Cold Spring Linked To Dramatic Sea Ice Loss 422
hrvatska writes "An article at Weather Underground reports that researchers have linked large snowstorms and cold spring weather across Britain and large parts of Europe and North America to the dramatic loss of Arctic sea ice. It is thought that the Arctic ice loss adds heat to the ocean and atmosphere, which shifts the position of the jet stream, allowing cold air from the Arctic to plunge much further south. Researchers expect that a warming Arctic ocean will drive more extreme weather in North America and Europe (abstract)."
how does 2013 compare to the 1980's? (Score:1, Interesting)
and earlier times
if you believe in global warming then the current cold temperatures are a return to normalcy and nothing to be alarmed about. up until the early 1900's when we had "normal" weather and temperatures NYC was so bitter cold that the rivers would freeze enough that people were able to walk from brooklyn to queens
Re:Global warming (Score:5, Interesting)
Creation "science" has an explanation for all the related scientific data these days, and every time e.g. a geologist discovers something new and interesting, hey, no problem, they can change their story and explain that too.
Actual science predicts unusual measurements. Junk science says "hey, no problem, our model can explain that too".
Re:Global warming (Score:2, Interesting)
Publicly: The reason you're freezing your ass off is that unprecedented Arctic ice melting is shifting the cold air further south, all caused by man-made Climate Change.
Privately: This cold weather is a travesty.
Re:how does 2013 compare to the 1980's? (Score:4, Interesting)
Only problem with this is that the costs are already showing up in peoples insurances.
Ever hear of moral hazard? The US federal government has millions of dollars for disaster relief from floods, but can't find thousands of dollars for disaster prevention. They are effectively paying the world to build in the US's flood-prone areas. Insurance companies won't touch that.
Re:Bububu.. (Score:2, Interesting)
Look. Stop. When you're about to post in a climate thread, ask yourself "Does this debate need another flimsy strawman argument?" If you answered "yes", regardless of what you believe, you are part of the problem, and why there is still "debate".
Arctic and Antarctic winds key. (Score:5, Interesting)
Gulf Stream has not weakened. (Score:5, Interesting)
According to the most recent SST anomaly map found here [noaa.gov], much of the Gulf Stream is anomalously warmer than expected.
Re:Global warming (Score:3, Interesting)
So uh... when Europe was having warmer weather during Winter and Spring a few years back, everyone [Citation needed] said that Global Warming was the cause [Citation needed] (and that it would never snow in Europe again, [Citation needed] skiing would be extinct, [Citation needed] etc. etc).
Fill in the required information.
So what was happening a few years ago? Global Cooling?
You tell us. What did your model predict? How did these predictions align with actual outcomes?
Why is is that no matter what happens, it is always the effects of Global Warming
You are criticising climate models for being too accurate. What result were you expecting?
Re:so WTF are normal temperatures then? (Score:4, Interesting)
Wow, thats about as much intellectual drivel as I would expect out of a political prisoner fresh out of labour-camp.
I see you fit the profile quite nicely. Let's take a look.
Climate Change is an acknowledgment that the Earth has many interconnected systems that can be aversely or even positively affected by changes to the environment.
The word I was criticizing was "accuracy". This bullshit isn't accurate. Anthropogenic global warming is accurate. It describes the key characteristics of the phenomena, namely, that it is man-caused and that it is a global warming.
Also a tacit acknowledgement that once it occurs its nearly impossible to reverse. It just so happens that it also nullifies any unfortunate and misguided pseudo-intellectualism vaulted or supported by the "Global Warming" meme of the 80s.
That's an awful lot of pointless verbiage for a supposedly "tacit" acknowledgement. No, there is no such acknowledgement. "Climate change" simply means a change in climate. All the rest of your claim is completely unfounded and not implied by the label.
the best you can do is question the motives of "scientists" to prove your point
But of course. There are trillions of dollars riding on convincing the public that AGW is dire enough that we need to spend a lot of money. That's many times what you'd need to completely buy the field of climatology.
Re:Global warming (Score:4, Interesting)
Except that in the context of climate, one, two, five, and even 10 years out are not exactly the distant future. Climate scientists tell us even a couple degrees makes a big difference, and then have margins of error that big even on very short time scales.
Quite honestly if they can't do better than that it means the models are two immature to be useful for anything other than the development of improved models. Nothing wrong with...you have to start some place. Still if you expect anyone to make more than the feel good "green" policy decision and actually get popular support for actions that will amount to something they need to find better models.
I am not denying things are changing. We can all see that. Looking at the facts we do know like the real magnitude in terms of tons of carbon we are pushing forward in the cycle give us good reason to think outcomes will be different than in the past. You can't ask someone to sacrifice their livelihood or given up their on opportunities to stop something you really don't know the effects of; its not right to so; and in practice they won't listen.
Re:Global warming (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Global warming (Score:4, Interesting)
They did. Over ten years ago there were articles on how global warming could result in northern Europe getting colder.