We are told by climate scientists that 2010 is in a dead heat or slightly hotter than 1998 and 2005.
It logically follows that either there must have been a lot of cold and snow in 1998 and 2005 (like this year) – or another possibility is that climate scientists are just completely FOS.
h/t to Bdaman
There are other logical possibilities
Not according to you there aren’t. According to your recent change of song harsher winters will happen because of global warming.
Why don’t you just admit you are wrong Tony Duncan.
Could be Alzheimers too.
Tony Duncan says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:06 am
There are other logical possibilities
I’m sure papers about to be published will tell us what they are. They will tell us after the fact that this is what global warming causes.
This is how global warming works: wait to see what happens in weather and then say that is what global warming “science” predicted would happen.
Amino,
so then you agree that if the Petroukhov paper was researched before december 2009 you will publicly admit you are completely wrong about that paper, and if it was after january 2010 I admit I was completely wrong for suggesting it was before the cold winter.
Tony Duncan says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:32 am
I mostly comment of what I see as inaccurate assertions about other peoples claims.
Why don’t you bring out your paper published in 2010 again as proof that global warming “science” predicted global warming would cause harsh winter. Then we can talk about you inaccuracies.
Amino,
if you continue with these bizarre comments I will have to try the Bot detector test that you suspiciously NEVER responded to.
The key word there is PUBLISHED, and I have many times now offered to admit I was wrong about this if shown to be.
Published? what does that mean to you?
Tony Duncan says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:45 am
if you continue with these bizarre comments
What is it you find bizarre? Given the way you view “global warming” it may not mean much that you find something I say bizarre. Bizarre is a relative term.
Amino,
let’s see Published, published. Hmmmmm.
Maybe it means that all the research and review and revision happens magically the day before the article appears in print?
Oh, maybe you are confusing it with writing on a blog? In peer reviewed articles you don’t just write off the top of your head and hit send and then it is published. Now I have never written a peer reviewed paper, so I have no idea how long it took from when the research was done until publication. That is what this whole “being wrong” thing is about. Maybe it only takes a couple of months and I will gladly admit I was wrong to suggest otherwise.
The Mann Hockey Stick was published. What’s your point?
Tony Duncan says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:57 am
so I have no idea how long it took from when the research was done until publication.
James Hansen kicked off global warming hysteria in 1988. It wasn’t submitted back then.
Tony Duncan
The only thing that is noteworthy is how hard you are working to defend a paper that predicts what global warming will do after the thing it predicts has already happened.
Ain’t it a shame that Al Gore’s movie never mentioned anything about longer winters that would have record cold and snow? Tsk tsk. He’ll have to come out with a second movie that shows the world covered in snow with polar bears frozen to death.
Amino,
that is an interesting perspective.
I find the noteworthy thing to be that you appear to be categorically unable to accept even the possibility of being wrong about anything.
This paper has nothing to do with Hansen’s paper. Unless you are saying that Hansen said his paper was the revealed truth and all subsequent papers would agree with every statement and extrapolate any weather variations in accordance with the Warming Priests who would divine what Hansen’s paper WOULD have said about ice free conditions in the Barents Sea and the subsequent effects on regional weather conditions related to that.
I wail say this s l o w l y. the P e t o u k h o v p a p e r m a y h a ve b e e n r e s e a r c h e d B E F O R E t h e l a s t 2 w i n t e r s o f e x t r e m e c o l d a n d t h e r e f o r e a c c u r a t e l y p r e d i c t e d t h e c u r r e n t w e a t h e r.
Also please show me where the paper is fraudulent.
“James Hansen kicked off global warming hysteria in 1988.”
Actually I’d credit Hubert Lamb with the distinction in 1976, around 3 years after he was proclaiming a forthcoming ice-age. The CRU gained funding from insurance companies because of the CRU’s research into storms and floods etc caused by “global warming”.
Tony Duncan says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:21 am
This paper has nothing to do with Hansen’s paper.
I never said that it did. You may need to slow down a read a little more carefully.
Tony Duncan
The paper was published in 2010
This is how global warming works: wait to see what happens in weather and then say that is what global warming “science” predicted would happen.
Night now Tony.
Amino,
you said “James Hansen kicked off global warming hysteria in 1988. It wasn’t submitted back then.”
I think my comprehension that you were relating this paper to Hansen’s is not unreasonable.
So are we still on for that being wrong business on the paper?
I will admit I am wrong as soon as you show me where I claimed anything about what climate and/or weather is or isn’t doing. I mostly comment of what I see as inaccurate assertions about other peoples claims. I have repeatedly said, I don’t know enough about any of this to be making claims of my own
Amino, I know it has been a long time, since I reminded you, so please try to read what I actually write.
You are never wrong Tony Duncan just like “global warming” is never wrong.
AMINO
Now you are flat out lying.
and since you called me a liar about the Dyson fiasco I will call you out on it.
I have admitted being wrong on a number of occasions in the very recent past on this blog.
I have never said I am never wrong and I have never said global ACC is never wrong. Please show me anywhere where I have said ACC is never wrong.
Why do you obsess over yourself? I did not say you said “global warming science” is never wrong.
“Please show me anywhere where I have said ACC is never wrong.”
I don’t know if you did or did not say it. I don’t care if you did or did not. Why did you make it about you saying it??
Amino,
Well Amino you did put the two things in the same sentence,
but I withdraw my contention that you were accusing me of saying global warming is never wrong. You were anthropomorphizing a theoretical concept and accusing it of never being wrong.
But you were lying about me never being wrong. I have admitted as much more than once.
I see. So you have troubles with reading comprehension.
Amino,
this is Tony’s mother.
You made his cry, you bully!
I understand you guys like to go around in circles. Why don’t we complete the circle by examining what most published, peer reviewed studies conclude about the impact of global warming (you can call it climate change or climate disruption) on winter Northern Hemisphere temperature and snowfall. I would bet anything that the vast majority, if not all, of such studies published before 2009 conclude that Northern Hemisphere winters would be milder with signifcantly less (rare and exciting) snow. I understand there is one post 2009 paper that purports to show colder and snowier winters, but that the underlying theory has not been confirmed by other researchers.
Mohatdebos.
I don’t like going around in circles. i just like following Amino,
And then here you barge and write something rational. It kind of threw me for a loop.
Ok. I have my bearings again.
Well I think you are probably right that most papers before the last few years would say what you wrote. Though I hazard a guess that many have caveats about not being able to predict what sort of disruptions in regional climate might occur due to the high complexity of weather systems over short periods of time. I certainly have rad papers that made specific claims about what will happen in specific regions, so it is quite possible that those papers that dealt with northern Europe in short time scales would be completely wrong.
But I think there is more than just this one paper. I have read other links where arctic blocking was discussed, though I don’t remember the details.
Tony Duncan says:
December 28, 2010 at 3:24 am
Amino,
this is Tony’s mother.
You made his cry, you bully!
I’m not trying to make you like a loser. I am serious. You need to work on reading comprehension.
Mohatdebos
It’s clear form all global warming predictions, like those of James Hansen, ans Stephen Schneider, and those in Al Gore’s movie, longer, harsher winters were never part of global warming science.
TonyD,
I think that you’ve won on points. But (as usual) you’re not speaking to the basic argument. Steve Goddard is making a good point – if this is one of the hottest years on record, which puts it in competition with 1998 and 2005, then why has the Northern Hemisphere been enveloped in cold in the last months of this year, which certainly wasn’t the case in those other years.
This is the real issue. It’s just another reason for disquiet about the whole AGW affair.
RW.
Yes that is a worthwhile question.
Why was this year different in having some areas with extreme cold?
But just asking the question doesn’t mean the answer is obvious. Petroukhov says it is partly the Barents sea, Trenberth says it is the AO. One could be right, they could both be wrong.
But the fact that there is extreme cold in a number of places, does not mean that the mean global temperature was not close to the hottest ever. Unless there is conspiratorial fraud in the satellite data. Fraud that would have to include Spencer, since he is at one of those satellite sources.
you say the NH was enveloped in cold for the last months of the year. let’s look at November. All these places were colder than “normal”- California to Colorado , and Mexico to Yukon. Cuba and much of Central America, Columbia, Iceland, Eastern Greenland, England, Spain , parts of France, Scandinavia, Northern Russia, central and eastern Australia. Most of the pacific. Argentina, parts of Chile and Antarctica. Parts of China, southeast Asia. parts of Siberia, parts of Algeria. Yet GISS has the global anomaly as being significantly above normal. In fact it is MUCH higher than for November of 1998. Just listing places that are really cold does not tell you the whole picture.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2010&month_last=11&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=11&year1=2010&year2=2010&base1=1951&base2=1980&radius=250&pol=reg
If we have an ice age, the earth will probably melt.
Another withering analysis from Steve. He just ripped my argument to pieces there.
I tell you I am glad he didn’t notice the post by mrcunnucistan on the Romm post. he would have REALLY lit into me on that one!
No matter how much information you are given, you aren’t going to listen.
And Another devastating rebuttal to my comment.
but pray tell what are the facts regarding the global temps for 2010? The GISS is fraudulent? Was Spencer bought off?
I give you tons of information and it flies right past you. No point wasting time in the comments section.
True,
you do give tons of information. Some of it I find worth thinking about, and much that I don’t find in other places. Your blog is a good balance to some others that don’t present that info.
But then again you ignore tons of relevant comments that I make that consider very specific facts, but I don’t whine about that do I?
OK. I’ve taken a look at the map you linked to. It seems to be really cooking across most of Russia. By my reading of the map, there’s a swath of territory basking in 4-12 degree temperature anomalies.
So, looking up some Russian cities on a site called worldclimate, I find that Moscow has an average November temp of -2.0, Novosibirsk (central, toward the south) -7.4, and Magadan (over to the east) -10.7. I was able to find average daily temperatures for Moscow (at a site called weather.com), which I simply averaged to get -1.17. They also had daily highs and lows for the other 2 cities; I simply averaged them for each day and across the 30 days for some kind of rough estimate. I got -3.25 for Novosibirsk and -14.6 for Magaden. So, based on admittedly rough calculations on a small amount of data I haven’t really verified (but which seem to be from reputable sites and which nearly span the country), I can’t see evidence for these striking temperature anomalies.
RW,
that seems like a reasonable thing to do. I don’t know anything about it. Someone went through it with me in Vermont, and some of my remembrances were inaccurate but the data seemed to be right on. If someone can show that the satellite data is off by so much that you can point it out just by recording posted temps that would indicate something!
If 2010 is in a dead heat with 1998, it means the planet hasn’t been warming for 12 years. That is if there wasn’t a warmer year in between, in which case it has been cooling since that one. Either way, the alarmists lose the last 12 years.
Dave,
my understanding is that no one has ever claimed temps would increase evenly. the accepted standard, as I have read, is a 30 year period. And if one looks at 1998 as an outlier, then there has been no cooling and the warming trend has continued even on the shorter timescale
Eh? Okay so the charts forecasting gradual temperature rise that are already horrible worng are myths too? Wow
So, what are you suggesting causes this “unevenness” in the global temperature trend when that for rising CO2 is virtually as straight and invariable as a die?
In my general observation you really are quite dumb, and I don’t know why Amino encourages you to feel that you are so important by responding to all of your rubbish.
Ian,
As for what causes the unevenness, I am no expert, but Mike says there is something called natural variation, and that there are many factors that affect the climate and temperature besides the increase in CO2, and I think most climate scientists have similar views.
I could be wrong however, maybe I have missed all the papers where climate scientists state arrogantly that ONLY CO2 causes temperature changes, and there are no complex interactions without the oceans and biosphere and therefore temperatures will increase every year to exactly the same degree that CO2 increases.
and thanks for not calling me an idiot. Some people do that here which is an ad hominem attack. You were wondering if I have an affliction rendering me unable to talk. I am actually not dumb at all. Some people think I talk too much believe it or not.
Regarding the most recent paper showing how global warming could lead to colder Northern Hemisphere this is what I have to say: the vast majority of published works and the consensus leans in the opposite direction. You can imagine members of the public reading about cold caused by AGW and raising their hands in consternation. They say to themselves that AGW scientists have been telling us for a couple of decades the exact opposite. Then they yaaaaawn!
They are FOS!
Agreed!!!
They will certainly say that December 2010 was whatever it needs to be in order to make sure that 2010 is the warmest year. That will be inspite of massive blizzards and cold waves around the world. This is an obvious case of the lunitics running the nut house.
This curious debate about 1998, 2005 or 2010 being the ‘hottest year ever’ tells me one important thing:
Global temperatures have not significantly increased in 12 years!
Obviously the other 9 years were cooler than this trio … that’s 75% of this particular data set.
And the world is a less fun place for your not being a statistician.
And those three years were not statistically different from 1934 and some other years in the past. As a matter of observation 2010 can not have been as warm as 1250 because if the trees that had been growing at high latitudes and altitudes in both hemispheres that have not yet begun to attempt to grow in those locations yet and they had to have had centuries of warmer temperatures to have become established as those are locations where glaciers covered previously.
Global temperatures are declining and have been for at least 5,000 thousand years. There is no evidence that trend has changed because all valid historical records point to natural weather patterns controlling climate.
The paper would be another falsification of the AGW hysteria as projected by the models used for the IPCC report!
Tony Duncan says:
December 28, 2010 at 2:38 am
I don’t follow all the fights going on here, but I assume this paper is the one being discussed?:
http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2010/2009JD013568.shtml
If so, the paper was received on Nov 16, 2009…which would appear to support Tony’s side. However, the final revised version was accepted Apr 30, 2010, so it’s possible that the revisions included new information from the 2009-2010 winter.
Also, the paper makes it clear that this behavior was found in simulations after several observed and unexpected cold winters and not before it.
-Scott
Scott says:
December 28, 2010 at 4:12 am
the paper was received on Nov 16, 2009….
Also, the paper makes it clear that this behavior was found in simulations after several observed and unexpected cold winters and not before it.
-Scott
Harsher winters began 5 years ago. Cooling began in 1998. 2009 is after the fact.
the point of the paper was that Barents Kara sea being ice free would have this impact, so I doubt the revisions added that point.
I read the parts of the paper I understood and there is nothing from 2009/10. it is mostly from the 2005/6 cold winter.
the point being that the paper predicted the cold winters that came after the research, and as far as I know the effects observed are consistent with the paper.
Thanks Scott
Barents and Kara Seas have normal sea ice.
Evidently this wasn’t true about three years ago, when “disappearing” Arctic ice blew into the Berents.
It had to go someplace, didn’t it.
A succession of cold European winters occurred in the 1940’s. As we are repeatedly told that the recent Arctic Sea Ice loss is unprecedented, we can rule that out as a cause back then. CO2 levels were about 305ppm in those days, so the “elevated CO2 levels cause everything” mantra doesn’t work either.
Mr Petrovkhov’s paper would be more convincing, IMHO if he had found a common link between the events of toady and those of 70 years ago.
The reason is, people have recently hyperventilated air containing more CO2 and it resulted in paranoid psychosis.
Or something like that, good night.
Steve,
as of yesterday the barents sea had almost no ice.
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/cgi-bin/seaice-monitor.cgi
The whole paper is predicated on lack of sea ice.
What do you mean by normal?
Are you saying that there has been little or no decrease in sea ice in the Barents sea in the last decade? and that this summer and current sea ice extent are normal?
Barents Sea Ice is right at normal http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/recent365.anom.region.6.html
Steve,
thanks for the graphic which shows
Sea ice has been below normal,sometimes by very large amounts until the last few days`
Do you think that Eastern Hudson Bay ice affects the summer minimum?
Ah,
Is this where I display my ignorance and you enlighten me? I imagine that ice and lack of ice in different locations impacts the air temps and pressure to different degrees.
Are you saying that there is something obviously wrong about the basic premise of the petroukhov article?
Last winter had the greatest ice extent in the last six years, and the winter was also very cold. Ice extent has nothing to do with it.
Do you really believe that the tiny year over year December variation makes a rats ass worth of difference? http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/icecover.uk.php
In any case – Out of all the warmist scientists and all their peer-reviewed papers, which undoubtedly predicted all kinds of different stuff, we have one guy who appears to have gotten this winter about right.
And that is supposed to prove that climate scientists know what they’re doing?
No Maguro,
It only gives added support to the hypothesis that Amino cannot ever admit he is wrong about anything.
After all Corbin predicted the same thing with a completely different attribution. In Corbin’s model the world mean temps are going to decrease significantly for the next 20-30 years, and in most climate scientist models the mean temps will go up significantly. Also this paper says that this very cold european winter will not ALWAYS occur, but they 3 times more likely in the near future.
Here is the issue, Tony. AGW alarmists have used their computer models to predict all kinds of things that haven’t happened, many documented on this very website. With so many alarmists writing so many papers, the law of averages dictates that occasionally, one of these guys will be right about something. It’s hardly something to be proud of for the climate science community. 1,000 monkeys typing randomly could do as well.
Tony, that Corbin predicted a cold winters against the Met’s warm. This proves that one may be correct, but not both. Regardless of when Petroukhov developed his assertion and regardless of the last 2 or 3 winters, it is a stark contrast to many other papers and statements made by scientists and offices predicting warmer and dryer winters. Again, one may be correct, but not both.
More, this pretty much covers the table. I’ve developed a roulette system that wins each time. I’ll share, I bet all even and odd numbers and both black and red. I’m always right! Its uncanny!
Maguro,
I think you are exaggerating about the monkeys, but if the theory says one thing and something else happens then one certainly has to look at why this was not predicted beforehand. It could be the theory is completely wrong, and if Corbin is correct then it is completely wrong.
But the ISSUE is that AMINO has so far been unable to ever say he is wrong about anything. this is not the first time he has said something that was shown to be in error. This is why I was so specific about this particular. Either I was wrong or he was. I was quite willing to acknowledge my error, as yet, Amino will not. In fact he will not even engage the possibility and just ignores the issue
I vote for FOS.
Record cold for all of Florida, and Key West, forecast tonight.
…..All these chilly lows mean another freeze for much of Florida…..
http://www.weather.com/outlook/weather-news/news/articles/region-south-weather-forecast_2010-03-25
Everyone knows that pre 2007 snow was cold, now due to AWG, CC, or whatever you want to call it. Now we have Warm Snow, hot snow and rotten snow. It is in the IPPC report somewhere, or it will be in the next one.
It is global warming snow. It comes from the fact that the Arctic ice is disappearing at a rate worse than previously thought.
Sounds counter-intuitive, but true.
True for Mr Duncan, is suspect
TODAY , not “toady” LOL!
Global warming predictions:
he forgot to say “you better stock up on long underwear”, he only talked about heat. Stephen who? Who is this global warming impostor?? No mention of people freezing to death, or of ‘first ever’ white Christmases, or of spending days stuck at the airport in a record blizzard
“Stephen Schneider, alarmism in full-dress”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3YNcFldcjA