Posted on 04/15/2015 5:25:53 AM PDT by Oldeconomybuyer
Keep a winter coat and mittens handy. A new climate analysis from scientists at Pacific Northwest National Laboratory and the University of Reading (UK) found that under climate warming, cold air outbreaks, or CAOs, are projected to continue over North America but less frequently. In a geographic swath stretching from Alaska and southwestern Canada to the northwestern and mid-western United States, the top five coldest historical events may still happen. Indeed, as humans, ecosystems, and societal infrastructures adapt to an average warmer climate, these findings show continued future challenges in coping with extreme cold events.
"Our research isolated the changes of future cold air outbreaks to changes in the mean, the variance, and the skewness of daily surface air temperature" said Dr. Yang Gao.
These findings provide important insights on processes that influence cold extremes, with implications for human health, agriculture, energy, and other sectors of the society to climate extremes in the future.
The team will analyze a multi-model ensemble of global climate simulations to examine changes in extreme events such as heat waves and drought.
(Excerpt) Read more at phys.org ...
For over one hundred years it has been known that it is the GLASS in the greenhouse that causes the effect, NOT the gas. Yet we still have to listen to so-called smart people talk about greenhouse gasses? How did stupid get to be so smart? I still can’t find a libtard who can explain to me how a CO2 molecule knows where down is.
Well of course cold snaps linger. Climate change fits any scenario the weather might throw at it. That’s why we call it climate change, and not global warming. Climate change can mean whatever the climate fanatics want it to mean, so long as they get to persecute the deniers of their faith.
To call what these libtards are selling “snake oil” is an insult to the memory of snake oil salesmen! As I understand it, snake oil contained laudanum, some ETOH, and tobacco. At least they were peddling a product that DID something!
The new meme from the horsesh** brigade.
Nice try, not buying it.
Never forget that the glow-bull warming, er... Climate change losers have gone on record asking real physicists to help them with their climate models.
The present models, of course, have all the believability of Dan Rather.
The entire stinking, fetid mass of libtard Proglodytes can’t produce a scintilla of believeability. Yet we are expected to repeatedly endure the deleterious insults of “elections” which are increasingly not elections at all.
Catastrophic Climate Change (CCC) must be an extremely robust theory. EVERY observation of weather is proof of CCC. There has not been such a solid scientific proof since the finding that the earth is flat.
Saw a report yesterday that the winter of 2015 was the snowiest in the northeast US since 1717, during the Little Ice Age. Lots of interesting info at this website:
“The driver for this winter was a peculiar configuration of ocean warm and cold pools, similar to the frigid winters of 1916/17, 1917/18, 1976/77 and 1977/78. We correctly forecasted the last two historic winters many months in advance based on the ocean patterns. The models suggest the ocean temperatures remain in this configuration this spring and summer resulting in a cool spring and relatively cool and wet summer.
You may hear or read the increased snow is consistent with global warming because warmer air holds more moisture. In actual fact, only 1 of the 14 years with more than 60 inches of snow in Boston was warmer than normal.”
In other words, we are busy fiddling (err.. refining) our models to explain these cold events that look bad to the general public when we talk about warming.
Our renaming from Global Warming to to Climate Change has not had the effect we thought it would.
Thank God they are finally switching over to the 'multi-model ensemble of global climate simulations'. We're saved!
The free travel of radiation energy in wavelengths is absorbed by CO2 within a few meters of the surface, and because CO2 is distributed throughout the atmosphere, there is no free travel in these wavelengths until altitudes above 50,000 feet. At those altitudes CO2 emissions traveling upward are not reabsorbed due to the increased spaces between molecules.
The sole effect of increasing CO2 concentration is increasing the altitude where CO2’s IR wavelengths are emitted to space. Atmospheric temperature decreases linearly with altitude, but energy emitted drops faster, because emission correlates with temperature to the 4th power. This can be observed by satellite and is considered proven by anyone with any degree of scientific literacy, including skeptics.
The point of contention is what results from the extra heat in the upper atmosphere. The heat can only be mechanically transferred downward to about 25,000 feet, where outward emission from water vapor occurs, and there is no evidence showing that air above 50,000 travels downward unless it cools. In my view, the effect is higher winds at high altitude, which merely speeds up heat transport from the equator to the tropics, and from the poles to the horse latitudes.
Most physicists I know predict slight increases in surface winds, which results in an increase in atmospheric moisture, which increases outward emissions at 25,000 feet, maintaining overall equilibrium. This makes sense because over geologic time CO2 has fluctuated dramatically, and the Earth has stayed near equilibrium. However, overall atmospheric humidity seems to be decreasing, not increasing.
So at this point, the net effect of CO2 other than decreased upper atmosphere emissions cannot be demonstrated by field observation. Hopefully we can stop worrying about the accuracy of terms, and perhaps focus on the only thing that will stop the infernal debate - redirecting the discussion to nuclear power.
The libtards you speak of will never change their minds about this, and they will probably have more political power, given news media bias. The best way to respond to them is to point out that the only safe and humane way to reduce man's carbon footprint is to build hundreds of nuclear power plants. Solar panels are barely break even, wind is unreliable and an ecological disaster, and hydroelectric dams would be nice, but much of the world's population is too remote from large rivers. By taking this approach, we may be able to move toward changes in policy that will improve the economy worldwide, which have countless benefits overseas and in the US.
My thermostat’s room temp number is saying it’s 69 degrees. The temperature outside(I’m on The Jersey Shore ten miles from the Atlantic) is 63 and in the corner of my computer screen next to todays date and time it says 28 degrees. I wish SOMEBODY would give me the straight story here!. Where’s Al Gore, he’d know....
Thank you for your informative post. I’m bookmarking it.
"It's all that global warming that's making it so damn cold outside!"
It was also pointed out to me the increase in water vapor will likely also cause an increase in cloud cover which reflects more incoming solar radiation back into space. Suffice it to say there is no way with current technology to know what the net or localized effects will be.
I was being a bit sarcastic there but you’re right. I’m an amateur backyard astronomer and I know there are many ways and environments on Earth in which sunlight is reflected back into space. The oceans , seas, lakes and any large body of water does this, cloud cover as you point out and snow covered surfaces. In addition of course to the ozone layer and the magnetosphere. In truth if the Earth didn’t have some various ways of reflecting the sunlight it receives(and radiation) everyday it would be very warm down here, to put it mildly. As it is however because certain environments on Earth are either to cold or hot, very little life exists in such places. Ours is a complex eco-system and we’re learning about it more and more. For these people to say, “The earth is heating up and humans are causing it’’ is as ridiculous as saying that because birds can fly so should humans be able to do so without mechanical devices. Simply stating that ‘’scientists agree’’ doesn’t make it so. If anyone knows anything about science the moment they hear that ‘’’scientists agree’’ they should be suspect. Scientists rarely agree on anything. And that’s a good thing. It leaves the door to always explore, to ask, to question , to study and to do it responsibly and without bias , intellectual dishonesty or pre-determination.
Well played sir!
Thank you for your strenuous intellectual reply. I am certain you represent our side with great eloquence. Of course, I should have put a /s tag on my question. I really do know CO2 has no idea which way down is which it would have to do to be a “greenhouse gas” as if there could be such a thing.
I’ve already got lettuce and spinach sprouts in the garden and planted seed for leeks, turnips and peas at 34 degrees north.
No more cold weather, please!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.