back to article 'Polar vortex' or not, last month among the warmest Januaries recorded

It may come as a surprise to shivering citizens of the US lower 48 who are brittle from the "polar vortex" freeze-out – which is back, by the way – or soggy Brits wringing out from the recent floods, but last month was one of the warmest Januaries on record when measured globally. How warm? It depends upon whose analysis you …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Rob Isrob

    Doing the Warmist shuffle

    The problem of course it is a very hard sell (warming) when you are freezing your ass off and you haven't seen this much snow in decades (large portion of US of A). Likewise, Europeans probably remember the winter of 2012: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Early_2012_European_cold_wave

    Couple that with a pause or plateau for 17 + years now in temperature rise:

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/09/26/as-its-global-warming-narrative-unravels-the-ipcc-is-in-damage-control-mode/ toss in lowest ever Antarctic ice melt: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/03/antarctic_ice_shelf_melt_lowest_ever_recorded_just_not_much_affected_by_global_warming/

    And the warmists are suddenly feeling like a politician with numerous scandals without a kiss-up press in their pocket. Oh. that's right, they have a compliant press, still a tough sell, ain't it? Barry was doing a full court warmist press conference from a golf course in Cali, handing out a billion plus for California to fight warming or some such. USA ain't buying it at all as warming polls very poorly here. Press on warmists, it'll be a tough slough.

    1. Rik Myslewski

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      It cracks me up that you guys try to focus only on recent variability rather than long-term trends, as well as trying to steer attention away from the clearly warming Arctic to the puzzlingly non-warming Antarctic.

      A little intellectual honesty, please, without peppering your screed with such terms as "kiss-up press" in your thoroughly unscientific, ad hominem final paragraph?

      And maybe a bit a scientific analysis might be welcome, as well: what part of the physics underlying the concept of radiative forcing do you find issue with?

      1. Rob Isrob

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        Yawn...

        Long term trends? Sure, how's this work for you?

        http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2014/01/when-did-global-warming-begin.php

        "And maybe a bit a scientific analysis might be welcome, as well: what part of the physics underlying the concept of radiative forcing do you find issue with?"

        What are you talking about? Trot something out. Be specific.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          "And maybe a bit a scientific analysis might be welcome, as well: what part of the physics underlying the concept of radiative forcing do you find issue with?"

          What are you talking about? Trot something out. Be specific."

          Yeah, i see you're up on the science. Ok; what part of the following do you hills to be false

          Humanity is digging up and burning carbon from underground.

          Burning this carbon produces CO2

          Producing more CO2 means more CO2 in the atmosphere

          CO2 absorbs IR at the wavelengths the earth's surface radiates

          Energy is conserved

          The added CO2 in the atmosphere results in additional energy in the atmosphere

          Additional energy in the atmosphere results in higher temperatures, more turbulence, higher evaporation, and changes in the metastable pattern seen prior to the addition of that energy.

          1. t.est

            Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

            Correct, but.

            More CO2 causes vegetation to grow faster, converting sunlight CO2 and water to; water vapor, sugar and O2.

            This happens both above ground and under water. In aquariums, you know the really nice ones, google aquascape, they are infused with about 25 times more CO2 than plants normally gets in the wild.

            It's all good as long as you keep your PH under check.

            I'm in no denial that the climate is changing, it is, and it is mostly due to human activity. But please don't just blame CO2. The problem is more complex than that. CO2 is part of a ecological balancing process, CO2 is not bad as long as that process functions. I'm of the opinion that humans interfere way to much with the natures ecological processes. Why we may have a problem with CO2, but it's not CO2's fault.

      2. MondoMan

        Re: Rik, YOU get to choose what to write...

        So I'm puzzled why you're touting one-month long averages, then discussing longer-term destructive weather as if it's somehow related. For example, as someone based in California, who is presumably drinking Hetch-Hetchy water, you should know that serious droughts are multi-year events because it takes years of low snowmelt to draw down California's extensive reservoirs. Yet, you write

        "Here in the western US, we had the driest January since 2003 and the fifth driest on record for the lower 48 – and California governor Jerry Brown declared a drought state of emergency"

        as if the former had something to do with the latter. You're better than that, Rik.

      3. Matt Bryant Silver badge
        Facepalm

        Re: Rik Myselwdki Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        "It cracks me up that you guys try to focus only on recent variability rather than long-term trends...." Oh, you mean like the Hockey Stick 2.0 map you mentioned? ("....New Scientist recently published an interactive, zoomable map of regional temperature changes throughout the world from 1894 through last year....") Gosh, it's not like warming hasn't been atrend for centuries before that.

        ".....A little intellectual honesty...." Physician, heal thyself, TBH.

        1. Rik Myslewski

          Re: Rik Myselwdki Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          Who is this Mr. Myselwdki of whom you speak? Nitpicker 'n' cherry-picker, pick thine own nits 'n' cherries.

      4. Wzrd1

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        "...to the puzzlingly non-warming Antarctic."

        Which is why the Antarctic is losing glaciers at such an alarming rate, it's not warming. Right?

      5. Sirius Lee

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        "...you guys try to focus only on recent variability rather than long-term trends..."

        Oh, come on. Like this is a one-sided fault. I lost count of the number of GreenPeace activists here in the UK popping up on news programmes to point out that the deluge is a result of man-made global warming. And really, your whole article is an attempt to imply that the recent weather is a result of man-made global warming.

        It may be surprising to US readers but it has been unseaonably warm in the UK. Given is mid-February (normally the coldest month) yesterday I was out in the garden in a T-shirt, even having to cut the grass. But the cause of the change in weather is not global warming. The severely cold weather in the US means the the Atlantic winds have been push slightly further south by the cold air mass over the US which means they are warmer bringing warm moist air to the UK. They then tend to push north over the UK later keeping the cold air from the continent away from most of the UK.

        What we are seeing is a random redistribution of heat energy. Sh*t happens. It seems to me likely that a system designed for collecting temperature information based on what might be regarded as 'normal' weather patterns will not necessarily be ideal for reliably collecting temperature information in abnormal conditions. Much as happens with the first GDP figures, my guess is that there will be a correction later on which puts the temperature guesstimate back in its box.

      6. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        We have a lot of absolute humidity in the atmosphere because of the very high temps all over. So naturally it collects on the coolest thing around, like condensation on a glass of cold drink in the summer is the effect of the heat, not evidence that summer is cooler than winter. The 3 (so far) cold spells) meant the snow didn't melt; but they are historically short flashbacks to winters a couple of decades ago when minimum temps were about 5 degrees F higher than they have for the part free decades, as evidenced by the plant hardiness zones all having been moved half a zone north.

        The question of what would happen to the jet stream has been around longer than the question of AGW. The Jerry stream is indeed powered by the rotation of the earth and the powerful polar low caused by the cold air. Since the denialist haven't gotten around to suggesting that climate change is caused by changes in the earth 's rotation, reduced winds coming from the arctic are the cause. This allows the polar air to drift more directly southerly than get entrained in powerful coriolis circulation.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Facepalm

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      Who to trust? Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump and some conspiracy theorists or skilled climate scientists? Tough call.

      1. Mark 85 Silver badge

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        Who to trust?, is indeed the question. We have bitter extremes on both sides. Even El Reg has two writers who seem to take opposing viewpoints. Can both be right? Or can both be wrong? Maybe like many issues, the answer is a combination of some things both sides say are right and some things are wrong. For example: some say the sun is a factor, others say no. Who's really right?

        For me, the jury is still out on what the issues really are and what the causes of the issues are. Is it a "bump"? A trend? An anomaly? Or...?

        I'm sure there's a few downvotes for this as well as some upvotes. I'll assume that the downvotes will be from the rabid extremists and the upvotes from those who will listen to both sides and make up their own minds. And yes, I do discount the "media darlings" with the massive brainpower such as Limbaugh and Trump.

        1. Thought About IT

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          Science isn't decided by the number of votes you get for posting your opinion on a blog. However, if you're talking about consequent political action, astroturfing is clearly part of the battle for public opinion.

          1. Mark 85 Silver badge

            Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

            You are very much correct on the votes, science, and opinion. Unfortunately, in this world, votes for politicos are shaped by opinion and that is shaped by money.

            For example, let's look at Al Gore. To listen to him, he's a Green. Yet, he drives the big SUV's and has the big house that the Greens say are 'bad'. He justifies by saying he buys carbon credits. Ok.... opinions and politics and money. In this case, follow the money.

            On the other side, we have the money from big oil, car manufacturers, etc. Their viewpoint, again follow the money, is mouthed by media attention and thus, certain politicos.

            Science gets lost in all the screaming, shouting, which leads to political action or inaction.

            1. Vociferous

              Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

              > let's look at Al Gore

              Yeah, anecdotes about Al Gore totally disproves anthropogenic global warming.

              In addition, your logical fallacy was also based on falsehood.

              1. Mark 85 Silver badge

                Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

                Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

                > let's look at Al Gore

                Yeah, anecdotes about Al Gore totally disproves anthropogenic global warming.

                In addition, your logical fallacy was also based on falsehood.

                Ok.. poor target choice on him. Although do follow the money. As for my logical fallacy, my reference was the Green type of house that they feel everyone should be living in: small, dark, and cold and oops, forgot... either bicycles or electric cars (with no real way of providing that sort of energy other than some nebulas "solar" or "wind" that as yet still needs science to make them more efficient and the contruction of same to be non-polluting.)

                I notice though, that there was no beating for referencing big oil, nor auto manufacturers.

                The point I was trying to make was summed up on the first and last paragraph. The middle two were just examples of the media hype that surrounds this whole issue. Science is still lost in the noise....

                1. John Hughes

                  Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

                  Splendid, you move from Ad Hom to Strawman.

                  Which idiotic debating tactic will you use next I wonder.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

                I don't think the point is about proving how Gore's propaganda was a lie disproves AGW. AGW disproves itself with the simplest of inspections. I think the point is that just because a famous politition does a movie, doesn't mean that the contents are science.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

            Please. How many right-wing figures are unashamed to stand up publicly and say the jury is still out on evolution?

            http://www.iwise.com/vid/L5pf3

        2. codejunky Silver badge

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          @ Mark 85

          "Who to trust?, is indeed the question. We have bitter extremes on both sides. Even El Reg has two writers who seem to take opposing viewpoints. Can both be right? Or can both be wrong?"

          I find this is the same logical error as believing in a particular religions god, it falsely provides 2 options for people who dont think through the possibilities. The 'warmists' have staked their belief and certainty in a single particular outcome devoutly.

          As far as the science is concerned we dont know enough and are still looking for answers. Instead of absolute certainty we have possibilities which are very variable and move every time we learn something new. We know so little right now that we cannot accurately predict much.

          So this is where the false choice of 2 options needs to be realistically presented. We have the absolute certainty of the warmist point of view which is plausible but in the realm of possibility is small. And then we have what is presented as the 2nd choice which is that the warmists are wrong. Which shockingly is highly likely.

          There is also another group who are true denialists who are just a competing religion. They have the certainty that nothing will change, ever, full stop. They are again pinning their hopes on a single outcome which is again highly unlikely.

          Basically for the warmists to be right they will have taken a stab in the dark and been extremely lucky in their blind guess. Just as a true denialist would have to be. Or any of the hundreds of religions.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

            "Basically for the warmists to be right they will have taken a stab in the dark and been extremely lucky in their blind guess."

            What blind guess? We have a perfectly logical and coherent mechanism, each step of which is well confirmed, and several models which do pretty well at prediction, despite the denialist denials; opposed by an unknown mechanism for the warming, unknown mechanism for why the AGW mechanism doesn't work, no models whatsoever, inability to agree even on the basic observation as to whether or not there is warming, and a set of theories ranging from "it's cosmic rays" to "it's fraud and criminal conspiracy".

            in no other field would the opposition be afforded even a shred of respectability until the proponents come up with anything that could form even the germ of a theory. "You might be wrong; maybe it's something we don't know about" isn't considered a scientific theory.

            1. codejunky Silver badge

              Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

              @AC

              "What blind guess? We have a perfectly logical and coherent mechanism, each step of which is well confirmed, and several models which do pretty well at prediction, despite the denialist denials; opposed by an unknown mechanism for the warming, unknown mechanism for why the AGW mechanism doesn't work, no models whatsoever, inability to agree even on the basic observation as to whether or not there is warming, and a set of theories ranging from "it's cosmic rays" to "it's fraud and criminal conspiracy"."

              So the very narrow view that it must be Co2 even though the reality refuses to do as the models predict is supposed to be right? Thats religion not science. It is right to begin with questioning the rate of warming and then to exclude potential influences until the truth is found. Sitting with your fingers in your ears singing 'lalala its gotta be co2 lalala' is not science.

              Religions did what you have just done. They said that science doesnt have ALL the answers so religion must be right because it claims to know the answer. Making something up because you dont know the truth is not science. Science starts without knowing and cannot be rushed because politics demands certainty.

              As I said, you are looking with a very narrow view that it must be this singular possibility with this single possible outcome. There is far more chance that your guess is wrong than your guess being right.

              1. NomNomNom

                Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

                "So the very narrow view that it must be Co2 even though the reality refuses to do as the models predict is supposed to be right"

                The world has warmed over the last few decades, despite a cooling Sun.

                The question is what caused the warming? The best explanation is that it is largely or even entirely caused by rising greenhouse gas levels, the primary component being CO2.

                So that's a single question with a great answer.

                The alternative, skeptic, position is much worse. They have two questions.

                1) How can the enhanced greenhouse effect from the rising CO2 NOT have caused the observed warming?

                2) What did cause the warming instead?

                Neither of which have a good answer.

                1. codejunky Silver badge

                  Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

                  @nom

                  "The question is what caused the warming? The best explanation is that it is largely or even entirely caused by rising greenhouse gas levels, the primary component being CO2."

                  So a bad answer is better than accepting that we dont know? That is the stance of religion too. The stance of science is to accept we dont know and to then seek to find out. A wrong answer is still wrong even if you dont know the right answer.

                  "1) How can the enhanced greenhouse effect from the rising CO2 NOT have caused the observed warming?"

                  The predictions of the Co2 causing the warming (the testable proof) fails. This is a failed experiment which is necessary in real science. It shows we dont have the answer. In fact this bit has been proven assuming the Co2 tests were modelled correctly. Co2 may play a part (wont surprise me) but the answer is not found. Go back and do more tests (science).

                  "2) What did cause the warming instead?"

                  So science. As with Co2 perform tests and measurements to exclude things with no effect and to include things with their proportional effect. Also work out the associated interactions which is the basis of AGW as well as the various theories of a world with a warming problem (regardless of the MM part).

                  "Neither of which have a good answer."

                  Well said. You have summed up the position of a religious leader who points at the lack of an answer (because we dont know) and makes one up. Then claiming you must be right because the heretics and deniers of the faith dont have a better answer. That is not science. There is a very important distinction which is because of this flawed reasoning of people who do not understand the concept of science.

                  I dont know is a valid answer. It doesnt make a fairytale or guess right. Or put another way- I am right because we dont know. You might be right if the slim chance of probability matches your guess.

        3. t.est

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          Apparently it is 1 rabid extremist out of 4.

          25%, sounds about right.

      2. The Axe

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        "Who to trust? Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump ... or skilled climate scientists?"

        I don't trust politicians, celebs and I definitely don't trust scientists who create theories on the basis that they get more money. Most "climate science" is done in order to get more grants and keep a job. Even the most obscure areas of science attempt to have a "global warming" aspect. Why? Because public money goes towards those who keep up the climate weirdness meme. Being anti climate change doesn't pay salaries so scientists don't investigate that side of the science. And no science is ever settled. Not even the science of gravity.

        1. Charles Manning

          It's not just the money and the funding

          Sure there are many scientists with a very vested interets in keeping things alive to secure their funding.

          There are also scientists that go into various areas with a preconceived ideology. For example, a few years ago I spoke with a young scientists (geograopgy is a science right?) who was going to work with NIWA (NZ's tiny equivalent of NOOA) because of global warming. People like that are not impartial and data driven. They are idealogically biased and cannot hope to perform as scientists should.

          Lastly, there are many scientists who have made a certain field their life's work. They are the most influential. They got their PhD on their findings, they have a whole lot of ego wrapped up in it.

          Scientists are supposed to welcome any fresh data when striving for the truth, but how receptive are they when the data might rubbish their research papers and undermine the findings in their PhDs?

          The Climate Community (for want of a better phrase) is under extreme pressure (political, financil/funding and prestige) to present a consensus view to the public. Data, however, is always messy and there are always doubts. Any concensus is contrived, and it means true science - the impartial data driven quest for knowledge - goes out hthe window.

          To expect impartiality from such scientists is a fool's errand. You might as well ask a priest to say there is no god and embrace Darwanism.

          1. Michael 31

            Re: It's not just the money and the funding

            Charles

            Read the IPCC 5th Assessment reports. It is not a whitewash. But there are 36 billion tonnes a year of CO2 entering the atmosphere. Just what effect do you think it is having? None at all?

            1. Tom 13

              Re: It's not just the money and the funding

              The IPCC has thoroughly discredited themselves and are no longer an authority outside of WARMIST circles.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: It's not just the money and the funding

            BS. The best thing to happen to a scientist is to find solid evidence that goes against the dominant paradigm. Nobody is going to find research into investigating gravity, but get a lead on antigravity and you've got it made.

            Take cold fusion as another example. Not as much money in debunking it as in seeing if it works.

            Fact is, at this point, the only people calling for more research into AGW are the people trying to delay dealing with it.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          Money going to scientists tends to go to both camps, those who believe in climate change and those that don't.

          The only reason there's a bunch of scientists who are sceptical is the sheer amount of cash they're raking in from oil companies and anyone else with an interest in preserving the status quo.

          1. Fluffy Bunny
            Facepalm

            Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

            What sort of money are the oil companies giving to skeptics? Nothing like the 100B$ that is given to warmists. By the way, skeptic means thinker, as opposed to believer which is what you call a warmist.

            When the argument has degenerated to the point that people are attacked as not believing in warming as much as their oponent, all hope has been lost.

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          @The Axe

          Because public money goes towards those who keep up the climate weirdness meme.

          Bing! Got it in one.

          I work inside the belly of one of the beasts where I'm occasionally privy to internal discussions I'm not supposed to hear. And that exactly what the people shuffling the money talk about. Global warming/climate change get money, so they sex up the reports to get more funding. More funding means more people. More people means more power. And that's what the bureaucratic shuffle is all about.

      3. Tromos

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        Skilled climate scientists? I'll believe in their existence when weather forecasting catches up with the accuracy of astrological predictions.

        1. James Loughner
          Headmaster

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          Please write on the blackboard 100 times

          WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE

          1. codejunky Silver badge

            Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

            @ James Loughner

            "Please write on the blackboard 100 times

            WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE"

            Someone needs to tell our politicians. Some are certain the weather is related to MMCC co2 theory even when the believer scientists wont stand by that kind of statement.

          2. Tom 13

            Re: WEATHER IS NOT CLIMATE

            It's not? Then why is that the premise of this article (not this post, the article)?

        2. Michael 31

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          Weather forecasting is excellent in the tricky environment of the UK, and Climate Modelling is really easier than weather forecasting. Rain which occurs 12 hours and 100 miles out makes no difference in a Climate Model, but is the difference between a good and a bad forecast.

          1. Tyrion
            Stop

            Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

            >Weather forecasting is excellent in the tricky environment of the UK. and Climate Modelling is really easier than weather forecasting.

            Yes climate modelling is much easier because the people doing it don't have to explain themselves when it turns out to be wrong in 10, 20, 30 years.

            Lacking the ability to predict weather (forecasting) accurately indicates a fundamental disconnect between our understanding of the forces and variables involved and how it really works. If someone can't predict if we're going to have a hot or wet summer (MET Office), then they lack the credentials to say what's going to happen thirty years in the future; and we all know that we've got a better chance of getting a summer prediction from a fortune teller than the MET Office.

      4. Tyrion
        Mushroom

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        >or skilled climate scientists?

        Ha, more like skilled climate politicians. Calling them scientists doesn't make them so. I'd put more stock in physicists, mathematicians, and geologists, than some recently made up science category.

        They're skilled all right, at hiding the decline, manipulating data, calling weather climate when it suits them, and whipping up hysteria to maintain and increase their funding.

        These so called climate scientists are no different than Al Gore; looking to exploit fear and uncertainty about the unknown with their dire predictions of apocalypse if citizens don't get on the carbon credits con band wagon, subsidise green energy, and create energy taxes.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          Well, you'd know.

      5. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        "Who to trust? Rush Limbaugh, Donald Trump and some conspiracy theorists or skilled climate scientists?"

        Tough call indeed. How do you trust a half-science? Do some real experiments. Don't label computer theories as evidence, then we may trust them. As it is, they have all the credibility of snake oil salesmen.

    3. Vociferous

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      So, yeah, about that pause...

      1. Adam Inistrator

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        why start at 1970? look deeper. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/Five_Myr_Climate_Change.png

    4. pacman7de
      Facepalm

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      @Rob Isrob: "The problem of course it is a very hard sell (warming) when you are freezing your ass off and you haven't seen this much snow in decades"

      It's called climate change, as there are being more extremes of warming and cooling ..

    5. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      Warming causes climate change. So some areas get warmer, others get colder.

      It's an average of all global temperatures.

      1. Fluffy Bunny
        Facepalm

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        "Warming causes climate change. So some areas get warmer, others get colder"

        No, warming causes warming. The story about some areas cooling was a furphy designed to get around the evidence that there is no actual warming. So every time somebody points out that it isn't any warmer, it is trotted out and given an airing.

        And the magic of media pushes the furphy around the globe.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          "evidence that there is no actual warming."

          Ahn so those denialists who tell us "Nobody denies it's warming, we just disagree about the cause" are lying.

          Only in the field of AGW denialism would "it's not warming" and "it's warming but we don't know why"be considered as in agreement.

        2. t.est

          Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

          Yes you are correct, if you only would be using Kelvin degrees instead of as we humans do, comfortable temperature.

          We tend to think a weather that is hotter than our comfort zone is warm climate. And that weather that is colder than our comfort zone is cold climate.

          If the rising average temperature on the globe was spread even on our planet you would have seen changes. As the Ice has just started to melt. We are just above 0C. We used to be under that.

          So if the weather should be evened out, all of us would be freezing. In a country where there is lot's of winter, +1C is the worst kind of weather you can have. Everything get's wet and is bloody cold. -1C is much better as everything is stays dry and you feel warmer, though it is actually colder.

          So stop talking about your feelings when others talk science.

    6. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      "The problem of course it is a very hard sell (warming) when you are freezing your ass off and you haven't seen this much snow in decades (large portion of US of A)."

      No it isn't. It was always stated that AGW (Climate Change) would likely lead to far more extreme weather events. Especially those like heavy snow / rain related to the increasing amount of water in the air as average temperature rises. It's likely going to get much worse too...

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      "Couple that with a pause or plateau for 17 + years now in temperature rise:"

      Actually that's only true if you ignore arctic surface temperatures, and ignore the oceans. And even then is still within the previous extremes of variation in the average temperatures in the last 100 or so years. See http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exposed-the-myth-of-the-global-warming-pause-8945607.html

      If you look at the longer term, the trend is very clear.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

        "If you look at the longer term, the trend is very clear."

        Trouble is, if you look at the longer term, it is clear the globe has been warming for much longer than we have been burning coal. I blame the dinosaurs for not signing Kyoto.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      As soon as you start combining snowfall and cold your out of your element, so to speak. Every northerner knows that when it's really cold it doesn't snow, because the absolute humidity is too low.

    9. t.est

      Re: Doing the Warmist shuffle

      I live in those cold areas. I find it quite simple, when you put an ice-cream on the table and let it melt, it will expand over the table. The icecream is getting warmer, but the table is cooling down. The areas close to the ice-cream but not under the ice-cream will soon be covered in cold icecream.

      So yes, that is only natural. Until the ice is all melted I'm expecting to freeze more than I do now. On the southpole we have -60C in the air (water temperature is more important btw). In sahara we have +60C. The average of those are 0C degrees.

      So if earth's average temperature raises from 0.2C to 0.6C you still will freeze your bum off as that is almost freezing temperatures. Greetings from a country with more winter than summer.

  2. Rik Myslewski

    You gotta be kidding

    @ Rob Isrob

    May I optimistically and kindly assume that your comment regarding radiative forcing – "What are you talking about? Trot something out. Be specific" – is an attempt at humor?

    You're joking about not having an understanding of the basic physics behind what has been dubbed the "greenhouse effect", right? You're kidding about not understanding the fundamental physical mechanisms behind the effects that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other anthropogenic fun stuff that are increasing in concentration have in our atmosphere?

    Intelligent and well-meaning skeptics may offer alternative explanations for the inarguable rise in temperatures over the past 100+ years – such as solar and other effects, or random variations – but you can't refute the calculable effects of radiative forcing.

    Might you care to offer an argument that attempts to disprove the simple physical process that even many of your skeptical cohort regard as a mechanism that's empirically rock-solid, even though many posit that it may be of minor effect?

    C'mon, dude – you gotta be joking, right?

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: You gotta be kidding

      "Intelligent and well-meaning skeptics may offer alternative explanations for the inarguable rise in temperatures over the past 100+ years – such as solar and other effects, or random variations – but you can't refute the calculable effects of radiative forcing."

      Can't speak for the OP, but I can certainly argue that the effects of radiative forcing are not calculable. The world is complicated and we know of several additional factors that will modify or even reverse the effects of radiative forcing.

      Is it still true that we can't predict the last hundred years of the world's climate? It's certainly still true that you need to be able to do that before you ask the entire human race to restructure their economy and way of life.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: You gotta be kidding

      Rik, are you a physicist or an engineer or are you just regurgitating the 'Mann made global warming' gospel?

      I ask because, while you ramble on about radiative forcing it is obvious that you know nothing about how it has been applied in climate 'science'. The earth is not a black body by any stretch of the imagination and neither can the CO2 molecules be treated as such. Yet this is what the global warming 'science' is based on.

      Now I expect the warming cult followers will down vote this because they are either blindly following or just don't have a clew.

      1. JimBob01

        Re: You gotta be kidding

        "The earth is not a black body by any stretch of the imagination and neither can the CO2 molecules be treated as such. Yet this is what the global warming 'science' is based on."

        Would you care to back that up with references? Not the 'earth is not a black body' bit obviously… the bit about current climate science assuming that the Earth is a uniform dark object?

        And I do believe that Rik was challenging a previous poster who indicated who, rather than present information in support of their claims, decided to try and muddy the waters by asking for clarification of which claim needed supporting - either an attempt at comedy or a deliberate ploy to avoid having to justify spouting opinion as fact… much as you appear to have just done.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: You gotta be kidding

        What an idiotic post. If the Earth was a Black Body, this argument wouldn't be taking place.

    3. Tyrion
      Megaphone

      Re: You gotta be kidding

      > You're joking about not having an understanding of the basic physics behind what has been dubbed the "greenhouse effect", right? You're kidding about not understanding the fundamental physical mechanisms behind the effects that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and other anthropogenic fun stuff that are increasing in concentration have in our atmosphere?

      The earth is not a closed system like the experiments performed in the lab on the effects of CO2 etc. A runaway greenhouse effect observed in a closed system lab does not mean the same thing will happen in the complicated climate of the earth. Correlation does not imply causation, which is unfortunately what most of the CO2 and AGW hysteria is based around; the assumption that what happens in the lab under strict conditions will reproduce themselves in the real climate.

      >but you can't refute the calculable effects of radiative forcing.

      The keyword there is 'calculable'. RF theory in climate science is based on the observed effects of Co2 in the lab under controlled conditions. The earth doesn't operate under controlled conditions, which is why every single, yes you heard it right, every single climate model proposed by AGW alarmists that's overlapped with the present has been wrong, and not by a small amount either, we're talking about 500% deviations from what's actually been observed.

      If you can show me a single climate model that has predicted past, present, and future temperatures, then I'll admit I'm wrong.

    4. Tom 13

      Re: You gotta be kidding

      No he's not kidding. Probably because he has some idea what radiative transfer is and how it works. I rather get the impression that for you lot the phrase is a good bit like "abracadbra" or "open sesame", a magic phrase intended to stifle debate.

      And yes, I am familiar with the strawman of greenhouse gasses. Problem is, I think this is another one of those Known Facts like heavier things fall faster than light ones was until Galileo dropped to balls: a lot of handwaving without having conducted sufficiently controlled experiments to account for all variables.

      As for the whole 100 year argument (which is actually more like 50, but what's half a century among friends?), its complete bollux on a 10,000 year baseline, and 10,000 itself might be bollux for a climate baseline.

  3. flearider

    the earth itself has seen the temps rise and fall many times .. only man adds the greed factor and makes as much as he can off his fellow people ..

    what ever you believe the earth will still be here long after your gone ..

    1. JonP

      Yes, the temperature has risen and fallen many times. At the moment though it's rising again, and this will become a problem for the survival of the human race. I'm not sure it will mean extinction, but it won't be nice. The argument is really down to whether it's down to something we've done - e.g. pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, or whether it really is just natural variation. If it's down to us we can try and reverse it, I say try because I honestly don't think we'd have a hope in hell even if someone offered 100% certain proof tomorrow. I think the best we can do is try and predict what may happen as worse case scenarios and try and plan contingencies. The problem here is that the wet period we've experienced in the UK actually had a higher probability of being a dry period, OK that just means the models/calculations were screwed, but you see the problem...

      but yeah, "she'll survive us all perfectly well when we're all long buried and dead".

      1. flearider

        if you look back over a 3000 yrs or so you will find temps are on the down not up .. at this small moment in are time yes temps are up .. but it had to do with a grand maximum of the sun ..

        as for co2 plz more means plant growth when it reaches 600ppm then worry ..but it will never happen ..

        the rotting vegetation of amazon forest gives off more c02 than we do ..

        when they stop making money from "global warming" "extreme weather" then they may start telling the truth ..

        1. Mephistro Silver badge

          @ flearider

          "the rotting vegetation of amazon forest gives off more c02 than we do .."

          The rotting vegetation of the Amazon gets -mostly- transformed into more vegetation really fast. Rainforests are very efficient at recycling nutrients and carbon, as long as nobody is burning said forests down. On the other hand, the CO2 we are producing has been trapped under the surface for many millions of years and is being put directly into the atmosphere at a growing rate.

          If you really think that a ~25% rise in atmospheric CO2 in the last 40 years* will have no effect on climate, you haven't been paying attention.

          * Plus another 25% rise in the next twenty years. If we get that far.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        "The argument is really down to whether it's down to something we've done - e.g. pumping greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, or whether it really is just natural variation"

        There hasn't been any serious argument about that for at least a decade. We already know for certain we are a significant cause of global warming, and scientists say it's now a 95%+ probability that we are the primary cause...

  4. koopmaster

    Sun

    So this has nothing to do with the sun changing it's magnetic field, it's all us humans....

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Sun

      "So this has nothing to do with the sun changing it's magnetic field, it's all us humans...."

      We can very accurately measure solar radiation reaching our planet, so we can confidently say that it is not the Sun causing global warming...

      1. Tom 13

        Re: Sun

        And yet all Warmist religions treat thermal output from the sun as constant. The ones who've looked at the variation are the skeptics who point out that the temperature changes we observe closely mirror exactly those small variations in solar output.

    2. John Hughes

      Re: Sun

      "the sun changing it's magnetic field".

      What does that shit even mean?

      Please show a trend in *any* solar parameter that has a correlation with the recent warming trend.

  5. Tank boy
    Facepalm

    I'm no scientist

    A couple of cold days doesn't mean that there isn't a problem with climate change. It's not the weather it's the trends. I don't believe a word that comes out of Rushies mouth, or Trumps (the only person in the world that managed to bankrupt a casino) because they are bought and paid for shills.

    I'll go with Bill Nye, who isn't a climatologist, said that climate change is real.

  6. Cloggie

    Only fools are absolutely certain about anything. I am absolutely certain about that. Oh wait...

  7. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Flame

    It makes

    me laugh

    The way a cold winter will be laughed off by warmers as "natural variability" and "weather has nothing to do with climate"..... in the following breath they'll say "Hot temperatures in somewhere or other is PROOF of global warming"

    And the septics for saying much the same in reverse

    And while these 2 groups fight it out, CO2 levels rise because both side oppose spending money on nuclear power generation that could seriously reduce CO2 output by anything upto 25%....

    IF CO2 is driving the warmer temperatures of course.........

    1. Tom 13

      Re: It makes

      I've got no problem with nuclear. It's those damnable eco-Warmists who oppose that too.

  8. Werner McGoole

    The BBC tells us what's really happening

    Here's what the BBC had to report recently from a "climate expert" (Prof Jennifer Francis) on the subject of whether the jet stream is changing:

    "Our data to look at this effect is very short and so it is hard to get a very clear signal.

    "But as we have more data I do think we will start to see the influence of climate change."

    Spot any science here? Yes, it's in the first statement and it says "there is no scientific basis on which to make a claim about climate change". Then she makes that claim about climate change that she has just told us has no scientific basis.

    So even the experts don't know what to make of it, but they sure know what they'd LIKE to make of it!

    1. Michael M

      Re: The BBC tells us what's really happening

      Well done Prof Francis. Two clear sentences.

      What kind of point do you think you're scoring by noting that scientists don't know everything about a polar vortex in February 2014? We're posing questions about the effect of increased amounts of CO2 in the atmosphere over decades. Where do you actually want your information from? If not from "the experts" then who?

      To date, 9 of the 10 warmest years on record (since 1880) have occurred during the 21st century. Only one year during the 20th century—1998—was warmer than 2013. I bet Prof Francis wouldn't have a difficult job teasing out a climate change signal from that.

    2. Werner McGoole

      Re: The BBC tells us what's really happening

      The point I was making is that a scientist shouldn't tell you what the evidence is going to show when they've just said they don't have that evidence. They should wait until they have the evidence, then see what it indicates. At least, that's the way I was taught to do science.

      But I think it nicely illustrates the do-you-or-don't-you dilemma between attributing unusual weather events to climate change. Beneath every supposedly objective scientist there's a political animal that wants a certain outcome and wants to make that link, as sneaked out here. I'm not saying it doesn't happen on both sides, as it clearly does.

      1. NomNomNom

        Re: The BBC tells us what's really happening

        Like those "political animals" who thought we would find the Higgs. Scientists shouldn't ever expect anything.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The BBC tells us what's really happening

        Nowadays there is very little really basic science (though condensed matter is currently a very exciting field), and much of the rest is applied. In order to do an experiment, you have to have some idea of what you are looking for (otherwise, as Rutherford remarked, you are simply stamp collecting). It gets absurd, like my former director complaining that the Board did not want him doing feasibility studies unless there was an 80% chance that the outcome would be positive, which meant we had to sneak the feasiblity studies in under the radar and then apply for funding for the ones that were already successful.

        You write "that's the way I was taught to do science" and then refer to "supposedly objective scientists". I'm going to hazard a guess that you have never been a working scientist, because your views are extremely simplistic. Obviously scientists want their work to be successful, i.e. there will be a useful result which will result in more useful results. But turning this into politics is just plain stupid. Nobody wants to be the one who spent a lot of tax money on research which either led nowhere or led to conclusions which were subsequently shown to be false.

  9. Vociferous

    Wait what's this?

    A fair climate article which accurately sums up the science it reports on, posted on The Reg??? What's going on here? Who are you people, and what have you done to the real Reg staff?

  10. CaptainQueeg

    Lewis?

    Lewis? Lewis?

    1. Patrick R
      Trollface

      Re: Lewis?

      Do you mean the article misses a 2nd Page that warns that comments like "the author is evil" will be blocked?

  11. hbarr

    Of course there is no global warming

    Any idiot can see that on the east coast of the US, this winter has been colder than last summer, so there is obviously no global warming!

    Clearly, the amateur skeptics are smarter than the climate scientists.

    :))

  12. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Unhappy

    I think the theme of global warming was *extreme* weather events

    IE grossly hot/cold/dry/wet for the relevant season/region.

    On that basis these seem to be an argument that something is happening.

  13. Anon5000

    Climate Change

    Not so long scientists said things will get cooler and there will be a global chiiling that could head us towards an ice age. Then came the lot that sais the polar ice caps are melting and we will have a global warming.

    Now it is obvious none of them have a clue, they just use the words Climate Change as a coverall for any weather that goes in either direction.

    The worlds weather was changing well before we were here and if we are affecting It in any way, it's marginal

    1. JimBob01

      Re: Climate Change

      "Not so long scientists said things will get cooler and there will be a global chiiling that could head us towards an ice age. Then came the lot that sais the polar ice caps are melting and we will have a global warming.

      Now it is obvious none of them have a clue, they just use the words Climate Change as a coverall for any weather that goes in either direction."

      I see what you've done there…

      Scienttist predicted that, based on then current available data, we were heading for a new ice age then new data was made available and those wacky scientists decided that, based on then current available data, the planet was actually warming.

      The great thing about real scientists is that they base their conclusions on the data available and if new data conflicts then they change their mind. Other 'scientists' fit any data they can find to a preferred outcome

      "The worlds weather was changing well before we were here and if we are affecting It in any way, it's marginal"

      Could you provide references? I see people constantly claiming that natural sources of CO2 far outweigh man-produced sources - volcanoes were often quoted - http://www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/apr/21/iceland-volcano-climate-sceptics

    2. Vociferous

      Re: Climate Change

      > Not so long scientists said things will get cooler

      "Not so long ago" was the 80's, and you're referring to a single article which weighed evidence for increasing temperature against the fact that there'd been somewhere between 10 and 20 ice ages in the last three million years, and no reason to expect there wouldn't be more. Their conclusion was that, on balance, they expected the ice age cycle to continue.

      The 80's was also the decade in which the scientific community debated if climate change was all natural or influenced by humans. The same debate deniers try to have today, long after it's been settled in the scientific community (spoiler: humans move more dirt than all rivers on the planet combined, and add ten times more CO2 to the atmosphere than all volcanoes combined, to the point we can measure the drop in the pH of the world's oceans. We're even changing the albedo of the planet. Yeah, we have effect.)

      1. Andrew 61
        Mushroom

        Re: Climate Change

        First, we can't get accureate predictions for weather in the short-term, how can we trust long-term models? (Yes, I am aware of the differences between weather and climate, but weather defines climate.)

        Second, if the science has changed that much in 30 years, how much will it change in the next 30? It wouldn't be the first time something became accepted as scientific fact and then became scientifically unsupported. (Nor the first time the then-unsupported "facts" continued to be reiterated and pushed.)

        It's all ending in fire, just a question of when.

        1. Vociferous

          Re: Climate Change

          > we can't get accureate predictions for weather in the short-term, how can we trust long-term models?

          No, you shouldn't trust them: they're more accurate than guessing, but they are simulations based on (necessarily) simplified models, and they may be wrong. They are also all we've got.

          As for your question: it is some times easier to predict averages than instances. For example, if I roll a dice, once, there is no way to predict what I'll get. Any number between 1 and 6 is equally likely - but if I roll it ten thousand times, the average will be 3.5. Climate similarly varies chaotically around a mean.

      2. Tom 13

        Re: you're referring to a single article

        No, he's referring to a plehtora of "A new ice age is coming!" articles printed everywhere in the popular press back in the late 70s. And yes, I read it in the allegedly "conservationist" propaganda publications they made cheaply available to parents to give to their kids. Right up there with water pollution, air pollution, and DDT killing the California Condors.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Climate Change

      As I recall, it wasn't scientists but a journalist who wrote a book about a supposed coming ice age. It's easy to confuse the two occupations (well, except that most of the denialists seem to be journalists and most of the AGW brigade seem to be scientists).

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Climate Change

      "Not so long scientists said things will get cooler and there will be a global chilling that could head us towards an ice age"

      And that still might happen. But for very different reasons to AGW:

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-25743806

      And of course it is possible that this might counteract the underlying warming trend. But only temporarily - once the Sun's activity levels returned to normal, AGW would return with a vengeance!

  14. db.
    Headmaster

    Well mebbe...

    If your weatherman is a fella named A.Gore (Al Rokker is an acceptable imbecile too, as he points out that Wikipedia is not always correct, I know, right, weatherman,..lot of nerve) . . We are freezing our asses off in Upstate NY and we was froze last month too.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Well mebbe...

      You know, you weren't supposed to take that "it's cold in the winter so global warming isn't true" post up there seriously. You're making us other residents of Upstate NY look bad.

  15. flearider

    it's all about fragmented time .. in the short view then we have high temps well 17 yrs ago ..

    in the long view we have lower temps .. .. do we know what the sun will do next ??? hell that's what keeps us warm .. so unless we know a good chaos theory then we really don't have a clue ..

    models are what they work on and 99% of them are wrong 100% of the time ..and the 1% can't keep up ..

    but as long as there making money off it why would you believe ?ask them why have they made millions off whats not happening ? why so much green power when it's costing us more and not solving the problem ..

    in the end it's up to you what you research and then ask yourself why you believe it ..

  16. loneranger

    Real experts, eh?

    "with stern warnings by such interest groups as the Natural Resources Defense Council and the Union of Concerned Scientists."

    Yes, I seem to remember the "incredible accuracy" of statements by the Union of "concerned scientists" way back in the 1980's about how "Star wars" research was a waste of money and that it wouldn't succeed. Yes indeed, these "scientists" are really credible, and have a "stellar" record of achievement. Not

    Oh and btw, the "Global Warming" fanatics would be more credible if they would stop claiming "proof" for their theory on every variation of the weather, whether it is warming, colder or no change at all. No matter what the weather is, the "cause" is Global Warming".

    There is no evidence anywhere in the world that could possibly contradict their mantra, because they are right and anyone who disagrees is stupid, in their view.

    And because they are "right", this gives them the "right" to order everyone else to do as they say, or "the world is coming to an end".

    These prophets of doom are more dangerous than Al-queda. At least we can defend against suicide bombers to some extent at the airports, but these self-righteous hypocrites are in power and want to remake the world in their enviromaniac image. Not if I can stop it.

    1. NomNomNom

      Re: Real experts, eh?

      Also, Al Gore is fat. How can there be global warming if Al Gore is fat?

      Warmists are usually left speechless in the wake of my arguments.

    2. strum Silver badge

      Re: Real experts, eh?

      >how "Star wars" research was a waste of money and that it wouldn't succeed.

      Star Wars didn't work. It was a boondoggle, from start to finish.

      >Oh and btw, the "Global Warming" fanatics would be more credible if they would stop claiming "proof" for their theory on every variation of the weather,

      Point us to a single instance of a scientist claiming 'proof'. You can't - because science doesn't deal in proof.

      >Not if I can stop it.

      Pitiful.

  17. Michael 31

    Thank you for a balanced article.

    Rik

    Thank you for a balanced assessment of the data to date. It is not simple, but overall represents reasons to be concerned.

    I really appreciate your simple statements of fact which to me are far more powerful than the rhetorical attacks in the comments.

    It comes down to what effect people think the 36 billion tonnes a year of CO2 that we put in the atmosphere is having? The idea that it is having no effect at all is extraordinary unlikely, but I have never heard a 'non-warmists' explanation of what effect they think it is having.

    Personally I think 'non-warmists' are really 'non-statist'- they object to the proposed solutions to the climate change problem. That is fair enough - Lewis Page writes clearly on this. But to attack the science and the scientists is unjustified. Anyway, its a slow game and time will tell.

    Thanks again

    Michael

    1. Glyph

      Re: Thank you for a balanced article.

      If you attack science *with* science, that is the epitomy of science. The 36 billion tons of co2 for instance. I am not a non-warmist, I probably am a non-statist, but I have heard the argument that human produced carbon is such a small percentage of the total carbon produced, that the ecosystem will adapt and be able to sink more carbon over time. There is some evidence of this, initially estimates showed that approximately 40% of the co2 we produce was getting absorbed, and the rest was accumulating in the atmosphere. Recent estimates have been a little higher than 40%. The non-warmists would claim that this is the adaptation of the planet, and soon it wil be 100%. The warmists would ask how many species will go extinct, and what sort of climate will we have, at this new equilibrium point, if there is one. I am neither though, as a non-statist I will simply say that our governments will be unable to change anything even with the full will of the people behind them, so we need a technical solution, not a policy one. One example I like is a company that installs solar panels for free in places where it makes sense and takes a large portion of the energy savings as payment for some period thereafter. An energy plant with lower cost per watt than coal, and an electric car with lower total cost of ownership than a petrol car are very difficult challenges, but I think meeting those challenges are what will save us, not some artificial policy that will be sidestepped before its finished draft arrives.

  18. Mikel

    So

    It has cooled from the peak then?

  19. Bob 5

    Are we tilting at windmills....

    here...?

    Let's look at a couple of indisputable facts:

    1) The Global Mean Surface temperature has increased by about 0.8°C since the beginning of the 20th. century. (NASA GISS data).

    2) The percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere has increased to approximately 400 parts per million, (or to put it another way, 0.04%). This level of CO2 is c. 24 times less than the noble gas argon in the atmosphere.

    As I understand it the problem with current climate theory is that there is no reliable science that links 0.04% of CO2 in the earth's atmosphere to a significant affect on radiative forcing. (This could explain the failure of the infamous 'hockey stick' projection).

    Is human activity still responsible for that increase of the above mentioned 0.8°C in the global mean surface temperature? Possibly, but perhaps the situation may not be as simplistic as a simple link between CO2 levels affecting radiative forcing which seems to get all of the world's attention at great cost.

    Consider for instance that every single fossil fuelled family sized automobile travelling down the motorway/freeway/autobahn at say 75mph has to dissipate c. 15Kw* (15x 1Kw, 1-bar electric fires...), worth of waste energy due to the inefficiencies of the internal combustion engine without even considering trucks, coaches, trains, planes etc. This could go a long way to explain the c. 2°C temperature difference between urban and rural areas. This is just one small example of the possible influence of Direct Energy Wastage on climate change. (There is a better correlation between the rise of the automobile than the industrial revolution on the increase in global mean surface temperature).

    In the end, of course, everything comes down to population growth, (7 billion and counting towards doom), and the associated demands for food, goods, services, mobility and energy usage.

    *Say 30bhp to maintain 75 mph @ 30% engine efficiency = (0.746x30)Kw = c.22Kwx70%=15Kw wasted power dissipated to atmosphere as thermal energy.

    1. strum Silver badge

      Re: Are we tilting at windmills....

      >This could explain the failure of the infamous 'hockey stick' projection

      Who told you it had failed? It's pretty solid, still. It's just the denialists who kept repeating 'it failed, it failed' on every possible occasion.

      The production of mechanical heat - whether efficiently or not - is infinitesmally small, in the context of the planet's heat budget.

    2. Rob Isrob

      Re: Are we tilting at windmills....

      "This could go a long way to explain the c. 2°C temperature difference between urban and rural areas." That and two other factors. Cities are concrete and asphalt heat islands , secondly temperature recordng stations are often very poorly placed. On roofs or too close to heat sources like parking lots.

  20. Michael Wojcik Silver badge

    In the US,,,

    ... the US remains a big place, with a lot of variation in weather and short-term climactic effects.

    During the month, says NOAA, England received rainfall 91 per cent above average, and Western Australia's precipitation was about twice normal. In the US, the tables were reversed.

    In mid-Michigan, which - and I know this is a tough concept for many people on the coasts - is part of the US, precipitation for calendar year 2014 is up about 21% over the average since regular measurement started. That's not out of the ordinary, but it's also not "reversed" from the (obviously greater) excessive rainfall in England and Western Australia. Atlanta and Boston both up about 23% from normal. In all three cases, that's less than they were over-average for last year.

    And - astonishingly - Hawaii and Alaska often have weather that doesn't correspond closely to what's happening in the Contiguous 48.

    In short: it's not useful to talk about rainfall patterns and drought for "the US", unless you're going to say something like "x% of the contiguous US is in severe drought". And even that's not very useful.

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019