But as seems too common these days, it is undermined by a dopey headline: “How the big freeze fits theories of global warming.”
The word “fits” has multiple meanings. Presumably they meant something closer to “fits in with” [which itself would be poor] rather than how the disinformers read it, “supports.”
They’d have been better off with something like “Experts: Cold snap doesn’t disprove global warming.”
Previous in TP Climate Progress
We have now had a couple of generations grow up under the balmy influence of global warming, and people have forgotten how cold winters in NW Europe and Great Britain were a couple of hundred years ago.
Even during the Medieval Warm Period, we have literary references to the River Thames freezing over at London on a regular basis.
When the River Thames freezes over at London year after year, then we will know that AGW does not “fit” what is happening.
I for one, really would like to ice skate across the River Thames. However, I think, I missed my chance.
What a pity they didn’t show what is going on in the Arctic.
And what a pity they chose to start by interviewing Peiser, the ex-sports lecturer who tried and failed to cast doubt on Naomi Oreskes’ paper about peer-reviewed papers.
I have always, from the beginning, said that “Global Warming” means more “energetic” weather patterns, more strong hurricans, typhoons, tornadoes, droughts, freezing, etc.
But, I have the experience of working in a USAF Meteorological Laboratory for USAF 9th Weather Group, 55th Recon. Squadron, including an indoctrination stint into the Arctic Circle, long ago, but such training became part of my framework, my outlook for my lengthy study of heat transfer including Radiation Heat Transfer (my MS Thesis).
Only the misinformed thinks everyday will be warmer than the day before.
Is this what they call a “canard”?
Also, I have also heard others predict less rain. What is all that heat going to do to the ocean water? Produce LESS evaporation?
Also, why were some surprised at increasing snow in Antarctica? Where is all that increased humidity to go? Must it all stay in the Tropics?
Also, and this will come back to haunt us. More energetic weather means more distribution of energy, this means the planet temperature becomes MORE uniform (seems ironic to think a tornado distributes energy), this, of course, means more energy is radiated to space from more of the globe. The atmospheric temperature will be increasingly influenced by the distribution of its energy, while the sun energy remains constant.
In short, the larger heat radiation area by the more evenly heated global atmosphere will, seemingly, slow down the effects correctly predicted of Global Warming. How much? Only a big computer can do the job, if our current models were good enough.
All we can say, now, is that compared with expectations based on previous extrapolations that would, for example, expect less radiation from the earth shadow area, would lead to predictions of faster GW than is the case in an energetic atmosphere in which Gigawatts of energy are carried, more rapidly than previously, to cooler shadow areas and will emit some more heat into outer space. Of course, even the “shadow” part of the earth emits radiation energy to outer space which is, nearly, at Absolute Zero Temperature.
I hope someone will do the numerical analysis, am too old for that now but we are in for a surprise when more time is available.
Since, on the other hand, many have not yet accepted that the half-life of CO2 is basically infinite, they do not understand that each molecule will stay in the air, heating the planet, FOREVER.
The tipping points only exacerbate the urgency of the fight.
So, there is no reason to rush the analysis, we will discover its empirical effect in due time, we best keep the underestimated sense of urgency.
Ultimately, only the forest will save mankind yet, there was no agreement on that in Denmark, a Shakespeare rant on Denmark seems appropriate but memory fails.
More on the forest later.
Michael F. Sarabia, #3: You sound like the person I want to talk to.
A few weeks I instigated an attempt to understand the total daily amount of “energy imbalance” that is represented by ~0.5 W/m2. My attempt, http://climateprogress.org/2009/12/31/science-the-hottest-decade-ends-maunder-mininum-solar-cycle-24-global-warming/, (comment 50+++) thou interesting from an “understanding” point of view produced error bars big enough to throw your hat thru. Mike22 came on board and his increased knowledge and cleaner work appeared to tighten up my estimates. Your comments would imply that you might have tighter numbers at your finger tips.
So? How many standard W87 nuclear warheads popping off a day does 0.5 W/m2, (If that is even the correct number), represent?
It’s the “energy” that is needed to raise the earth ~0.5C more than the fact that we are a tad warmer. Energy drives storms in summer and even winter when it is COLD out there. As you point out evaporates water for rain or SNOW in the winter. Big surprise! Thank you, Leif
Michael, you said that only the forests will save mankind. From the book, “World on Fire”, Mitchell states, “the die back of forests will start to be noticeable after a rise in temperature of 1.5 degrees, then come with a rush…” When the heat wave in 2003 occurred there were reports of the trees giving OFF CO2 and retaining oxygen!
Al Gore says: “Alaska Senator Lisa Murkowski and her allies are attacking the Clean Air Act” Petition to sign:
http://cpaf.repoweramerica.org/page/s/cleanair?source=email