Global Warming Warning: All Weather is Local
In a case of bad timing, last week brought with it more below average temperatures in New York coupled with another chorus of headlines from scientists spelling out dire warnings about global warming. As scientists gathered in Copenhagen for an 'emergency meeting' reported that climate predictions of the Intergovermental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) from two years ago are being outdone by worst case scenarios -- ice melting!, seas rising!!, rainforests disappearing!!! -- I, along with the rest of New York, was looking at the calendar trying to remember when it gets warm. It's been a long, cold winter here and Spring has barely even registered, so my feeling is, there go hopes that we as a people will get out in support of Congressional legislation and a new UN treaty on climate change. It sounds trite, but here's my hunch: beliefs in global warming rise and fall with, well... the mercury. And that spells trouble for those of us who believe we need to make changes now to head off global warming.
We in the temperate world have the luxury of waiting to act as long as catastrophe isn't affecting us personally, but according to the scientists who met in Copenhagen last week, we need to look beyond our own experience to an array of fast changing global realities. They produced some very alarming evidence, but so far their alarm call is not being met with action. These scientists, after all, research and report using a global perspective, but as far as my fellow New Yorkers and me are concerned: it's time for summer!
It's the same wherever you are: all weather, like politics, is local. Herein lies a major, but little discussed problem confronting those who want action on global warming: We can't agree on whether to act, largely because we experience weather locally rather than globally. From this perspective, the only hope for spurring Americans to care lies not in ad campaigns or celebrity endorsements of the cause, but in a long, hot summer that lasts until December when world leaders meet in Copenhagen to negotiate the new climate change treaty. But if the summer is anything like last year's mild weather in my neck of the woods, then we're in trouble -- and so are hopes for meaningful Congressional climate change legislation and a treaty.
As scientists and even our political leaders agitate for action, Americans seem to care less and less. The alarm bell is ringing and we're hitting the snooze button. In fact, fully 41% of Americans now believe that global warming has been exaggerated. Moreover, Pew Research recently released a poll of Americans that placed Global Warming dead last on a list of top 20 priorities for 2009. Sadly, even after An Inconvenient Truth and "Reality" ads about global warming galore, climate change is still not an important issue for most Americans.
Maybe there's a lesson here: Global warming, after all, has been marketed as an idea or even a product choice (choose this over that), rather than presented in a way that can bring home the reality of global climate change or the policy choices that confront us on a daily basis. People act when they feel affected by something. That's why I think colder than usual weather spells trouble for spurring action on global warming. As a filmmaker, I am frustrated to realize that TV ads and 'awareness campaigns' aren't doing the trick either. I can see global warming ads at the Super Bowl, but I can just as easily filter out the message of that ad as one for beer or an SUV.
As it stands with global warming, there's nothing that can elevate our senses the way cold wind on our face or the sun in our eyes can when we step out the front door. Case in point, there's nothing like the fury of a hurricane to get people talking about action on climate change. But the reality is, the weather may not cooperate. We may not have record heat or extreme weather disasters to stimulate public attitudes on global warming.
So even while political leaders like President Obama are making pledges to cut carbon emissions, the reality is House and Senate leaders are going to vote according to their constituents' wishes on whatever bill or treaty comes their way. Obama may find it lonely at the top as the American public puts less and less urgency behind global warming. And it's just at a moment when we as a nation should be turning up the heat (pardon the easy puns).
We in the media, as well those that care in the public at large, need to find a way to couch the debate in a way that doesn't make it so easy to ignore. Unfortunately, I'm not really sure what can be done. A recasting of weather forecasting might help. The abysmally flat Weather Channel and accompanying website could spice up their local weather reports with a global warming weather forecast that explained why maybe it was freezing in New York but downright warm in Anchorage. Overall, I wish the news media would inundate us with the reality of global warming -- photos, testimonials, even disasters -- and not with the he said/she said 'scientists pronounce...' 'leaders declare...' 'celebrities endorse...' junk that we get instead of real reporting.
Make me feel global warming, even when it's 30 degrees outside. That's all I'm asking...
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
We have two predictions and two proposed options for action.
First Option: This is do nothing as proposed by the DoNothings. If the DoNothings are correct this option means we can go on burning coal and oil until it runs out and nobody can be believed about when that is.
If the DoNothings are wrong they may live long enough to watch their grandchildren die and see the country they love rendered uninhabitable(See New Scientist Feb 28 2009 for a possible scenario)
Second Option: Reduce carbon emissions. If the DoNothings are correct this will divert industry to renewable fuels needlessly. It will have the side effect of reducing the cost of energy imports and reliance on the price fixing of despots. If the DoNothings are wrong we may be in time to reduce the effects of climate change and sea level rise so that maybe only a few million are displaced in the US. If the DoNothings are very wrong it may that we can only prepare for massive population relocation in as peaceful a manner as possible. It will be " God bless the United States of whoever will let us in"
Maybe you are not old enough to remember the 1970s: It was cold and the following consensus was being screamed:
New York Times, May 21, 1975
"A major cooling of the planet is widely considered inevitable because it is well established that the Northern Hemisphere's climate has been getting cooler since about 1950".
Science News, March 1, 1975
"Most climate scientists now expect a full-blown 10,000-year ice age".
Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976
"Climate scientists are united in their prediction of extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation".
International Wildlife, July 1975."
"The world's climatologists are agreed that we must prepare for the next ice age"
Science Digest, February 1973
"As a result of ominous signs that the Earth's climate is cooling down, meteorologists are unanimous in predicting that the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century, triggering catastrophic famines."
If we had taken action, during this period, such as powdering the arctic ice with soot (carbon), how much damage would we have created. The only deaths due to global warming so far, has been, malnutrition caused by increased grain prices, caused by the food to fuel incentives. This drive was a direct result of Gore's and (other's) environmental activism. To take action, without understanding is panic. Panic driven action will always result in additional deaths. Give your head a shake, and stop spouting fantasy disaster scenarios. Inducing panic, used to carry stiff penalties, under the riot act. G.K.
I am running out of reply room. Here are all my referenced graphs. They help explain why people have been feeling cold for the last decade. Yes, Gore's famous hockey stick graph is missing. It was shown to be missing all the cooling period data, such as the "little ice age" and was never considered valid. All temp. data comes from NSDC satellite and land data charts.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ncdc-december-2008.png
http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/ww350/infomgr/REcentSatLandTemps.gif
http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/ww350/infomgr/30yearstempssince1979.gif
The following graph shows why the IPCC models are on the verge of collapse.
http://i734.photobucket.com/albums/ww350/infomgr/FailedClimateModelPredictions.gif
None, of the above, refutes GW trends exist (anymore than global cooling trends exist). They merely show that CO2 probably is not the prime driver. Solar fluctuations, ocean oscillations, Earth tilt cycles, orbital oscillation, volcanic activity, may all be candidates. Don't let people with an ideological agenda, tell you, that the cold you are experiencing, is in your imagination. Many of these people, just like the warm, fuzzy feeling, they get, when they THINK they are saving the planet. They will walk right by a homeless person, on the street, while they pat themselves on the back, for changing, a few light bulbs.
The above are either irrelevant or junk science.
Take a straight line x-y plot of y=x.
Add random noise.
You will find sections of the graph that go down instead of up if you look at a small enough part of the graph with noise. Since you created the graph you know the trend is up.That is all the graphs you point to are doing. It is an abuse of the data and statistics in an attempt to hide the true trend.
You can do the plotting yourself. You don't need to believe anything I say, or anyone else says. Try it and let us know what you observe.
Climate is 30 year averages of weather. Weather is noisy. To identify trends, one needs to understand the correct methods of data analysis.
Your points are valid(except the junk science part), however, how does that prove the hypothesis of CO2.
You keep avoiding the issue that increasing CO2 levels, Must be accompanied by increasing temperatures. Deviations from a arbitrary norm, does not prove or even relate.
It is up to people who put forward a proposed hypothesis, to prove it valid, not the skeptic.
Calling NCDC data "junk", is not helpful. You are free to post your own "junk" if you like. Free speech, means you can graph the data however you like, just use all the data.
I have NOT been trying to show, global warming does not, or is not, now happening. Current temperatures are causing the disconnect from CO2. Not me. As I have already stated, I think a warmer, wetter world is mankind's best hope, for feeding 7 billion people. However, the CO2 hypothesis gives me no assurance, of continuing warming. Continuation of current cooling will have dire consequences. I look forward to the return of warming trends. History shows warming "good", cooling "bad". Not me! Shooting the messenger, might make you feel better, but is not helpful.
Why don't we just leave it up to the people, who are freezing, to decide, who is right. Btw, since when has hot weather and drought conditions in Australia, ever been news. I have heard nothing but, for all my years. And that's quite a few, I'm sorry to say.
Why am I seeing nothing on HP regarding the recent report from UW questioning the theory of global warming?
How about a film about Linus Pauling, and why he claimed Vitamin C directly oxidized the cold virus, to spur the sale of orange juice? It is an interesting story - a highly reputable scientist claiming a test tube experiment was a valid model for the human bodty, when he should have known it was not.
There is a paper out written by an Antarctic researcher that claims the cold snap we have experienced has caused CO2 levels to drop and a new glacier to form. This guy has the pulse of the thermometer all figured out.
Gabriel London, in the midst of this excellent essay, makes an odd comment about the Weather Channel. He complains that the Weather Channel is doing its job, reporting on the current cold winter weather. He thinks they should also be providing commentary, to explain that despite what our lying eyes are seeing, global warming is still happening.
I commend the Weather Channel for doing its job, which is providing useful, timely weather information to the public. If the Weather Channel wants to dip its toe into the global warming debate, it could, from time to time, present the current data regarding the earth, such as the current temperatures at the North and South Poles, the global mean ocean temperature, the global air temperatures, and so on, and provide their historical context.
The last thing the Weather Channel should be doing is spinning the weather news, to prop up a global warming hypothesis that increasingly looks flawed. The Weather Channel should stick to the facts. If global warming is ever discussed, the widely different opinions of scientists need to be presented without bias.
Why does Gabriel London want to destroy the credibility of the Weather Channel?
The data shows average global temperature continuing to increase so I'm not sure why you would think global warming is flawed. The more data we get, the more the evidence supports global warming.
There are not widely differing opinions among climate scientists. Can you give a reference to such?
Decadal temperatures data comes from the NCDC. You can plot them yourself, or you can see them in the following plot.
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/01/ncdc-december-2008.png
If you want a wider view, check out the references, in my previous comment. The temperatures of cool periods, should not be used to calculate a referenced mean. Remember, for testing the CO2, hypothesis, it is only necessary, to show increasing CO2 levels, and no subsequent increase in temperatures. Is the IPCC getting desperate? You bet. They have been caught, more than once, publishing false data. It is easy to be a conformist. It take courage to speak out against manipulation and ideological consensus. Climate cycles up and down. When it cycles up, mankind thrives. When it cycles down, misery and famine follow. That is history.
i've a q or 2 for the alarmists here (u know who you r lo..):
just how much CO2 can we put in the atmosphere if we were to burn ALL the sequestered carbon?
it's a finite amount after all and so far we claim responsibility for only 35% of the .038% CO2
that is in the atmosphere now. so when we're done there might be a whopping .040% or .050%?
So when it comes to climate change and global warming, we're suppose to ignore the weather. This is such nonsense. If I were to list 100 things that concern me, global warming would not be one of them.
Climate is the 30 year average of weather. Yes you are supposed to understand the concept of an average to understand global warming and climate change. Your math deficiencies don't change the science.
What you are really saying is that we should ignore our personal observations and accept modeled climate and predictions. A model that has predicted catastrophe and doom for 30 yrs, that have never come to past. With recent 10 yr flattening of temperatures, and current two years of cooling, the IPCC models have collapsed and are effectively falsified. People can only be fooled so long, then they return to "believing what they can see". Man made global warming is a Hegelian political movement and should not be confused with valid skeptical science.
''People can only be fooled so long..''
be careful there gk..for 2000 years now
some people still believe in omnipotence!!
The problem with "believing what you see" is that it really looks like the sun goes round the earth.
I believe the earth orbiting the sun is not a hypothesis, but proven theory. AGW or man made global warming is a hypothesis, which is in the process of being falsified, by recent declines in temps, during a time of increasing CO2. A real scientist, knows the difference. Ideology is interfering with your scientific logic, if you posses any.
The earth orbiting the sun is not an hypothesis. It is a proven theory. AGW is a hypothesis, in the process of being falsified, by the recent flattening and subsequent cooling recently, despite the continuing increasing CO2 levels. A real scientist knows the difference. You ideology, is interfering with your scientific logic, if you have any.
Thank you for a very reasonable, thoughtful article. Many global warming supporters have simply not recognized the obvious point made in this article. Colder weather does mean trouble for efforts to enact Global Warming legislation.
The credibility of the "worst case" scenarios has been weakened by the observed weather around us, and by knowledge of the most basic climate indicators, such as global air temperatures, global sea temperatures, and the extent of sea ice in the Arctic and Antarctic regions.
An example of weakened credibility is the Met Office in London. It recently predicted a warmer winter. A colder winter occurred. Reportedly the erroneous Met Office's forecast included an explicit upward adjustment for Global Warming, which was laid over the local weather indicators. Well, if "All weather is Local," then should there have been an upward adjustment for Global Warming? If all weather is local, what is the justification for the upward adjustment? If global warming requires an upward adjustment in local weather forecasts, then how does it explain the current global temperatures, which have been stable for the last ten years?
An article openly discussing this topic would be very informative to the public.
Global warming is real, most scientists say so, and we should believe them, because nobody knows better than scientists. They have all the data and they are smart and they figured out that global warming is real. Anyone who questions the majority of scientists is a fool and should shut up and stop quoting unscientific lists and literature. Whenever you change the composition of a material, such as the atmosphere, by adding another material in large quantities, such as carbon dioxide, you change that material's index of refraction. Changing the index of refraction will change how much sunlight the atmosphere can absorb or reflect, which changes the temperature of the planet. It's not that complicated, you just need to know basic physics to figure it out.
No it isn't that simple. Because the atmosphere is a hugely complex system. That is why the IPCC has a wide range of predictions of future climate.
the reason the climate isn't effected much by C02. It's effect on climate is logarithmic. The entire premise is built upon the assumption that the feedback process in the atmosphere feedback processes are net positive and on a razors edge of stability. There is no scientific consensus on this and the empirical evidence suggests that internal variability is more homeostatic then the IPCC assumed.
Also only on of the 4 climate measuring metrics show any warming over the last decade. Any expert who claims otherwise is simply wrong at this time.
So if the atmosphere is not dominated by positive feedback processes then all then CO2 reductions will be even more meaningless.
there are much more pressing environmental problems.
lightbolt - "Global warming is real, most scientists say so, and we should believe them, because nobody knows better than scientists."
Yes Virgina, GW is real. It as warmed. It has cooled. It's probably no warmer right now than it was last time it warmed.
Most scientists say so. What? Say that GW has been real? Or, do most scientists say that man has caused most or all of the recent global warming? Or, do most scientists say that man may be having a slight to some effect on the amount of warming which is above what they believe to be the natural cyclic warming cycle? Not that they actually have very accurate method of measuring what is exactly normal.
A number of renouned climate scientists have withdrawn their participation from the handfull of scientists who have some effect on what the politicians at the IPCC are promoting. Would it be safe to suggest that most of the scientists who have withdrawn their names agree or don't agree with you?
Can one presume that the author's post is directed at the non-scientists at the extreme in the heated debate on climate, because nobody who is actually tuned into the science fails to understand that weather isn't climate. On the far ends we have "alarmists" and "deniers", two appellations designed to alienate and promote disharmony and hegemony of ignorance over understanting and willingness to look objectively, and they, lacking a deep understanding, and unwilling to spend the energy, intellect and the time required to understand complexity(and besides it gets in the way of watching march madness and celebrity scandal), do use weather just that way. Too bad, unless you are one of the media outlets that make money by framing the controversy in such a way that eager eyes connected to mostly empty heads stay glued to their screen...the more the merrier since that's where the big bucks lie...pun intented.
Can we please look at the facts and be reasonable. The phrase "climate change" is redundant. The earth's climate is ALWAYS changing. It gets hot, it gets cold, it gets wet, it gets dry. Scientists have found skeletal remains of warm weather organisms in now the coldest parts of the planet. This would mean at some point in the earth's existence, it was warm in these now cold regions. We as humans have NO IMPACT on our climate. Now having said that I am always for a cleaner environment but not at my expense. Cap and trade will absolutely destroy our economy. Who do you think the electric companies are going to pass the extra costs on to? Much of our electricity comes from coal power plants. When Obama places his draconian policies like cap and trade, hold on to your wallet wether you are rich,poor or middle class.
The economical condition in this country has had a powerful effect on the amount of pollutants, due to less freight being moved by trucks and no doubt the emissions of manufacturing facilities.
Alot less freight. It has affected the weather.
I would like to see some comparisons to previous years-highway fuel use by trucks: air pollution.
No doubt people with asthma no longer using Albuteral with CFC propellant will is also making a huge difference.
It's a simple equation, really.
Right now, there are 600,000,000 automobiles on the planet. Each one puts 5 to 15 tons of CO2 into the atmosphere each year.
For each car, there needs to be planted upwards of 30 trees per year.
In the past 100 years or so, our consumption of O2 and production of CO2 has radically increased. A concurrent reversal of this chemical reaction is required.
http://www.carbonify.com/carbon-calculator.htm
100's of millions of tree seedlings are self germanating everyday. Even 600 million vehicles would have little effect on the earths climate. A volcano or two however would have and has had a vast effect in the shorterm earth's climate, Mt Pinatobo for example made two summers in a row disappear from the southern hemisphere. The vehicle contribution theory is bunk! I'd be more worried about the very poisonous Benzene that vehicles emit,
There's a net loss of trees every year due to deforestation. The number of cars is increasing.
In twenty years there will be 1.3 billion cars on the planet.
The billions of tons of CO2 they emit every year has an enormous effect on the planet. It is childish to think otherwise.
The fact is, humans need to pay to play. If they want to drive, they need to pay for the oxygen cars consume and for the damage caused by the fumes the cars emit.
You guys on the right love your volcano analogies. The truth is that "current annual word-wide emissions of CO2 from volcanoes are less than 1% of annual emissions from burning fossil carbon fuels. You may note that over half the volume of gas emissions from volcanoes is water vapor and while water vapour is a greenhouse gas, it condenses as precipitation within days of an eruption." So, therefore, you'll have to find other excuses to discount the effect of carbon emissions on climate change than to point to volcanoes.
I think the masses are very smart on this subject. They know they are going to be paying the heavy cost impimenting the plan and they know the rich and powerful will just make money off if it wether it is coal companies, the oil industry or the politicians.
As Einstein said if the science is fact then it only takes one scientest to prove it right or wrong.
The Reich was always trying to prove him wrong with hundreds of scientest signing petetions.
Oh your right about one thing, It's all about making money
The petition signers are the ones who are trying to prove the science behind AGW is suspect, so your Einstein deal is misapplied. Einstein in this case is the individual climate scientists who have been working on this field of study all of their lives, and who have built a very solid case for global warming, and the Reich is the doubt casting do nothings who almost never go out and make observations and write papers.
All most of them do is lie and slither back under rocks. If they were sincere in their endeavors they would go out and do science. If AGW is a hoax, this really should be fairly simple to do. Why do they almost never take such an approach? Because they already know the science is solid. So they have retreated to just fooling the public and politicians into believing there is doubt.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
