[Lynda (OP)]

I have been wondering for some time about whether the warmer weather in other countries is forcing colder weather in the UK.   It is a while since I felt uncomfortably hot in summer (certainly not this year!). I am wondering whether the effects of the Gulf Stream have been negated by the effects from other countries weather.

[CliffordK]

My vote is that people can often remember some of the weather extremes, but are quick to forget about the normal year to year variability of the weather.

In Oregon, this time last year it was a heck of a lot colder!!!  But, January was relatively mild.

And the coldest winters I can remember were two years in a row, I think 1971 and 1972 (does that date me [|)])

Keep in mind that the predicted effect due to Global warming is about ½°C, or about 1°F temperature change on average.  Most of my household thermometers have 1°C/2°F increments.

It is nice to have something like "Global Warming" to point one's finger at, but there is a tremendous amount of annual variability in the weather.  And we really won't know if the recent temperature changes are within the norm for about 50 more years.

[yor_on]

So you think the climate scientist are reminiscing over the weather they remember from their youth Clifford? And that their extrapolations isn't true? There is a variability to them, if that is what you mean? But it all point in one direction. The official IPCC prognosis's seems constantly exceeded before they've even came out with them, as far as I have know, and they are constantly revising them upwards, into the 'red' as I understands it?

As for the British weather it's because of something named NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) You can read about that Here. We're in a negative NAO now. What that means in form of 'Global Warming'? Well, I would say that we live in a non-linear world, where a 'tipping' from one state to another can come quite fast. As it is now we are 'wobbling' I would say due to the rising mean world temperature. Read What we can learn from studying the last millennium (or so) to see how those working with climate models see it. And no, it's not going to mean a colder climate.

[CliffordK]

So you think the climate scientist are reminiscing over the weather they remember from their youth Clifford?

No,
But your typical back-yard scientist often gives too much weight to the current weather, and may have a short memory for what is "typical", except for a few extreme events.

Yes, there likely is an effect due to El Niño/La Niña, as well as the North Atlantic Oscillation.  Certainly you wouldn't be discounting normal fluctuations in ocean pressures and currents as being valid components of the global weather patterns?

Should we ignore the volcanic eruption in Iceland too?

The theory behind the effects of a 0.01% atmospheric CO₂ level increase seems reasonable.  However, the data points are just all over the board.

Here is a Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly chart, over the USA, Europe, and Japan, by season (Dec, Jan, Feb) & (June, July, Aug).  I don't know what happened to the other months???
http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2010/20101001_SummerTemperatures.pdf
 [ Invalid Attachment ]
The baseline was chosen as 1951 to 1980 mean. 

Just eyeballing the graph, it looks relatively flat, except for a moderate increase of temperature of summers in Europe.  However, on closer inspection, in the most recent 2 decades, there are more data points above the baseline than below the baseline in many categories that could be teased out by doing a multi-year running average.  Also note that this graph is shown on a +/- 2° scale due to the variations, while other graphs are often represented on a ½° scale.

This does, of course, depend on the appropriateness of the baseline.  There appears to be a strong negative trend, at least during the winters, from about 1960 to 1980, and in the USA, an negative trending of the summer temperatures running from 1952 decreasing to about 1965.

If the baseline was about ¼° higher in Japan, one would likely be seeing an overall negative trend in the summers.

The historical lessons become much more complex if one doesn't limit our comparisons to the Holocene Epoch.  If we took the baseline temperature as the "Eocene Optimum", then it would look like we were freezing our b...s off!!!

There is likely an anthropogenic component to the climate.  But, history shows HUGE climatic changes that have dwarfed the current projected anthropogenic climate component, and have been entirely independent from it.

Note, other graphs in the in the same article cover a global composite, that average to a subtle upward trend, although some graphs tend to show some leveling of the trend during the most recent decade.

The "unknown" is scary.  But we have to accept that the global climate has always been variable.  I'd be much more concerned for our children and grandchildren if the global population jumps from 7 billion to 14 billion than if the CO₂ levels increase by an additional 0.01%.  However, I also wonder if they will be able to cope if virtually all of the fossil fuel reserves are exhausted.

[SteveFish]

Clifford. I am not sure what your point is. Why don’t you look at all the data to see what the global trend is, not just from one region, and try to find out how this will affect our society?  I just don’t understand what people who invoke past very warm periods wish to convey. In the deep past, periods that warmed as fast as our current anthropogenic, worldwide, warming have resulted in mass extinctions and major ecological upheaval. It is the rate of change that is important. I think you should spend some time with the links that Yor_on provided, especially the Real Climate web site that has many well referenced educational articles and is run by some of the top atmospheric physicists in the world. Steve

[Geezer]

I don't think Clifford was denying the effects that humans are having on the climate. In fact, I got the distinct impression he even pointed that out.

What he was trying to do, I think, was answer the question without turning it into another question altogether.

[SteveFish]

Geezer, I suggest you read the post again. Steve

[Geezer]

Steve,

The question was not about global trends and how it will affect our society. Please try to answer the question that was asked in the original post.

If you want to start another thread by asking a related, but different question that you think is important, please feel free to do so.

Thanks,
Geezer (Moderator)

[SteveFish]

Geezer (Moderator):

The question is about colder weather in the UK. First of all this is not true from a climate perspective, it is warmer.  The Gulf Stream does moderate weather in portions of northern Europe, but the weather isn’t colder than in historical trends. It is raining and snowing more. Last year was a little colder than average because of the Arctic Oscillation. It is correct to say that this year is not due to global warming. This is not because it isn't, it is consistent with predictions, but because it takes more years to make it statistically significant.

Clifford is correct to the extent that weather happens, but what is the significance of comments like – “There is likely an anthropogenic component to the climate.  But, history shows HUGE climatic changes that have dwarfed the current projected anthropogenic climate component, and have been entirely independent from it.” Aside from the fact that there are errors here, only one of which I commented on. Is this this on topic and my response is not?

Is this responsive to the original question—“The "unknown" is scary.  But we have to accept that the global climate has always been variable.  I'd be much more concerned for our children and grandchildren if the global population jumps from 7 billion to 14 billion than if the CO2 levels increase by an additional 0.01%.  However, I also wonder if they will be able to cope if virtually all of the fossil fuel reserves are exhausted.”

Perhaps the Moderator should consider a more even handed approach, or just let Clifford respond for himself. He is quite capable and I enjoy most of his posts because they are accurate and concise, but he does have a different opinion than I do regarding how one should consider the major problems of resources, environment, and overpopulation. He commented on this topic and I responded.

Steve

[SteveFish]

Geezer, just treat us equally, and don't cut any more of my posts without admitting that you did so. Steve

[Airthumbs]

From recent studies undertaken by the rather conservative IPCC the given global surface temperature rise is between +1.4°C and +5.8°C.  The time frame given is from 1990-2100

These figures are based on only anthropomorphic emissions of greenhouse gas.  Not included in these figures are the immense amount of methane and carbon that is trapped in the layers of permafrost.  When the permafrost begins to melt it will cause a positive feedback loop due to the darker surface areas of melt water that will form ponds otherwise known as the albedo effect but in reverse.

On top of this we have the ocean permafrost that traps even larger quantites of CH₄ (Methane).  Already scientists are recording CH₄ emissions from the East Siberian Arctic Shelf.  These emissions have been calculated to be releasing 7 million tonnes of methane for the year these studies took place which was 2005.  CH₄(Methane), is approximately 21 times more potent as a greenhouse gas then CO₂Carbon Dioxide.  7 million tones might not seem a lot but this is just the beginning!!

Of course we also have to factor in the melting of the poles and the associated ice sheets again creating a positive feedback loop due to the darker colour of the substrata exposed from diminishing ice/snow cover.

The UK relies largely on the Gulf stream for it's milder climate and as more and more fresh water enters the system there is a good possibility that the Gulf Stream will move southwards and as a result cause colder climatic conditions in the UK.

And so really to get a good idea of what might happen it is necessary to model the climate, including non anthropomorphic factors.  In a scenario where we stopped current emissions tomorrow this would be and average rise of surface temperature over the next 100 years of about +5°C. In a worse case scenario it is more like +8°C or more!

This kind of change is going to be disastrous, not only for humans but every living organism on the planet. 

The social consequences of severe drought in the equatorial regions means there will be a mass migration of people moving north and south to essentially survive as it will be impossible to survive in those regions. Food shortages, water shortages, war on a scale never seen before! 

Are we doing anything about it?  Well China builds two new coal powered electricity stations every week! America is responsible for more greenhouse emissions then any other nation.  We continue to pollute our oceans and cut down rainforests at an alarming non sustainable rate.  I really believe that greed has led to Global Genocide of which we all sit back and happily participate in.  Unfortunately it seems to be a minority who are truly aware of the catastrophe that awaits us in a relatively small amount of time.  I could not believe it when some clever panel of scientists decided to state that if we did not curb our carbon emissions within the next five years the earth would enter a runaway climate cycle and nothing we could do will stop this.  5 years!!  Let me say that again, 5years!! What a joke, life has existed on Earth for about 3.5 billion years.  The Earths climatic cycles are measured in thousands of years.  So lets put that 5 years into context, you might as well say yesterday, or 5 years ago!

Many of the climate change models predict that there will be localised changes in temperature some of which will mean certain places get colder and others hotter.  This is the main reason scientists now refer to Global Warming as Climate Change.

I hope I answered your question and also gave you some helpful information to make your own conclusions and do further research on the subject in your OP  []

[Kevinbrian]

The question remains largely unanswered whether these dramatic weather changes are normal cyclical aberrations of weather or part of an evolution in our climate.

[CliffordK]

Any attribution of cold weather in Europe to Global Warming is just insanity.

It seems to be in part related to ocean currents, A strong negative North Atlantic Oscillation, and a strong La Niña. 

Some people are attributing weather extremes to "climate change", although the connection is likely much less than they would like to believe.

I'm more inclined to think of it as a random variation. 

I was looking at the absorption of Carbon Dioxide in the IR band a couple of days ago.  At issue is a narrow absorption band between 14 microns an 16 microns wavelength (which is much less than the total IR spectrum). 

There are a couple of reasons why this may have a more significant effect at very low temperatures (-30°C) than higher temperatures (0°C to 40°C).

First of all, the IR emission spectrum is temperature dependent.  According to Planck, at colder temperatures, the IR emissions are weighted towards longer wavelengths, nearer the 14-16μm range, and thus the CO₂ influence would be proportionally higher.  At higher temperatures, there are higher total IR Emissions, but they are weighted back towards to 9 or 10μm range, and thus proportionally less effect from CO₂. 

Water also absorbs IR in the same range as CO₂.  The moisture carrying capacity of air increases with temperature.  So, there is less water in the air at very low temperatures than at high temperatures, which would increase the relative IR blocking contribution of CO₂ over the contribution of water at very low temps.

This may indicate that CO₂ mitigated Global Warming may be a misnomer, and it would better be described as CO₂ polar warming with global effects.  Note that Russia and Canada often show up as "hot spots" in the winter.

As a response to earlier comments...  Yes, I do read information from multiple sources in an attempt to understand the actual basis for any purported temperature increases.  There are some things pointing to a minor contribution from CO₂.  But there are indications of huge climate shifts greater than what we've seen in the last half century independent from human causes.  While CO₂ levels have varied with temperature in the past, it still remains to be proven whether increases in CO₂ cause increases in temperature, or the reverse that increases in temperature cause increases in CO₂ (of course not counting the recent human contribution from fossil fuels).

[yor_on]

Hi Lynda

A good question. Earth is a non-linear system, that means that small changes can have great consequences although unpredictable for us. Linear systems follows an easily seen path 1 2 3 4 etc, each step logically following the other. A non linear system doesn't, it can jump from one 'state' to another, look up bifurcations to see. It also have something called 'tippings' meaning that the whole 'system' like our Earth, can tip from having one climate balance to another. When a tipping occur in a non-linear system it is almost impossible, or impossible, to change it back to what it was before as it then have found a new overall balance. and that's what some of us are afraid is happening here. There are those arguing that a tipping already have begun. If that is the case we only can minimize the ecological, fauna and flora damage. We will not be able to reverse it. I for one expect us to be at the doorstep of a tipping, even if not in it just yet (hopefully).

When it comes to the weather Europe had had recently it's because of NAO (North Atlantic Oscillation) Which you can read about here. But your concerns about the golf stream are quite correct. "An army of marine sensors and robot submarines may soon be deployed over the Atlantic able to provide an early warning of a failing Gulf Stream, which is an event that may bring about freezing in Britain. The system that is to be deployed from the Canary Islands to Florida will cost 16 million pounds and has been named Rapid Watch. It will use latest technology to check if cold water from the melting ice sheets of the Arctic is diverting Gulf Stream off Britain."

Maybe a little late but better late than never

Greenland's ice-loss are accelerating Greenland.

"One of the best place to see this ice loss is the Jakobshavn Glacier  on the western coast of Greenland. “The locals used to call it the ‘Dead Glacier,’ because it never moved,” Steffen says. “But in 2001, that glacier suddenly became very active.” It is now flowing from into the sea at the extraordinary speed of 14 kilometers per year. “If you stand there, you can see the ice moving,” Steffen says. And you also can hear it. “It sounds like a train going by.” The glacier is helping to move massive amounts of ice out to sea, where it contributes to sea level rise.

Globally, the oceans are now rising at about 3.3 millimeters per year. Last decade, the rate was 1.7 millimeters per year. “So it has roughly doubled in the last decade,” Steffen says. And Greenland’s contribution to this sea level rise has risen from about 20 percent to 30 percent between 2004 and the present." "The best fitting trend finds that Greenland ice loss is accelerating at a rate of 30 Gigatonnes/yr2. Greenland’s mass loss doubled over the 9 year period."

And "Glaciers in west Greenland are melting 100 times faster at their end points beneath the ocean than they are at their surfaces, according to a new NASA/university study published online Feb. 14 in Nature Geoscience. The results suggest this undersea melting caused by warmer ocean waters is playing an important, if not dominant, role in the current evolution of Greenland's glaciers, a factor that had previously been overlooked."

And what is valid there will be valid elsewhere too. We look at the arctic mostly as that's where we see the 'stuff' really happen quickly but Antarctica is getting warmer too. The oceans is one of our primary ‘sinks’ of heat created by that CO2 and methane pollution. But now they’re starting to get ‘satiated’ (filled up)

The oceans near Antarctica are thought to have one of the healthiest appetites for greenhouse gases. Their surface waters can guzzle around 15 percent of all the carbon dioxide produced by people, which comes mostly from industry and automobile emissions. The new study found the oceans are mopping up only about 10 percent of carbon- oxide, requiring projections for future levels of greenhouse gases to be bumped up accordingly. " (from 2007)

And a worse worry is the fact that “Researchers used satellites to plot changes in the Earth's gravity in the Antarctic during the period 2002-2005. Writing in the journal Science, they conclude that the continent is losing 152 cubic km of ice each year, with most loss in the west”.  And a  study conducted by scientists at the University of Colorado at Boulder, uses a technique which has not been tried before: measuring gravity over Antarctica. “ When they fly over regions where there is lots of material below, such as mountain ranges, or where crustal rocks are more dense, they will register an increase in the Earth's gravity - tiny, but measurable.” (from 2006)

---Quote---

"Their orbits have a very large inclination, of 89 degrees in fact, so you get very good coverage over the Antarctic," said Isabella Velicogna, one of the Colorado team. "We see the entire ice sheet and measure the mass change of the entire ice sheet; then we look at the east and west separately," she told the BBC News website. Overall, Dr Velicogna's group found an annual decrease in ice sheet mass of 152 cubic km. There is a clear loss in the west, whereas the mass of the East Antarctic sheet appears to be constant. This loss of ice equates to an annual rise in the global average sea level of 0.4mm; by contrast, the total rise, due mainly to thermal expansion of seawater, is estimated at about 1.8mm per year. "With increasing temperatures you get increased precipitation, so what may happen is that ice in the interior grows and then at the coast you have mass loss. So what we found is that for the continent as a whole, the balance between the two is negative." The Colorado team plans to continue observations and analysis of Grace data until the mission ends, probably in 2009.

---------End of quote---

West Antarctica was it? Read this (1997). A 'uncomfortable' one. It’s nicely written and easy to understand. Sea Level, Ice, and Greenhouses by Robert Grumbine.

--------Quote------------

That West Antarctica can collapse much faster than Greenland relies on another oddity of the West Antarctic geometry. Most of the ice sheet base rests well below sea level (500 - 1000 meters below). The important oddity is that as you move further inward, the land is further below sea level. So, consider a point near the grounding line (the point on land where the ice shelf meets the ice sheet). Ice flows from the grounded part into the floating part. The rate of flow increases as the slope (elevation difference) between the two sections increases. Extra mass loss in the ice shelf means that the shelf becomes thinner (and lower) so more ice flows in from the ice sheet. This makes the ice sheet just a little thinner.

'But' at the grounding line, the ice sheet had just enough mass to displace sufficient water to reach the sea floor. Without that mass, what used to be ice sheet begins to float. Since the sea floor slopes down inland of the grounding line, the area of ice sheet that turns into ice shelf increases rapidly. More ice shelf means more chance for ice to be melted by the ocean.

The collapse mechanism has a mirror-image advance mechanism. Should there be net accumulation, the ice sheet/shelf can ground out to the continental shelf edge. Go back to near the grounding point. This time add some excess mass to the ice sheet/shelf. This thickens the system to ground ice shelf. The grounded ice shelf takes area away from the ocean ablation zone, which makes the mass balance even more in favor of accumulation. So the advance can also be a self- accelerating process. "

-------------End of quote---------------

You can also take a look here. Accelerating ice loss from Antarctica and Greenland. from 2009   

Now, as I said Antarctica is way slower, and we don't expect any dramatic changes there, but it's hard to say what will happen if we really get to a tipping? Then all guesses are off as I see it. So is the Golf stream changing its course? Yes, but we do not know if it is a constant change or if it just a momentarily one.

Take this with a pinch of salt. But there are actually indications that it is weakening, faster than we have expected. Scientists Find Drastic Shift In Atlantic Ocean Currents. 2011.

So what will it do to us if it disappear? Take a look here for a partial answer Changes in the Gulf Stream Correlates with Changes in Climate And here Current Global Warming May Reverse Circulation in Atlantic Ocean, as It Did 20,000 Years Ago 

But we don't really know. As a 'scientifically minded person' I think we are creating one of the worst experiments mankind ever tried, gambling away our children's life and happiness for our own material happiness. And also that whatever reductions we would see in our living standards from trying to reduce CO2 today will be worth it tomorrow. I don't honestly expect us to stop it any longer, but we might still be able to reduce the worst effects of it.

But as a species we never shown that flair for any real long term planning before, as can be seen when discussing nuclear wastes and the time trends people envision there. Like expecting us being able to keep such waste secure for a thousand years, or ten thousand.. So I don't have any great hopes for any long term planning capabilities here either

We are throwing the dice hoping that it won't be snake eyes, the problem being that the house already 'fixed' it..

[Geezer]

Yoron,

I'm sure what you say is very true, but have you ever considered why your neighbours (a bit to your left) called it Greenland, rather than expletive cold place covered in ice and we're not going back there EVER!?

[yor_on]

They wanted it to be 'green' Geezer. It was a way to make people migrate too Good public relations as we say today. Also I think, but I'm not sure that when the first vikings arrived there it was in a milder period, a sort of freak climate, but of a rather short duration. Long time since I read about that one

but this is my views, and I had a he* off a time getting the links to work here etc. Not that they are that many. I have a lot more older but I've mostly stopped, seeing how little that is done I expect us to keep doing as much that means practically nothing.

[Geezer]

I think Greenland was much greener then, but that's my point. You can't infer much based on short term, and even relatively long term, climate records. The "global warming" theorists have made a huge mistake by trying to use recent climatic data to to prove their case. It simply won't work.

You can analyse the data any way you like to prove, or disprove, global warming.

The real science should be based on proving, or disproving, that atmospheric CO2 does trap thermal energy, but I think it's highly unlikely that we can prove or disprove that based on historical temperature data.

IMHO it would be far better to devise some experiments that demonstrate the effects of CO2 on temperature that are completely independent of unknown variables. Then science can make a stand without becoming embroiled in all sorts of geopolitical influences as it obviously is today.

Science should stay out of politics. When science becomes political, it ain't science.

[CliffordK]

Some of the December 2010 data is now coming out.

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/01/dec-2010-uah-global-temperature-update-0-18-deg-c/

10 year average:  Dec 2010 is significantly lower than the most recent global 10 year average global temperature.



30 year average...  Dec 2010 is just 0.18 above the 30 year average.



The Arctic Sea Ice shows a little different story.  While for most of the last year, the arctic sea ice remained more or less in the middle of the last 10 years, in December it dropped to the lowest point (for December) in a decade.  See the orange line to the right and red line to the left.

http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/seaice/extent/AMSRE_Sea_Ice_Extent_L.png


I'm assuming all that Arctic Sea Ice was distributed across Europe and Great Britain.   []

Looking at this more, there are a lot of notes about a "blocking pattern" on the jetstream sending storms into Europe, and NE USA.  

http://www.climatecentral.org/blog/freak-pattern-brings-europe-record-cold-and-snow/

There are notes of a period of low solar activity that may be associated with the harsh winters.  I think I already posted notes that while the sunspot and solar irradiation typically follows 10 year cycles, the current cycle seems to be late, and potentially lower than cycles for the previous 50 years or so (although there are a few sunspots that have shown up in January).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8615789.stm

Perhaps the Eyjafjallajökull eruption has also influenced the 2010/2011 winter (although not the previous winter).

[yor_on]

Geezer, I wrote some here when I first come, it's some years old but not worse than 2007 I guess? Check it up, it's all true. I tried to collect sources that people wouldn't call conspiratorial, like some do about real climate for example. Which is a joke as some of the best climate scientists in the world write there. And all trying desperately not to say anything drastic as they learnt that any extrapolation stepping over the scientific bounds will get the interests wanting us to keep consuming water on their watermills as we say in Sweden. I don't really care about you and me, but I feel sorry for our kids, and their kids.

[yor_on]

And Clifford, what are you trying to prove?