well below the baseline years that scientists use for comparative purposes and is at its thinnest of all time. There are no scientists who compare Arctic ice to its all time low of 2007 to say it has rebounded. It is silly.

http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/climate-ice-seaice-extent-trend-sep09.png

Secondly, the article misquotes Professor Latif, as have many others. Your friends Beck and Hannity tried to claim professor Latif said the same thing when he did not. What he actually said was...

,"On their radio shows, both Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity seized on a World Climate Conference presentation on short-term natural climate variability by Mojib Latif, a prominent climate modeler, to suggest that, in Beck's words, Latif has "backed out now and said, 'We were wrong,' " about global warming because, according to Hannity, Latif stated that global temperatures are actually "cooling." In fact, Latif asserted that contrary to common "media" misperceptions of global warming as a "monotonic process" in which "each year is warmer than the preceding year," there are significant natural climate variations within the decadal timescale that do not change the "long-term warming trend.""

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909240021

As it says, the current cold spell is a product of the Arctic oscillation. The forcing of the co2 will overcome all these natural variations.

[MAJK]

11:07 PM on 01/11/2010

Daily Mail Tabloid article already debunked by the scientist himself:

Mojib Latif, a climate expert at the Leibniz Institute at Kiel University in Germany, said he "cannot understand" reports that used his research to question the scientific consensus on climate change."
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/jan/11/climate-change-global-warming-mojib-latif

He added: "There is no doubt within the scientific community that we are affecting the climate, that the climate is changing and responding to our emissions of greenhouse gases."

But I'm sure you'll continue to read Fox and Tabloids for your scientific evidence.

[fumes]

08:50 PM on 01/10/2010

for all you deniers out there:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

hny!

[realpolitic]

08:38 AM on 01/11/2010

I deny the existence of that article!

[fumes]

11:15 AM on 01/11/2010

lol..

good for you rp!

say did you feel the quake at all?

[MAJK]

10:48 PM on 01/11/2010

Quoting tabloids? Next you'll post Fox News links as fact.

[MidwestHeart]

07:28 PM on 01/10/2010

Those who are worried about our planet are the same people who were against the Iraq war. We were in touch with reality then and we are in touch with reality now. I sure wish the naysayers could see this. Their children will suffer their folly.

[SFTor]

02:08 AM on 01/15/2010

I marched twice against the Iraq war. I do not believe we have the facts straight about global warming. Actually, I think we can say without doubt that temperature records in the U.S. do not bear out a warming. Must be the schizophrenia kicking in.

[MidwestHeart]

07:01 PM on 01/10/2010

To the deniers: those of us who are concerned about the planet and life on it, are the same folk who did not want the Iraq war. I think that should give us some credibility on this and other matters. We were right that it was a bad bad bad idea to go to war. For this alone we should get some respect and consideration on other issues we feel equally strongly about.

Also, it just does not make sense to me that those who believe a god created the earth are not concerned about its destruction. It is the liberals and scientists who care more about the health of our planet than those who believe their god created it, it seems to me. Apologies to offending anyone, but this is something I would like religious folk to consider.

It is time to move beyond arguing about what is causing the ice caps to melt. We have the technology to do something about it, so lets quit arguing and take action.

We are going to look pretty stupid to the children of today and future generations if we continue inaction. I expect they will be pretty angry, too.

[goodspkr]

05:14 PM on 01/11/2010

MidwestHeart--are you kidding me? Are you saying if my doctor diagnosis something that is not an easy thing to catch, I should ask him about my why my car is won't start?

Your second statement about those who beieve in God (I noticed your small g) are not concerned about the earth's destruction. Of course your assumption here is a big one. That is, that global warming will cause the earth's destruction. Even though you don't seem to believe in God, you seem to have a large ability to perform a leap of faith.

Now for your third statement, "We have the technology to do something about it, so lets quit arguing and take action" Hmmm, what technology is that? I know it isn't Nuclear power (the greens don't like it). I know it's not wind or solar (the technology isn't there yet). So what technology are you talking about?

[StephenBP]

06:50 PM on 01/10/2010

Bill Hodges, your quotes from the Daily Mail are just one step above citing a comic book. Keep up the great research work!

[billhodges]

05:09 PM on 01/10/2010

The UN admits it was wrong about the warming and admits a cooling period is in place.

The bitter winter afflicting much of the Northern Hemisphere is only the start of a global trend towards cooler weather that is likely to last for 20 or 30 years, say some of the world’s most eminent climate scientists.

Their predictions – based on an analysis of natural cycles in water temperatures in the Pacific and Atlantic oceans – challenge some of the global warming orthodoxy’s most deeply cherished beliefs, such as the claim that the North Pole will be free of ice in
summer by 2013.

According to the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado, Arctic summer sea ice has increased by 409,000 square miles, or 26 per cent, since 2007 – and even the most committed global warming activists do not dispute this.
North Pole

The scientists’ predictions also undermine the standard climate computer models, which assert that the warming of the Earth since 1900 has been driven solely by man-made greenhouse gas emissions and will continue as long as carbon dioxide levels rise.

[snagglepuss]

05:45 PM on 01/10/2010

billhodges,

Thought you might like to know what the US National Snow and Ice Data Center in Colorado (http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/) REALLY says:

"Arctic sea ice extent at end of December 2009 remained below normal, primarily in the Atlantic sector of the Arctic. Average air temperatures over the Arctic Ocean were much higher than normal for the month, reflecting unusual atmospheric conditions."

And...
"December 2009 had the fourth-lowest average ice extent for the month since the beginning of satellite records, falling just above the extent for 2007. The linear rate of decline for December is now 3.3% per decade."

[snagglepuss]

05:54 PM on 01/10/2010

Not sure why, but Huffpo seems to have garbled that link.
Let's try again:
nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

If all else fails, just type it into your browser:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/

[climate hawk]

05:57 PM on 01/10/2010

Great news!! All of your information is patently false and the leading UN scientists now admit it. Turns out Bill Hodges is absolutely correct and we are now entering a mini ice age. I am sure this news will elate you and your fellow gullible wormers.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

[StephenBP]

01:56 PM on 01/10/2010

Globally .... GLOBALLY........The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its average global surface temperature about 0.54 °C (0.96 °F) above the 20th Century average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36 °C (0.65 °F).

The United States is less than 2% of the earth's surface, and climate is measured in decades....
Sooooo....... if its cold in the US today, this week or this year, it means less than diddly squat compared to the 30 year average GLOBAL temperature.

[climate hawk]

06:11 PM on 01/10/2010

Gullible worming is like so 2006. We are in the 2010's now and, like every other leftist doomsday scenario, AGW has proved to be wrong. Not to worry Stephen......the leftist loons are already busy inventing the next planetary emergency they will use to try to destroy capitalism and the American way of life with....be patient my little friend.

[AtlasV]

12:06 AM on 01/11/2010

Destroy capitalism and the American way of life? What do you think is going to happen to capitalism and the American way of life if we DON'T do anything about the climate crisis?

If we remain idle, ignorant, and selfish, we will undoubtedly fail...

Climate action doesn't represent the destruction of civilization as we know it, it represents the only hope we've got to avert catastrophe.

[la2010verdad]

05:56 PM on 01/09/2010

"In the climate change debate, there is on one level a sensible and ongoing debate ..."

Wait a minute ... I thought the science was settled. So, if you admit that there is a sensible ongoing debate, that must mean the science is NOT settled.

Hmmmm.

[realpolitic]

12:06 PM on 01/10/2010

Do you know what a straw man argument is because you just crafted one?

[MAJK]

12:37 AM on 01/11/2010

All of science is based upon the scientific method and its principles: physics, medicine, evolution, planetary science, biology, zoology, climate scientists - ALL use the scientific method.

The leading consensus among scientists is what us "normal" folk must listen to. It doesn't mean we should stop questioning science, but it doe not mean that when some non-scientific person claims to have the answers, yet his/her ideas do not follow the scrutiny of the scientific method, we believe them right away.

That "denier" must follow the rules of all science and prove his/her claim properly through the rigorousness of the scientific method.

"[S]tudents, their teachers, and the broader public lack basic understandings of what science is and how it works, which may negatively impact their ability to make reasoned and informed decisions about science-related issues" http://www.amjbot.org/cgi/content/abstract/96/10/1760

[LMPE]

05:48 PM on 01/09/2010

If only there was a way to brainwash climate change deniers so that they would believe the truth.

[The last sane American]

08:34 AM on 01/10/2010

Can I point out to you as long as you start a conversation with a disparaging remark, very little dialogue will ensue.

(You know the temptation was there to payback, but hold off and see what happens)

[Dave Scott]

01:15 PM on 01/09/2010

I could be paddling a rowboat down Market Street in San Francisco after the poles have melted, and there will still be conservative fanatics who deny that humans are responsible for Global Warming or that it is even real. Please, read this article on this urgent issue: http://pltcldscsn.blogspot.com/2009/12/conservatives-still-deny-global-warming.htmlWar

[climastrology101]

02:37 PM on 01/09/2010

Even the last UNIPCC report from 2007 said the ocean would rise only 7 to 23 inches over the next 100 years, and that is a wild exaggeration. So you won't be rowing down Market Street ever.

[Javani]

07:23 PM on 01/09/2010

Good one.

My favorite is with the polar ice cap game. Point out that even the crazy, financially-conflicted IPCC science says that CO2+Mystery Feedbacks warming over the next century is only .03-.04 degrees C per year averaged in a century. So how does that explain the northern variations in ice cover? Stumps them every time.

[realpolitic]

08:20 AM on 01/10/2010

The report itself said they did not take into account the melting of Greenland. It has shown considerable melt.

[Javani]

07:07 PM on 01/09/2010

Climate Science is to Science,

as

Homeopathy is to Medicine.

Except homeopathy has been around longer and cannot be used to rationalise exotic financial transactions.

[MAJK]

12:40 AM on 01/11/2010

Climate science follows the scientific method. Homeopathy does not.

[SFTor]

09:12 PM on 01/08/2010

Nobody disagrees that the climate changes.

The disagreement is over whether it is man-made, and if it is, to what degree. The picture is unclear.

There is also disagreement whether some warming would be beneficial or not. So far the warming seems to have increased agricultural yields. We don't know whether additional warming will cause adverse conditions for agriculture and life in the oceans.

An open mind is essential.

[realpolitic]

07:09 AM on 01/09/2010

The scientists do not disagree. Deniers are the least open minded among us. Most will not even admit to the scientiifc consensus on climate change or say it does not matter. Do you discount the rise in co2 from pre-industrial age levels of 265 ppm to the present 385 ppm? Do you discount the acidification of oceans? Do you discount thae scientific evidence that for the last 800,000 years or longer co2 levels and temperature have strongly correlated? In fact, deniers have to constantly misstate the data to make their case like SFTor did when he said there has been no warming the last ten years. AP statisticians looked at the data blindly and said there has been warming the last ten years and besides the whole claim is just based on the fact that 1998 was such an outlier because of a strong el Nino. If deniers want to be respected, they should occasionally stick to the truth and show any tendency at all toward an open mind. Begin by reading the science and not just right-wing blogs!

[climastrology101]

02:30 PM on 01/09/2010

Of course temperature and CO2 correlate. First the temperature goes up, then CO2 goes up, hundreds of years later. It's called cause and effect. But cause always comes first.

[SFTor]

03:42 PM on 01/09/2010

Question to you, real:

If the forcings in the climate system are positive, why didn't temperatures continue to rise after the El Nino year of 1998?

[Paradym]

08:15 AM on 01/09/2010

An educated mind is imperative.

There is no disagreement that climate change is man made, except by those who wish to deny it. It's the same thing with evolution - the facts are all there but some simply either do not understand it or cannot accept it.

Some warming would be beneficial for some locations. But what would benefit one would hurt another.

[fumes]

06:00 PM on 01/08/2010

now if we could only figure out a way to cool the air..

you know.. before it's too late!

[realpolitic]

02:44 PM on 01/09/2010

I guess last year being the fifth warmest on instrumental record is not so impressive. See how slowly our expectations change until we get used to a warming world.

[fumes]

10:08 PM on 01/10/2010

ahem..

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html

[EconPadawan]

05:09 PM on 01/08/2010

Do climate change deniers actually believe that greenhouse gases can stop the Earth from tilting on its axis during the winter months or have they simply not read their science books close enough?

[BlackbirdHighway]

03:11 PM on 01/09/2010

The tilt of the Earths axis is a scientific fact. Deniers don't do scientific facts.

[la2010verdad]

06:01 PM on 01/09/2010

AGW disciples create their own facts.

[DemocraticStraits]

06:06 PM on 01/11/2010

I have to ask. What does the Earth do the other 9 months out of the year? You know, from you book learning types.