Cite:Home | The National Post Home Page | National Post
Is it possible for a series of colder winters to restore the arctic ice? Or is the planet on an inevitable warming cycle?
I’m sure more knowledgable folks will be along soon but from my limited understanding of things I would say that A) One year does not make a trend and B) Global Warming is a misnomer…think instead of Global Climate Change, and C) It’s the AVERAGE temperature that is important…not local temperatures. Locally temperatures could be lower than average but the average temperature GLOBALLY may still be higher…and in fact some places on Earth may be colder than normal (or wetter or drier, etc) in the future.
Also, the things scientists use to predict what MAY happen in the future course of our climate are models…models that use various assumptions and our (rather limited still IMHO) understanding of a vastly complex system that makes up our weather. It’s possible that because the Earth is warming overall that some feed back system could conceivably trigger greater cooling in, say, the Northern Hemisphere…or regionally.
Anyway, just my two cents. I’d say if this trend continues for a couple of years (i.e. colder weather in the north, more snow, etc) then it is something to note…one year could just be an anomaly and doesn’t really say much. Just MHO from a layman…
-XT
Just from reading the actual text of the link, I see that it says “opinion.” Reading the opinion piece you’ve linked to confirms it. I’ll also await those here who are much more expert on this topic, such as jshore, but the opinion expressed there sounds no more valuable than the opinion of the two chowderheads at a meeting I was at last month. On the first day of winter that we actually had snowfall, they were pronouncing it evidence that there is no global warming.
I think that by the time we never have snow in the Northeast US or days that are below the average cold day for the last 100 years, we’ll be so far into a precipitous plunge that we’ll be able to kiss our asses goodbye.
Slightly off topic but I was just rereading Carl Sagan’s Cosmos, a book I enjoyed immensely as a child and found for $6 in a store. There’s an interesting section where he posits possible scenarios for too much tinkering on humanity’s part with the environment. Uncontrollable global warming is one and the other is (IIRC) increasing the earth’s albedo to a point where temperatures would plummet on the surface of the planet.
Very little snow falls in the Arctic and Antarctic, it’s too cold. A slight warming should increase snowfall since the warmer air can carry more water, then as it snows the pack should get thicker.
IMHO a thicker but less widespread ice cap is an indication of warming.
The op-ed author seemingly can’t distinguish between symptoms, such as cold Northern Hemisphere winters, or melting Arctic ice, with the underlying problem, which is increasing levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, especially carbon dioxide. The graph at the link is the story. The columnist all but ignores the CO2 buildup in our atmosphere, and consequently doesn’t even make any claim that that buildup won’t cause the global climate to keep on warming up.
Those in denial have been predicting for several decades that the earth would soon start cooling down. They have never been right before. They are not right now either.
:dubious: Do you have a cite for that? I remember hearing about global cooling in like the '70’s but it wasn’t from AGW skeptics. A couple of decades ago I don’t even really remember GW being a prominent issue…more like since the '90’s (mid to late '90’s).
I’m not saying that AGW skeptics are right btw…just that I doubt that a couple of decades ago this was on the front burner enough for there to have been a lot of AGW skeptics in denial at the time.
-XT
Sure why not?
Over what time period? Over the next 6 months, the arctic is likely to get warmer.
Over the next 5000 years, we are likely to enter another ice age.
From the New York Times, January 28, 1934.
I imagine that scientific opinion has evolved since 1934.
Here, for instance, is Patrick Michaels, writing in World Climate Report ten years ago:
Needless to say, he was wrong.
Actually, a couple of decades is almost exactly the right time scale for things really starting to crank up (although the hypothesis of AGW actually goes back further than that). The IPCC was formed in 1988. One of the first major groups questioning the science was the industry-consortium Global Climate Coalition formed in 1989. My guess is that you would be able to find some skeptics going back further than that. (I tried to check when the “Greening Earth Society” was formed but couldn’t get an answer on that.)
Well, not like I have never been wrong before. Thanks for the info jshore…I didn’t realize this went back so far. It has only been on my own radar since the mid to late 90’s…and only really on the front burner since after 2000.
-XT
In response to the OP itself, I think xtisme’s criticisms of that piece in post #2 in this thread are pretty much spot-on.
That piece is all about selective use of short-term and local data, arguing irrelevant points, misrepresenting scientists’ opinions, etc. To take the most egregious example, that piece says:
However, here is what Tapping said in an e-mail response to a similar mispresentation of his views in another publication:
End of all quiet alert from the Solar Influences Data Analysis Center
Sunspot number today is 12.
Solar cycle 24 has started
Just to continue decomposing that National Post opinion piece that the OP linked to. The first five paragraphs all talk about recent local weather events. Better to look globally at monthly temperature anomaly. This global look does show that the temperature anomaly in January was the coldest it has been in quite some time [since sometime in mid-2004 if you look at meteorological stations and since some time before the 1998 start of the plot if you look at the land-ocean temperature index (although it did come pretty close to this value several times in 1999 and 2000)]. However, such fluctuations in the month-to-month values are not at all unprecedented, the anomaly is still positive relative to the 1951-1980 base period, and the relative coldness is not too surprising given the fairly strong La Nina conditions currently occurring.
The next three paragraphs talk about Arctic Sea Ice. It is true that the Arctic sea ice has recovered quite a lot from the record low levels of this summer. However, that is what is expected to occur in the winter. It is also true that the anomaly (i.e., the sea ice compared to what is expected this time of year) has recovered from its record low values of last summer but, again, this is not unexpected and the sea ice anomaly currently remains significantly negative (i.e., the sea ice coverage is below the 1978-2000 mean). Again, these fluctuations don’t speak against the basic trend.
I’m not sure what points the author is trying to make by quoting that study by Toggweiler and Russell about the (non-)effect of polar ice melt on ocean currents but it seems to be two-fold: (1) that the fears of the flow stopping and “triggering another Ice Age (a la the movie The Day After Tomorrow) are all wrong”, and (2) that the current wind cycles could be helping to warm the arctic. The first point is arguing against something that scientists have really never claimed…“The Day After Tomorrow” is science-fiction and there has been no belief that the flow stopping would trigger another ice age although there were some concerns that it could cause cooling in northern Europe and parts of the U.S. However, the general scientific belief has been that a total shutdown is unlikely to occur anytime soon and that the effect of any slowing that does occur would be to cause less warming in these areas rather than a net cooling. Here, in fact, is what the latest IPCC report summary for policymakers had to say on this issue:
In regard to the second point, it has already been understood that cycles could be accounting for the strength of the arctic warming; however, it cannot completely account for the warming…and particularly for the fact that the rest of the global is heating up too, albeit not as rapidly.
The claim that there exists a Russian scientist named Oleg Sorokhtin who doesn’t believe in AGW and is predicting dramatic cooling based on solar activity is true, but in and of itself not very convincing.
And, that brings us back to Kenneth Tapping whose views were misrepresented as noted in my previous post.
All in all not a very convincing opinion piece from a Canadian journal that has published a lot of garbage about AGW (see also here).
jshore, since you are the AGW expert here*, can you please tell us if there is any validity to the info on this site? Should we be talking about Anthropogenic Climate Change instead of Anthropogenic Global Warming so if temperatures dramatically drop we can look at a manmade cause?
*I’m not being sarcastic. You are one of the few people who actually seems to know what the hell he is talking about on this board without sounding like a street corner Bible thumper.
My first impression is that that article refers to just twelve months of data. It may be an outlier point on various temperature curves (or it may not be - see below) , but it’s not enough to base any conclusions on. It’s interesting, but not as significant as it’s made out to be.
Global warming is called that because the current term global trend is towards an increased mean annual temperature. However, it can be a misleading term. Most global climate models predict increased intensities of extreme seasons - harsher winters and hotter summers - with a greater increase in the intensity of summer than of winter. That data (the cold winter temperatures from various temperature stations) doesn’t contradict that hypothesis. Almost all the indicators of cold that the article cites are transient - snow cover and record cold temperatures aren’t functions of climate as much as they are functions of local or regional weather.
The one claim they make that I think may be significant is “record levels of Antarctic sea ice,” but they don’t say anything about how they measure it - is it areal extent, ice volume, percentage of cover, northward penetration? Without that information, it’s really difficult to evaluate the claim.
Slypork, if you follow the link from your article to the data sources, you’ll find a disclaimer on that page. Here it is:
Let’s see if anything changes. Thus far, the only change that Daily Tech has made in their article has been to take Watts’ name out of that paragraph. I think that speaks volume about their reliability.
Well, they claim that NASA’s GISS is one of their four sources. It certainly doesn’t square with this GISS report from the end of last year, which says the exact opposite. (Namely that 2007 was the second warmest year in history.) So the first question to ask is did GISS completely change their data between November and January, or is somebody lying?
In any case, a quick look at the graphs on Watt’s site shows that they don’t definitely don’t confirm the claim about “wiping out a century of global warming”. In fact, the GISS graphs in the only one that gives you a century of data. The others only show a few years of data. The GISS graph shows clearly that even if this latest report is true, temperatures are still up quite a bit for the century.
Tell us something we don’t know
Again, everyone knows the ice grows in winter. Since you’re critiquing The National Post article, I think yiou may have misread their statement on the ice recovery. They weren’t saying the ice is thicker since the summer. They are saying the ice is thinker than the same time last year. Big difference.
Well the annual mean has been below the baseline mean for almost 10 years and steadily decreasing. The past year has seen the most dramatic decrease and an even more dramatic recovery in ice coverage to an annual high point over that of 2007 and even with 2006. That means its been a pretty damn cold winter up there. Sure we aren’t back to the base line yet, but that would require, given the smallest area of ice in history to start with last summer, a winter so cold we haven’t seen it in our lifetime.
Sure, this is an op ed piece in a well known Canadian coservative national newspaper, but I like to get information whether it is telling me that the Arctic has dramatically shrunk last year from liberal papers or whether The Arctic has made a dramatic recovery from a conservative paper.
Thanks ralph for bringing this news to my attention. I’m happy to hear it, but l"m not holding my breath. If the trend in sea ice coverage continues next year and we break the baseline mean, then I’ll begin to hope.
The question is, does this mean anything? Is there any reason to believe this is a symptom of some deeper trend, or is it just an isolated fluctuation?
If so, what’s the deeper trend that it’s a symptom of?