Are we going to have winter?

[Skip Towne]

It's 70 degrees here with blue skies and a mild breeze. It hasn't gotten really cold yet. Will this weather hold till Spring?

[cdcox]

Originally Posted by Rain Man

Man, I had a close weather call with the apricot Beemer today.

I had a meeting about 20 miles out of town today, and while I was there, we had a bunch of snow and ice, making the drive back a pain in the neck. Several wrecks on the highway, some cars stuck, etc.

I finally got off the highway, and crept along a city street. Eventually, I ended up at a stop light that went up a rather steep hill. The light was at the top of the hill, and I was about 200 feet back in dense traffic, right at the bottom of the hill. I'm sitting there waiting for the light to change and hoping I can get up the hill, when all of a sudden "AAAAAAAAAAAH!"

This dude coming the opposite direction in an old 280Z lost control at the top of the hill, and he was doing 360s coming down it, moving over from his lanes to mine. There was no way in the world he was controlling his car, and there wasn't any place for me to go. I had left a fair amount of space between my car and the one in front of me, but that was exactly where he was headed.

He finally got traction and the car stopped about four feet to the left of the car in front of me, in a turn lane. If he hadn't managed to hit traction at that point, he would've ended up right in my front grille. I was seriously bumming as he was spinning down toward me.

A tiny bit more snow it would have been curtains for the beemer. You can put yourself down as one of those who benefited from global warming.

[tiptap]

Originally Posted by cdcox

My comments in bold.



You missed the key area where understanding is incomplete, and that is in the global climate models. While addition of CO2 and other green house gases provides a force to warm the atmosphere there are various feed back mechanisms that are poorly undersood. Some of these feedback mechanisms act to further warm the surface of the planet. One example of this is that if warming causes a reduction in snow cover. Snow reflects radiation back into space without changing its wavelength, so the heat from this raditation is not absorbed by greenhouse gases. So removal of snow cover will cause additional warming of the planet. An example of a feed back mechanism that would tend to help the planet resist warming is an increase in cloud cover due to additional evaporation.

Global climate scientists have only started quantifying the strength of these feedback mechanisms. Some of these feedback mechanisms may be nonlinear, which results in potentially very large effects with small inaccuaries in the strength of the feedback. So not understanding a feedback mechanism just a little bit can have a huge effect. If the history of science has taught us anything, it is that we usually don't understand something as well as we think we do at any given time.

So in summary, I think it is fairly likely that the planet will warm in the range of 1 to 2 oC in the next 50 years. But I think it is possible that the negative feedback mechanisms will be strong enough that the temperature increses could be much less severe.

If climate models are correct, we will need to make draconian reductions in our CO2 emmissions in order to a) reduce the trends and b) allow the rest of the world economy to develop. Technologies for making these reductions are not in place. Given the degree of uncertainty, I am not in favor of trashing our economy to make draconian reductions now. I am in favor of continuing to invest in technologies to make meaningful and economically viable reductions in the CO2 emissions in the future, should that need become necessary.

And that will almost certainly involve a larger role for nuclear power in this country.

Discussion of feedback. OK. The most obvious feedback that counters temperature rising is the creation of clouds. Like snow the clouds reflect radiation without changing the frequency. A second big inhibitory input would be the cessation of the Ocean Conveyor System that moves heat from the Pacific to the Indian Oceans to the north Atlantic. This is driven by salinity density and could be stopped if the fresh water glaciers flood the n. Atlantic. This would leave Europe vulnereable (including western Russia) to much colder weather in line with the latitude you find these countries.

The direct results of the higher temperatures now is melting of the fresh ice. And this has in the past and would most likely now mean much colder weather for Europe much warmer weather forming typhoons in the Pacific and Indian. This also means that the sea levels will rise. If just the northern supply of ice than a couple of meters. (27 meters if the Anartic ice melts but that is a more intense distant discussion) This will mean coast lines (Florida) will be impacted.

So we are going to have a draconian result if the ice continues to melt. And as we measure the ice low and behold it is melting. Glaciers everywhere in the world are retreating at record paces. And the southern extension of winter ice in the north has also been retreating alarmly.

In any complex (I mean mathematically as in Chaos systems) the final outcome is dependent upon initial conditions. But general understandings can indicate the more likely outcomes.

There are present studies about cloud involvement in the tropical regions. The production weather in the tropics is different then more well studied temperant regions we live in. So heat and cloud movement is getting intense study now. I have not heard yet how the refinement will be added to models and what will be the overall general effect.

[greg63]

Originally Posted by Skip Towne

It's 70 degrees here with blue skies and a mild breeze. It hasn't gotten really cold yet. Will this weather hold till Spring?

My eight ball says maybe.

[tiptap]

Having discussed the inhibitor feedback it would be important to mention positive feedback. You mentioned that ice lost would mean positive feedback. The big concern amoung climatologists is frozen methane. As a enviromental chemist you should have some introduction to this. The methane tied up under the ocean is quite large. But the exposure is more close to the shore (and includes shore in Siberia and Northern Canada) in higher latitudes. Methane with increase in temperature of a few degrees will become gaseous and not trapped. Methane ultimately adds to the COtwo but even as Methane it will as heat trapping gas. And this conversion could be cataclysmic. It is a real concern as ice retreats in the northern latitudes.

In the scale of millions of years this burb may have little effect (though a similar event is tied to the Permian Extinctions). But within the lifescales of human civiliztion of 10,000 years the 100 years of displacement as the climate shifts wildly even more so than now before settling down into some quasi equilibrium would be dire.

It would seem prudent to cut back rather than accelerate the gamble. And as the most advanced country it would seem we could choose to do the hard and right thing rather than the easy and profitable notion.

One of the hardest human understandings is to recognize when the status quo is an extreme position. To understand and anticipate when to change as opposed to reacting and being behind in changing.

Most studies in behavior whether it is economic, biological or otherwise tend to indicate we wait to long in accomodating change to our harm. We don't have confidence in the prediction of the future vs the evidence within our life. Well this thread is all about how we use to have snow and winters in Kansas or Iowa or Missouri. And now we have a blistery December and winter plays out for the rest of the season. So we have indications of change already, not just predictions.

So go back and look at the timing for prediction of change of even the most conservative predictions. And understand how large a ship that we will need to steer clear of the danger. And it is your responsibility to calmly ask for a more conservative direction in the economy rather than the rather peculiar outlier now (compared to so much of human history production) of such huge production of hothouse gases. I do think opportunities for industry will still exist. But energy plants don't want to lose their cash cow.
Reform in the energy economy requires distributed energy production. But that would mean the trend would be everyone producing their own energy. This parallels the distributed process in computing. We do have the technology to make a difference. The solutions are easily democratic and not autocratic. But it does require we all move in the general direction. And so this plea.

Originally Posted by greg63

My eight ball says maybe.

I just put a call in to the grand inquisitor and he put the question to the turboencabulator and the answer was: No winter this year, break out your swim suits and refill your pools.

Winter will return in the year 2012 in the form of Hell freezing over.

[greg63]

Originally Posted by Matt Helm

I just put a call in to the grand inquisitor and he put the question to the turboencabulator and the answer was: No winter this year, break out your swim suits and refill your pools.

Winter will return in the year 2012 in the form of Hell freezing over.

WOOOHOOO! That must mean the Arrowhead will indeed be covered with a dome!

[KCTitus]

When it's hot outside during the time when it's really supposed to be cold, it's because of global warming. Silly.

Of course there are other phenomenons one should be aware of...

When it's cold during the months when it's really supposed to be warm/hot, that's called global warming.
If it rains too much....global warming.
If it doesnt rain....global warming.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by sedated

I don't buy the global warming stuff.

It was very mild this summer, too.

Unless there is simultaneous global warming and cooling, you are all full of shit.

And who cares?

It 70 degrees outside and you are sitting in your basement b!tching on the computer about how nice it is. WTF?!

There is a very large and growing contengincy of scientists who think global warming is bulls**t. Of course the media doesn't cover them much like they don't cover this story:

"Bob, I'm standing down here at 8th and Quindero, where nothing happened today. Nobody was shot, nobody was robbed. Nothing. Back to you Bob."

Take Y2k for instance. During that whole media fantasy I probably couldn't count the number of reporters that called to interview me. Guess how many times I was quoted. Zero. Not once. Why? I told the truth: Y2k was a big scam being perpetrated by the media and some people who desperately wanted their 15m of fame. I think global warming runs a lot of parallels.

[Inspector]

Originally Posted by MOhillbilly

My great grandma used to say- as a rule mans a fool when its hot he wants it cool when its cool he wants it hot always wanting what is not.

My grandma used to fart a lot.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by tiptap

When I went on my honeymoon way back whenever. My wife got fried in the sun of the Carribean. Let's just say we had better bedding before the ceremony. But located on the beach without air conditioning , I did buy ice and a fan (and noxema) and blew the warm air over the ice and cooled it to offer relief. (It paid devidends later)

The glaciers and ice caps are melting. They are tempering the effects of temperature. There is the melting "heat of fusion" cooling effect as the mass of ice melts.

This is why you can see mild conditions in summer. We live in the Alberta Clipper area where cold builds up in the north and plummets toward the plains. Except now we see this as a moderation of summer as the ice melts.

None of this changes the fact that the average temperature around the world was higher in 2005 than at any other time we have been keeping score. And higher than indications for thousands of years.

Finally, the 'It's warmer AND cooler because of global warming" argument comes out.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

Take Y2k for instance. During that whole media fantasy I probably couldn't count the number of reporters that I called to interview me. Guess how many times I was quoted. Zero. Not once. Why? I told the truth: Y2k was a big scam being perpetrated by the media and some people who desperately wanted their 15m of fame. I think global warming runs a lot of parallels.

Y2k wasnt a 'scam', it just wasnt as big as the hype it got from the media and people who didnt know what they were talking about. There were systems that had to be updated to handle a 4 digit year.

[ptlyon]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

When it's hot outside during the time when it's really supposed to be cold, it's because of global warming. Silly.

Of course there are other phenomenons one should be aware of...

When it's cold during the months when it's really supposed to be warm/hot, that's called global warming.
If it rains too much....global warming.
If it doesnt rain....global warming.

I stubbed my toe this morning....global warming.

[Simplex3]

Originally Posted by KCTitus

Y2k wasnt a 'scam', it just wasnt as big as the hype it got from the media and people who didnt know what they were talking about. There were systems that had to be updated to handle a 4 digit year.

There was work that needed to be done, but by the time the media caught on and coined the term "Y2k" by and far the majority of the work had already been done. What little was left was blow out of proportion to be planes falling from the sky, total collapse of the world's monatary systems, cats and dogs, sleeping together...

Yes, there was a digit significance problem that had to be dealt with. Y2k as a named issue was a pure fabrication, however.

[redfan]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

There was work that needed to be done, but by the time the media caught on and coined the term "Y2k" by and far the majority of the work had already been done. What little was left was blow out of proportion to be planes falling from the sky, total collapse of the world's monatary systems, cats and dogs, sleeping together...

Yes, there was a digit significance problem that had to be dealt with. Y2k as a named issue was a pure fabrication, however.

Ding ding ding!
The media has to justify their purpose somehow. But we all know the media would NEVER manufacture a story, riiiiight?
Sometimes I think the mainstream media get its jollies from scaring the peeps.

[KCTitus]

Originally Posted by Simplex3

There was work that needed to be done, but by the time the media caught on and coined the term "Y2k" by and far the majority of the work had already been done. What little was left was blow out of proportion to be planes falling from the sky, total collapse of the world's monatary systems, cats and dogs, sleeping together...

I agree, the media overplayed it. Heck, even in my company/industry it was blown out of proportion by people who knew better--that's what happens when you have people with not enough to do with a desire to justify their overpaid positions as nothing more than a coporate wonk.