BPSDB June 2009 was the second warmest on record for June and the January-June year-to-date tied with 2004 as the fifth warmest on record. (NCDC: Climate of 2009 – June Global Analysis).
But it’s been cold and wet here, how is that possible?
There are several layers to that question; the explicit question of how it is possible, and the implicit assumption that it should not be happening. There is a third part that almost never comes up, the question of whether it actually has been cool and wet.
In looking at the question of cold in a warming world I will just quickly summarize what is well covered elsewhere and refer you to some resources. Then we can move on to aspects of the issue that I have not seen generally discussed for the average reader. Particularly I want to talk about the actual mechanics of how you get record cold temperatures in a hot world.
We all know that many climate change Deniers have a habit of seizing upon any “record cold day” or unseasonal cold spell as being evidence that climate change is not happening:
Dissecting the Denialosphere
and at least some media are only too happy to help perpetuate climate ignorance:
and the Media-ocrity
- Media enable denier spin 1: A (sort of) cold January doesn’t mean climate stopped warming
- Fox Trumpets Global Warming Denier Conference: ‘We Should Be Worried About Global Cooling’
- Nutty Fox (Gop) Mouthpieces Claim Cold Weather Snaps Mean Global Warming Is Not Real
- The Australian’s War on Science 32
The standard correct answers note that regardless of whether the climate trend is warming, cooling, or stable, you will still get short term fluctuations in weather. This means you get ups and downs from day to day, and from year to year.
In a warming trend that means every new record year will be followed by a number of cooler years before a new record is set.
Numerous factors will cause these fluctuations in temperature. Some examples are natural cycles like solar sunspots and ocean circulation, and semi-random events such as massive volcano eruptions.
Here is a collection of resources that address the issue. They differ in emphasis, tone, and amount of information presented. Please use and share the one(s) that are most appropriate to the people you talk to.
For the general reader:
Fable: “It’s cold in my yard today, so there’s no Climate Change”
- ‘It’s cold today in Wagga Wagga’—Weather and climate are different
- The Planet Gets Cooler in ’08. Say What?
- What A Record Cold Winter Means for Global Warming
- Why Global Warming Can Mean Harsher Winter Weather
- Cool Spells Normal in Warming World
- Hot or Not? Making Sense of Climate Variability
- Has global warming really stopped?
- It’s cold. Does that debunk global warming?
- Why a cold winter doesn’t mean climate change is behind us
- Is Climate Warming or Cooling?
- “Global Cooling” myth gets fried
A little more technical – (Weather vs Climate)
- Definition of Climate: Average versus Accumulation:
- El Nino, Global Warming, and Anomalous U.S. Winter Warmth
- Global trends and ENSO
- More ice, flat temperatures – what does it all mean?
- NOAA says “El Niño arrives; Expected to Persist through Winter 2009-10″
- Western Sizzlin’
- Last Year and This Year:
- Cold in a Warm World:
- The folly of extrapolating from short term trends
Now for the fun stuff.
First question, “Is it even happening?” After hearing many people talk about how unusually cool it was, Nate Silver of Minnesota astutely thought to check whether it actually was unusually cool.
Indeed, it’s been pretty cool in Minneapolis for the past couple of days; the temperature hasn’t hit 70 since midday Thursday. But has it been an unusually cool summer? No, not really. Since summer began on June 21st, high temperatures there have been above average 15 times and below average 13 times. The average high temperature there since summer began this year has been 82.4 degrees. The average historic high temperature over the same period is … 82.4 degrees. It’s been a completely typical summer in Minneapolis.
Tired of all of the Denier “it’s cold today” and armed with this knowledge, Nate has issued the following open challenge:
For each day that the high temperature in your hometown is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit above average, as listed by Weather Underground, you owe me $25. For each day that it is at least 1 degree Fahrenheit below average, I owe you $25.
I wish him all the best and I am going to follow this, but as has been noted about Deniers here before, they’ll bet your life, but not their money!
Fine, but sometimes it really is cooler, even record cold, how is THAT possible if the world is warming? Notwithstanding the truth about this years global record (top), the fact is some places really have been cool and wet.
A not very satisfying correct answer is that the heat is somewhere else. Let’s see if we can turn that into a more satisfying answer.
One of the problems is the “Mind prison” of expectations.
Everyone understands that even a house can have a particular room that is colder than the rest, even one part of a room can be detectably colder. It all depends on uneven warming and air movements.
Our expectation is not because we have never experienced uneven warming and temperature, even in small spaces. So why is it so surprising that we experience the same in a large, planet sized space? In that sense the Earth is a huge and very old house; sturdy, but with a lot of idiosyncrasies.
To understand how this cold occurs we really need to understand that what we are dealing with is “climate change”, a term that the science community has been using since 1975 (before anyone pops up with ‘that’ Denier chestnut). Whether the trend is warming or cooling we would still be experiencing significant disruption of our weather systems, and that means unpredictable and unusual weather. A more detailed (and useful) discussion can be found at Imprecision of the Phrase “Global Warming”
In Climate Deniers literally are “Flat Earthers” I talked about some of the macro factors that give us variation in our weather patterns, and how climate change causes them to shift. Let’s look at that in more detail and at a slightly finer scale.
Here is a map of the air masses that largely determine the weather for North America (from Geography 101, University of Wisconsin). These air masses are created by the air circulation patterns discussed in the previous post (above).
Continental Arctic (cA)- very cold; very dry
Continental Polar (cP) – cold & dry
Maritime Tropical (mT) – warm & moist
Maritime Polar (mP) – cool & moist
One of the reasons weather patterns get severely disrupted is that the warming of the Earth is uneven with the greatest warming at the poles (Polar Amplification and What exactly is polar amplification and why does it matter?).
As a purely hypothetical exercise, let’s take some of those air masses and warm them up, say 2C to 3C (warming tends to be greater over land). This naturally causes disruption of how the different air masses interact with one another, so there is some slight shifting in exactly which areas of the continent are dominated by which air masses.
Continuing our hypothetical exercise, let’s suppose that the shifting pushes the continental polar air mass in the middle north somewhat further south and a bit more east. At the same time, the eastern maritime Polar air mass also extends a little more south and east.
In this hypothetical example everything is warmer than it had been, but the result is that the regions described as A and B are having their weather more heavily influenced by a different air mass than they had been historically.
As a consequence, even though the continental Polar air mass is warmer than it had been before, the people in area A are experiencing weather that is cooler than they had historically.
Generally cooler, and undoubtedly they would be experiencing many new record cold days. Equally, the people in area B would be experiencing wetter weather than they had historically, which would undoubtedly include record snowfalls.
I cannot emphasize enough that this is a grossly over-simplified, purely hypothetical example, but hopefully it makes it clearer how it is possible to warm everything up, and still have some places that actually are cooler, and experiencing record cold periods and/or record snow falls.
Now imagine the consequences as we shake, rattle and roll all of the Earth’s air masses:
Of course air masses are nothing, the real heat energy is in the oceans. We all know just how much our global weather is affected when the Pacific cycle switches from El Niño to La Nina.
That’s because it takes an unbelievable amount of heat energy to warm up billions of tonnes of water even a single degree, say from 6C to 7C. When that volume of water cools 1C it releases that heat energy, which partially explains why ice shelves are so vulnerable to warming from below.
Of course if climate change causes disruption of ocean currents such that your region’s weather becomes heavily influenced by that “warmer” 7C current when it hadn’t been before … well, you’ll probably spend a lot of time sloshing through cold rain muttering “Global warming? … bullshit!”
Of course climate change is affecting ocean currents, and will undoubtedly disrupt them much more as it continues.
Which is another piece of the puzzle as to how it is possible to warm the planet as a whole, while still having some areas apparently unifluenced, or even become colder, at least in the short term. This variation is just another consequence of the variation discussed in the Flat Earth discussion.
Note here how a Denier attempts to spin geographic variation of weather, A Warming Hole in the U.S. as Warming of planet occurring only in certain geography.
Two other things to note about reports of “record temperatures”:
First, many of them are not necessarily that meaningful. A “record” just means that we have recorded an extreme that has never been recorded before. We have a lot of data from 130 yrs of record keeping, but I doubt we are even close to having recorded every “normal” extreme for every geographic location.
Further, our 130 year long data base is vast enough to be highly meaningful scientifically, but it does not mean that we have 130 years of temperature records for absolutely every location where we now record temperatures. Some of the “records” being reported by the media are in fact for places that have quite short and scientifically meaningless temperature records.
So if Wakawak’s previous record cold for July 20th was 20C, and this year it drops to 19C for whatever reason, we have a new “record cold.” Given tens of thousands of locations, in any given week chances are good that somewhere is going to experience “record” something. Such a minor difference on such a small scale is meaningless, but you can bet Fox News? and the Denialosphere will report it as though it had dropped -40C across half the continent.
One of the other sources of new “records” is an artifact of being a calendar rather than season based society. This is relevant because the climate disruption is also manifesting as a shift in the seasons: Summer peak, winter low temperatures now arrive 2 days earlier. As a consequence the “seasonal days” occurs 2 days earlier, which across continents is going to be enough to create new “records” here and there even if absolutely nothing else changes.
So what does a lot unusual cold periods, record snow falls, and record cold days tell us? If there is enough of them over a period of years it could be an indicator of climate change, but you still have to look at the global temperature trend over a period of at least 30 years to get a sense of just how the climate is changing.
And as long as the trend looks like this:
I don’t care how often Fox News? tells me that the good people of Wakawak had to wear a sweater yesterday, the planet is definitely warming.
Temperature records from a suburb north of Los Angeles indicate that periods of three consecutive days when the temperature exceeds 90 degrees Fahrenheit (events commonly referred to as “heat waves”) are more common now than they were 100 years ago. Earth Gauge
We give our consent every moment that we do not resist.
Denier “Challenge” aka Deathwatch Update: Day 264 … still no evidence.
IMAGE CREDITS:
June global mean surface temperatures from NCDC: Climate of 2009 – June Global Analysis
mTemperature anomolies June 2009 from NCDC: Climate of 2009 – June Global Analysis
We’re at the tipping point for climate change (bonus: face in the clouds) bykevindooley
Air_masses of North America from Air Masses and Fronts
North America from Freemap
Air masses from Wikipedia
A Warming Hole in the U.S
Morning storm over Lake Michigan bykevindooley
Viv does XPRO Fujichrome (tungsten) T64 bykevindooley
NASA’s global temperature land-ocean index from Climate myths: Global warming stopped in 1998
Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to the post that they appear under or the evolving discussion will simply be deleted, as will links to Denier spam known to be scientific gibberish
The “Mostly” Open Thread is for general climate discussion that is not relevant to a particular post. Spam and abuse rules still apply;
The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
The “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread is for comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change.
Vernon, did you even bother to compare GISS, Hadley, RSS or UAH?
Here are four links which show how closely they track each other:
http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/04/14/comparable-global-climate-metrics/
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1990/trend
Why not try some honest research instead of copying from denier sites?
I was wrong, I should of said missing cell data for zonal reconstruction. Been a while since I looked up the terminology. Did not know that quoting from the studies or the data updates from GISTemp was considered “Challenging the Core Science”
When does new science get included into your Core Science?
—-
The factor you haven’t discussed is how recent history colours our perception. On the other side of the world we are having a really wet winter, only the rainfall is actually below average.
Gee it is so cold this winter, siting here in shorts beside the open door. The gas heater hasn’t been connected for a few years now. Maybe it really isn’t that cold.
—-
I am unusual in that I answer yes to both questions. I know there was light snow flurries one night in June (1st or 2nd, something like that … melted as soon as the sun rose) when I was a child.
– Weather?
Now in this “cold” summer I plant my tomatoes in early may with no fear of frost … well duh
– Climate? When were tomatoes planted 30 years ago?
—-
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
[…] 20, 2009 by Richard by mikebaird Global Warming? why is it so freaking cold?: [Via Greenfyre's] June 2009 was the second warmest on record for June and the January-June […]
I too have lived in the same city for more than 30 years and somehow the statistics hide how much warmer it is.
I remember being warm and toasty in bed when I go to sleep and then waking up cold in the night, then waking up colder later wishing I had put another blanket on. Now I wake up cold roll over and a little while later I am warm again.
So a question for the statistician, can we get a handle on warming at the shoulders? Are we spending more time closer to the daily maximum and less time near the daily minimum? With daily maxima and minima dominating the statistics it is hard to tell.
—-
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
As Tony O’Brien mentioned it would be interesting to have more info about the heat sum (or whatever it is called in English). “So a question for the statistician, can we get a handle on warming at the shoulders? Are we spending more time closer to the daily maximum and less time near the daily minimum? With daily maxima and minima dominating the statistics it is hard to tell.”
—-
See my reply
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
Actually it is quite a good question, I think.
There is evidence that the diurnal temperature range (the difference between the maximum and minimum temperatures) has declined in some areas, probably because of increasing night time cloud cover. In other words, nights are warming faster than the days are. In fact in the AR3 the IPCC stated that the DTR
However in the AR4 they were less sure:
Certainly winter nights are less cold than they used to be where I live, and I’m not affected by the UHI effect – but it would be folly to extrapolate my local conditions to the entire planet.
S2 beat me to it regarding warmer nights.
Certainly here in the UK it has been a hot June, and a wet but warm July so far.
In passing, I believe Guthrie is a fellow Scot so we pretty much share the same microclimate. 🙂
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
The “Mostly” Open Comment Thread is for most comments that are not relevant to a particular post on this site,
Re. Vernon,
I find it impossible to believe that anyone could read the post for this comments thread and fail to understand that global warming is not linear. Moreover, a separate blogpost previously explained why it is nonsense for him (or any other denier) to cite the Swanson and Tsonis 2009 study. It does not say what he apparently wants it to say.
>>>The study does say no warming until 2020, when they expect the trend to be able to change. By Vernon.
>>>If RC is having guest posts about warming stopping in 2001, then they believe that warming has stopped – at least until 2020. By Vernon
Except the Swanson and Tsonis study does not say this (never mind that the guest post does not say this and RC does not say this). Vernon’s statement is fraudulent and he knows it.
The study suggests a pause, an interruption, a not-so-much-warming — that is consistent with a warming trend.
The critical scientific discussion regarding the theoretical framework and methodology of the study is of course interesting.
Re. Vernon’s other deleted posts on this thread.
He often acknowledges warming, only to ‘reveal’ that he is not talking about AGW but natural warming. It’s a bizarre little game.
There is overwhelming scientific evidence that the main driver of the current warming trend is C02 emissions. Nonetheless, he always claims that the science is wrong and persists in wasting others’ time by demanding a response to his repetitive noise. He always claims that his lists of research say things that they most certainly do not.
What I’ve been seeing is that he has posted the same crap over and over and over again on various threads, without consequence; and persisted in posting copyright research summaries and data, and in perpetuating deliberately fraudulent interpretations of research conclusions.
So… new site policy imposes the penalty of deletion for this sort of calculated deceitfulness?
Cool. 🙂
—-
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
The “Mostly” Open Comment Thread is for most comments that are not relevant to a particular post on this site,
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
Vernon, you are one dishonest and arrogant person. You owe Martha an apology for the insulting and nasty comments you directed at her.
It is you who has no knowledge of science (or at least that is what you show by all your erroneous postings).
Go and read the actual comments by the scientists at RC and you will see (if you are honest) that they do not say what you are claiming.
*waves to S2*
Central Scotland.
*waves back to Guthrie*
North-East Scotland. 🙂
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
Well, it is going on two days. Guess this last post was to the point and since it is not being refuted, correct. [1]
So, since we are not having exceptional warming and it is cold and wet, what are we going to do next? [2]
—-
Typo: in “from Geography 101, University of Wisconson”, the name of the state is misspelled.
What is the relevant point of the post that I keep missing?
—-
As always, reading the comments here is almost as entertaining as the freak show at the circus. You have the patience of a saint.[1]
Btw, it is actually five degrees colder on average here this summer (I’m near the Canadian border in the Great Lakes region); that hardly seems like a refutation of climate change to me…but it has made gardening pleasant. [2]
—-
I still think you’re practicing patience…just being practical, as well. There’s only so much time, and discourse with fools returns little for all the investment. At my blog I have no such policy, but I get a lot less traffic, too. Sometimes I simply delete them, or sometimes I sharpen my claws for fun. 😛
—-
The funny thing is that you can have what feels like a cool summer, because of lack of nice hot sunny days, but because of all the cloud (and the greenhouse gases of course) the night time temperature stays higher than usual, so the average over the year is still pretty high. And of course increased night time temperatures is a prediction of AGW.
—-
I sharpen my claws only on trolls. Slugs can’t help what they are…trolls can. (Besides, there are so many birds here…including wild turkeys…that I never have much of a problem with the little slimy things.)
BTW, it’s not cool here anymore. And did you hear what’s happening in the NW?
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that are not relevant to a particular post or the evolving discussion belong in the “Mostly” Open Comment Thread
DELETED for Violation of Comment Policy
Comments that purport to challenge the core science of anthropogenic climate change belong in the “Challenging the Core Science” Comment Thread.
[…] Global Warming? why is it so freaking cold? « Greenfyre’sSugen på att geeka loss ordentligt i nästa klimatdiskussion? Läs då den här initierade postningen. […]
Would it now be appropriate to alter the graphs you use, since the data is being shown to have been “fudged”?
—-
Oh, brother. It starts.
[…] at the heights of those mountains and compare to tornado zones. A wind break could help. https://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2009/…freaking-cold/ Last edited by Thoughtful madman; 26th-May-2011 at 11:34 […]