Yesterday's/Todays Blizzards = The Day After Tomorrow?

im_to_hyper

macrumors 65816
Original poster
Aug 25, 2004
1,094
206
Pasadena, California, USA
So a lot of global warming skeptics are using this crazy huge blizzard to denounce global warming. However, every climate model shows that as a result of global warming, winter weather will be more intense and more severe.

Every report I've read, from the NOAA service report, to the local paper, to the New York times keeps using the word "rare." This is a "rare storm" a "huge storm" and its "unusual that a storm affects this much of the country."

Anyone remember Hurricane Katrina? A "rare, powerful storm." Now we get a huge winter storm. In fact... we've gotten a few huge storms. In the Day After Tomorrow, two storms about this size collided and made a horrible one... now we won't get to like -100 anytime soon, but how likely is it more and more of these storms will happen over the years?
 

IntheNet

macrumors regular
Oct 6, 2009
190
0
So a lot of global warming skeptics are using this crazy huge blizzard to denounce global warming. However, every climate model shows that as a result of global warming, winter weather will be more intense and more severe.
So I guess you are torn between the reality of global cooling as evidenced by climate and weather and the fiction of global warming as evidenced by nothing more than political posturing...

Every report I've read, from the NOAA service report, to the local paper, to the New York times keeps using the word "rare." This is a "rare storm" a "huge storm" and its "unusual that a storm affects this much of the country."
Last year China had some of the coldest weather in history.. recent weather and climate modeling has documented not warming but cooling trends.

Anyone remember Hurricane Katrina? A "rare, powerful storm." Now we get a huge winter storm. In fact... we've gotten a few huge storms. In the Day After Tomorrow, two storms about this size collided and made a horrible one... now we won't get to like -100 anytime soon, but how likely is it more and more of these storms will happen over the years?
Give some thought to the cycles of the earth that naturally have cooling and warming trends and have so since mankind has set foot on the earth. That is where most of the hard evidence is present. The idea of man-caused global warming is bogus... a trick so these tree-huggers can get research grants and lie about climate modeling...
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
I posted a thread earlier, but I think the forums glitched. I walked outside and the drifts were knee high up to waist high in some areas, I have never seen any snowfall like this in december. My dog went outside and could barely see out of the top of the snow, it was pretty funny.

My car is stuck so I am not going anywhere for the next couple of days unless we get hot weather (unlikely).

As for the climate change issue, I think we are going to try justifying any happenings by our CO2 emissions. Its getting colder... CO2... its getting warmer... CO2.. blizzard... CO2... hurricane... CO2.
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,538
8,161
Colorado
After the past 2 days of single digit temperatures, I could use some of that global warming right about now. It is currently 11 degrees F.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
Katrina wasn't a huge storm size wise. It just hit a bad area. I think Andrew was a stronger storm.
 

ucfgrad93

macrumors P6
Aug 17, 2007
17,538
8,161
Colorado
Ill trade you 9 for 11. :p If it snows anymore we are screwed.
It was bitterly cold the past 2 days with wind chills in the -20s. That is unusual for where I live in Colorado, the front range, not the mountains. Today, while still cold, it is nice and sunny.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
The last decade was definitely the warmest for the past 150 years, and 2009 was the fifth warmest on record.

More warming means more moisture in the atmosphere. Here in the UK we seem to be getting "100 year" storms and floods every 3 or 4 years at the moment. In North America where winters are much colder you'll get more snowstorms. In such a complex system like the Earth there's bound to be unexpected effects of a change. Let's face it, we can't even list all the variables at the moment, let alone predict each individual outcome.

I still believe that climate change is less to do with the greenhouse gasses and more to do with deforestation. Volcanic eruptions have been pouring CO2 into the atmosphere for epochs. What's changed recently is that we've cut down the greatest carbon sinks, preventing the ecosystem from regulating itself. Allow the forests to grow back (including those in Europe!) and I believe we'll see everything begin to stabilise.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
The last decade was definitely the warmest for the past 150 years, and 2009 was the fifth warmest on record.
This is the problem. We don't have records going back 500-1000 even a million years. So to say the hottest in 150 years really is a drop in the bucket for earths standards. Have there been hotter years in the past?
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
This is the problem. We don't have records going back 500-1000 even a million years. So to say the hottest in 150 years really is a drop in the bucket for earths standards. Have there been hotter years in the past?
Ice core samples amongst other things such as trapped gases allow scientist to get a pretty good understanding of the climate of the past. Don't be fooled into thinking our data is only based off of one type of thing. There are dozens if not hundreds of indicators of previous conditions on earth.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
This is the problem. We don't have records going back 500-1000 even a million years. So to say the hottest in 150 years really is a drop in the bucket for earths standards. Have there been hotter years in the past?
Of course there have. There were huge periods of the Jurassic where sea levels were much higher for a start, meaning the world would have been a good few degrees warmer than today.

However, the 150 years of recorded temperatures are only the actual first-hand records. We can use other methods such as the rate of tree growth to extend that back further. Some trees are several thousand years old. Measuring the distance between each ring gives us a good idea of the climate at various stages during its life. Correlating that with drilled ice and tundra soil cores means we can see patterns going back much further than recorded human history.

What's important isn't the temperature that we're warming to, but the rate at which it is happening. The planet is warming very quickly. You have to go back 251 million years for such a dramatic change in such a short time from the fossil and bedrock clues we have. They called that the "Great Dying" since it wiped out roughly 85% of all species on Earth.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
Ice core samples amongst other things such as trapped gases allow scientist to get a pretty good understanding of the climate of the past. Don't be fooled into thinking our data is only based off of one type of thing. There are dozens if not hundreds of indicators of previous conditions on earth.
The averages they use only go back 150 years, so when they say "hottest or wettest on record" they are not taking into account over 500 years ago.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
The averages they use only go back 150 years, so when they say "hottest or wettest on record" they are not taking into account over 500 years ago.
well yes, that what "on record" means, but we do have a general understanding of past climates (not weather though)
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
well yes, that what "on record" means, but we do have a general understanding of past climates (not weather though)
So how can we say that the weather will get all screwed up if we don't know if it happened in the past. To predict the future weather based on global warming without knowing the past history of weather patterns is just guessing.

We have had huge blizzards and hurricanes over 100 years ago, did we blame it on global warming?
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
So how can we say that the weather will get all screwed up if we don't know if it happened in the past. To predict the future weather based on global warming without knowing the past history of weather patterns is just guessing.

We have had huge blizzards and hurricanes over 100 years ago, did we blame it on global warming?
More heat* means more energy to feed into weather patterns which equals stronger and more erratic storms.

*I'm simplifying this as much as possible.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
More heat* means more energy to feed into weather patterns which equals stronger and more erratic storms.

*I'm simplifying this as much as possible.
They also said we would have powerful hurricanes the last 2-3 years that never happened. Are these dooms day scenarios 5 years or 50 years out.
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
They also said we would have powerful hurricanes the last 2-3 years that never happened. Are these dooms day scenarios 5 years or 50 years out.
Dooms day? All I said was powerful storms will become more common as more energy (warm water) is fed into the system. Thats it.

They will become statistically more powerful, meaning there will be a trend of stronger storms per season. That doesn't mean there will be nothing but category 5's and no weaker storms, though I'm sure there are those here that would point to a mere breeze as some sort of evidence to debunk Global Climate Change.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
Remember too that everything will still maintain its usual cycles in line with solar activity. We're not going to see a clear linear path, more a trend of peaks and troughs where each peak and trough is warmer than the last (that is, if the current best-guess models turn out to be correct).
 

NT1440

macrumors G5
May 18, 2008
12,141
13,987
Remember too that everything will still maintain its usual cycles in line with solar activity. We're not going to see a clear linear path, more a trend of peaks and troughs where each peak and trough is warmer than the last (that is, if the current best-guess models turn out to be correct).
Yup, its an up and down graph that is going to be moving upwards overall.
 

MacNut

macrumors Core
Jan 4, 2002
21,542
7,801
CT
Remember too that everything will still maintain its usual cycles in line with solar activity. We're not going to see a clear linear path, more a trend of peaks and troughs where each peak and trough is warmer than the last (that is, if the current best-guess models turn out to be correct).
Yup, its an up and down graph that is going to be moving upwards overall.
The media is more interested in the "we are all going to die" approach, Part of the problem with the global warming debate is that the average person doesn't understand the data and the media's propaganda. I think the way the Al Gores of the world have explained it either scared people to death or turned people off all together and they just don't believe it. The whole debate was never done properly. I don't think it can ever be brought back on track.
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
The media is more interested in the "we are all going to die" approach, Part of the problem with the global warming debate is that the average person doesn't understand the data and the media's propaganda. I think the way the Al Gores of the world have explained it either scared people to death or turned people off all together and they just don't believe it. The whole debate was never done properly. I don't think it can ever be brought back on track.
That's the way of today's media though. Sensationalise everything until everyone becomes desensitised to it :(
Its not even 2010 yet.
I think they're counting 2000 as the first year, rather than 2001. Not technically correct, but it helps get the figures ready for Copenhagen.
 

Zombie Acorn

macrumors 65816
Feb 2, 2009
1,301
9,062
Toronto, Ontario
That's the way of today's media though. Sensationalise everything until everyone becomes desensitised to it :(

I think they're counting 2000 as the first year, rather than 2001. Not technically correct, but it helps get the figures ready for Copenhagen.
I meant speaking about 2009 temperatures being the fifth warmest on record, the year isn't even over yet so how are they calculating world temps for days that haven't happened yet?
 

Queso

Suspended
Mar 4, 2006
11,832
7
I meant speaking about 2009 temperatures being the fifth warmest on record, the year isn't even over yet so how are they calculating world temps for days that haven't happened yet?
Reading through the news reports I have omitted the word "likely" from that sentence. Good catch, and thanks for the correction :)