Climate Change Fig. 1.  (a) January-November surface air temperature anomaly in GISS analysis, (b) November  2010 anomaly using only data from meteorological stations and Antarctic research stations, with  the radius of influence of a station limited to 250 km to better reveal maximum anomalies

Published on December 12th, 2010 | by Guest Contributor

42

Yes, Cold Weather in Europe STILL Means Global Warming

With record cold temperatures in Europe, we’re once again hearing the guffaws of the deniers: “If it’s supposed to be global warming, how come it’s so cold?” The answer is complicated, but the following is a summary of research that shows how cold anomalies can form regionally, even when the planet as a whole is undergoing the warmest November on record.

In particular, it points to Hudson’s Bay, Canada – a huge body of water in the subarctic region, normally covered completely by ice at this time of year, that is ice-free. Open water absorbs sunlight and keeps a region warmer, while ice cover both reflects sunlight and insulates water from air, allowing air temperatures to drop to sub-zero temperatures over ice. A warm region over Hudson’s Bay could warp weather systems, pushing the unusually cold air into Europe.

By James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato and Ken Lo

The cold anomaly in Northern Europe in November has continued and strengthened in the first half of December. Combined with the unusual cold winter of 2009-2010 in Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, this regional cold spell has caused widespread commentary that global warming has ended. That is hardly the case. On the contrary, globally November 2010 is the warmest November in the GISS record.

Figure 2(a) illustrates that there is a good chance that 2010 as a whole will be the warmest year in the GISS analysis. Even if the December global temperature anomaly is unusually cool, 2010 will at least be in a statistical tie with 2005 for the warmest year. Figure 2(b) shows the 60-month (5-year) and 132-month (11-year) running-mean surface air temperature in the GISS analysis. Contrary to frequent assertions that global warming slowed in the past decade, as discussed in our paper in press, global warming has proceeded in the current
decade just as fast as in the prior two decades. The warmth of 2010 is especially noteworthy, given the strong La Nina that developed in the second half of 2010. The La Nina, caused by unusually strong easterly equatorial winds, produces the cool anomalies in the tropical Pacific Ocean as cold upwelling deep water along the Peruvian coast is blown westward along the equator.

Figure 1(a) shows January-November 2010 surface temperature anomalies (relative to 1951-80) in the preliminary GISS analysis. This is the warmest January-November in the GISS analysis, which covers 131 years. However, it is only a few hundredths of a degree warmer than 2005, so it is possible that the final GISS results for the full year will find 2010 and 2005 to have the same temperature within the margin of error.

Fig. 1. (a) January-November surface air temperature anomaly in GISS analysis, (b) November 2010 anomaly using only data from meteorological stations and Antarctic research stations, with the radius of influence of a station limited to 250 km to better reveal maximum anomalies

As described in an in-press paper (link provided below) that defines the GISS analysis method, we estimate a two-standard-deviation uncertainty (95 percent confidence interval) of 0.05°C for comparison of global temperatures in nearby recent years. The magnitude of this uncertainty and the small temperature differences among different years is one reason that alternative analyses yield different rankings for the warmest years. However, results for overall global temperature change of the past century are in good agreement among the alternative analyses (by GISS, NOAA National Climate Data Center, and the joint analysis of the UK Met Office Hadley Centre
and the University of East Anglia Climatic Research Unit).

Figure 1(b) shows November 2010 surface temperature anomalies based only on surface air measurements at meteorological stations and Antarctic research stations. In producing this map the radius of influence of a given station is limited to 250 km to allow extreme temperature anomalies to be apparent. Northern Europe had negative anomalies of more than 4°C, while the Hudson Bay region of Canada had monthly mean anomalies greater than +10°C.

The extreme warmth in Northeast Canada is undoubtedly related to the fact that Hudson Bay was practically ice free. In the past, including the GISS base period 1951-1980, Hudson Bay was largely ice-covered in November. The contrast of temperatures at coastal stations in years with and without sea ice cover on the neighboring water body is useful for illustrating the dramatic effect of sea ice on surface air temperature. Sea ice insulates the atmosphere from ocean water warmth, allowing surface air to achieve temperatures much lower than that of the ocean. It is for this reason that some of the largest positive temperature anomalies on the planet occur in the Arctic Ocean as sea ice area has decreased in recent years.

Fig. 2. Global surface air temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 mean for (a) annual and 5-year running means, and (b) 60-month and 132-month running means. In (a) the 2010 point is a preliminary 11-month anomaly. Green vertical bars are two-standard-deviation error estimates, as discussed in our Rev. Geophys. paper.

Back to the cold air in Europe: is it possible that reduced Arctic sea ice is affecting weather patterns? Because Hudson Bay (and Baffin Bay, west of Greenland) are at significantly lower latitudes than most of the Arctic Ocean, global warming may cause them to remain ice free into early winter after the Arctic Ocean has become frozen insulating the atmosphere from the ocean.

The fixed location of the Hudson-Baffin heat source could plausibly affect weather patterns, in a deterministic way – Europe being half a Rossby wavelength downstream, thus producing a cold European anomaly in the trans-Atlantic seesaw. Several ideas about possible effects of the loss of Arctic sea ice on weather patterns are discussed in papers referenced by Overland, Wang and Walsh (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/reportcard/atmosphere.html). However, we note in our Reviews of Geophysics paper in press that the few years just prior to 2009-2010, with low Arctic sea ice, did not produce cold winters in Europe. The cold winter of 2009-2010 was associated with the most extreme Arctic Oscillation in the period of record.

Figure 3, from our paper in press, shows that 7 of the last 10 European winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 average winter, and 10 of the past 10 summers were warmer than climatology.

The average warming of European winters is at least as large as the average warming of summers, but it is less noticeable because of the much greater variability in winter.

Finally, we point out in Figure 3 the anomalous summer warmth in 2003 and 2010, summers that were associated with extreme events centered in France and Moscow. If the warming trend that is obvious in that figure continues, as is expected if greenhouse gases continue to increase, such extremes will become common within a few decades.

Figure 3, from our paper in press, shows that 7 of the last 10 European winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 average winter, and 10 of the past 10 summers were warmer than climatology.

Fig. 3. Temperature anomalies relative to 1951-1980 for the European region defined by 36°N- 70°N and 10°W-30°E. Seven of the last 10 European winters were warmer than the 1951-1980 average

The summary section of our Rev. Geophys. paper is available here (pdf) and the entire paper here (pdf).

A copy of this article is also available as a PDF document.

Reference

Hansen, J., R. Ruedy, M. Sato, and K. Lo, 2010: Global surface temperature change, Rev. Geophys., in press. (PDF)

Contacts

Please address media inquiries regarding the GISS surface temperature analysis to Ms. Leslie
McCarthy by e-mail at Leslie.M.McCarthy@nasa.gov or by phone at 212-678-5507.
Scientific inquiries about the analysis may be directed to Dr. James E. Hansen.

More on Climate Change and Global Warming from Red Green and Blue:




Tags: , , , , , ,


About the Author



42 Responses to Yes, Cold Weather in Europe STILL Means Global Warming

  1. Pingback: Yes, Cold Weather in Europe STILL Means Global Warming – Red, Green, and Blue : doing-it-green.com

  2. Pingback: carlson-reunion.com » Yes, Cold Weather in Europe STILL Means Global Warming – Red, Green, and Blue

  3. Sure, Hanson has a record of impeccable scientific discipline and political impartiality!

    The fact that the ‘warmest October on record’ was actually September’s data, or that the 1930′s was the warmest decade in the U.S- not the 90′s, both honest mistakes!

    As with every GISS study- It’s a bit of a red flag when an institute for SPACE studies avoids the plain satellite data that shows no statistically significant Co2/temp correlation whatsoever, and goes straight for the fudgy surface data from University parking lots etc that can be used to get any result you like.

    The fast dying global warming movement has been a humiliation to science, but it’s very ecouraging to see that the more people educate themselves on this subject, the more they reject scientifically illiterate political scare stories.
    Global warming now ranks dead last as a public concern, somewhere behind being invaded by Mars?

  4. To look at the chart below and claim we are a primary driver of climate doesn’t make any sense.

    http://jonova.s3.amazonaws.com/graphs/lappi/gisp-last-10000-new.png

    You would have us believe that we are not only a primary influence, but that our impact is greater than all other past drivers combined – so great as to prevent the next ice age.

    http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/PageMill_Images/image157.gif

    How do we know if we are working with or against some future event?
    Do we retool again for massive CO2 emissions the next time it gets a little cooler?

    It’s unfortunate that this focus on CAGW has diverted us from real environmental issues and real problems and suffering that exist all around us right now.
    For a world where countless numbers do without adequate shelter, nutrition and healthcare – eliminating cheap energy isn’t the answer they’re looking for.
    A 4 year old scaveging a pile of trash for something to eat or sell on the side of the road will rest much better this evening knowing you’re monitoring CO2 emissions.

  5. Steven John says:

    Wrong again.

    The idea that global warming would somehow cause more severe weather extremes is based on nothing more scientific than Al Gore’s DVD cover.

    Turning aside from Hollywood movie fantasy for a moment and speaking scientifically, the opposite would happen, should we be so lucky.

    Weather systems are actually powered by the contrast between warm and cold air, not just the warmth itself. Global warming would warm the poles disproportionately, this is not disputed, it is a simple consequence of greater atmos. insulation. This makes for a more evenly heated planet and so less overall energy supply for weather systems in general.

    Consider that the greatest storms we know of are on Jupiter & Saturn, where temps are far lower, but with greater contrast.

    By the same token, Venus’ atmos. is almost entirely Co2- a massive GH effect with temps around 700F. But hardly a breath of wind at the surface- because it is heated very evenly!

    This simple well known principle is one reason why meteorologists, who have been around long before the UN invented ‘climatology’, are among the most skeptical of global warming catastrophe stories.

  6. jason says:

    There hasn’t been any global warming in the past 15 years…. last 5 years have been a cool down. Al Gore bought a mansion with an ocean view in California. I’m sure he’s not worried about sea levels rising anymore.

    • Jeremy Bloom says:

      Good one. Not based on facts, or anything at all – the ten hottest years in HISTORY have been in the past 15 years, and this year has been THE HOTTEST in recorded history. But why let that stop you? Hell, tax cuts create jobs! Just look at all the jobs that were created by the Bush tax cuts (=worst record of job creation of any presidency since Hoover).

      • asdf says:

        Wow, a believer who also just happens to be politically left wing, never heard of that before…

        Sticking with science instead of politics;
        accurately recorded history goes back to the 1st satellites launched in ’79. (a very cold year) So far 98 was the warmest, 08 was nearly as cool as 79, and we rebounded close to 98 since, like then, we had another strong El Nino.

        Nothing very exciting there- and record global snow in 09 was just another nail in the GW coffin.

        Unless you fall for the one where we have a record of global average temps accurate to within a fraction of a degree going back >100 years!!

        That’s as funny as the Himalayas, ice caps melting!

        • Jeremy Bloom says:

          This is a fun one, too: Cherry-pick an arbitrary start and end date and say “Look! There was a high temperature at the beginning and a lower temperature at the end, so it’s actually cooling!”
          With this technique you can “prove” just about anything (except that the national debt is decreasing, since that just goes up, up and up).
          You can also cherry-pick which dataset you want to use to win the argument inside your head. But guess what? Science doesn’t work that way. The best climate scientists have been working on this using superpowered computers and peer-reviewed research for decades, and you just waltz in, look at some numbers, and say “Aha! I am smarter than all of you!”
          Not so much.
          Fortunately, in the real world we have scientists who analyze actual full datasets rigorously. So we DO have reasonably accurate knowledge of temperatures going back more than 100 years, we DO know that the 1960s were warmer than the 1950s, the 1970s were warmer still, and so on at an accelerating pace. The past decade has been the warmest by far. And while 1998 was particularly warm and so stuck out, you’re going to have to find a new pet non-argument to repeat over and over now, since 2010 has surpassed 1998 as the hottest on record.
          Oh, and guess what? If 2010 is the hottest year on record (for ANY start date you care to cherry pick), that means:
          THINGS
          ARE
          GETTING
          HOTTER.

          • Zach says:

            Jeremy, nice that you take the time to explain these things concisely, noting the key points so well. great work.

            it ain’t always fun wrestlin’ with the so-called climate skeptics.

            would like to see if these guys would ignore the advice of 97% of the top cancer specialists in the world if they had cancer.

          • Dave N says:

            Many skeptics don’t deny the Earth is becoming warmer, especially since we’re coming out of an ice age.

            The main problem is that there’s no empirical proof that it is being primarily caused by humans.

          • Jeremy Bloom says:

            The difference between politics an science is this:
            Politicians decide what they want to accomplish, and spend 15 minutes googling for a couple of rhetorical gotchas to back up the point they want to push.
            Scientists spend 40 years gathering data. Then they see what the best explanation for the data is. And until they have a very strong case, they don’t go out in public and say “the best evidence indicates that the planet’s climate is getting warmer, and humans are the cause.”
            Since they HAVE said that, it means there IS empirical evidence.
            But of course, you didn’t say “evidence.” You said “proof.” Possibly as a rhetorical flourish, knowing perfectly well that you can’t PROVE climate change is caused by anything. Scientifically, proof requires a directly observable chain of causation and the ability to reproduce it in a laboratory. Which you can’t do, since we only have one Earth, and it’s an enormously complex system.
            So no, we don’t have proof. But we have enough evidence that the vast majority of the international scientific community is willing to state that global warming is caused by human activity.

          • skeptic says:

            This is exactly why the science of GW is in question. your entire argument is by pejoratively labeling your detractors and referencing a mythical higher authority. I find if you are scientifically oriented use scientific arguments and if you are a conspiracy theorist use dramatic and vague arguments. Hard to miss the BS in this story.

          • Jeremy Bloom says:

            Wow. Do you just post this automatically on any article about climate change? Because it sure doesn’t apply to the actual article, or the discussion here in the comments.

          • http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=64734

            what about the 31,000 scientists including 9,000 PHDs that reject global warming
            (In terms of Ph.D. scientists alone, it already has 15 times more scientists than are seriously involved in the U.N.’s campaign to “vilify hydrocarbons,”)

          • Jeremy Bloom says:

            The OISM’s definition of “scientist” was “Signatories are approved for inclusion in the Petition Project list if they have obtained formal educational degrees at the level of Bachelor of Science or higher in appropriate scientific fields.”

            Skeptical Scientist ran the numbers, and there are approximately 10.6 million people who meet that qualification in the US. 31,000 is a tiny – infinitesimal! – fraction of that population.

            Now, if you were saying that 31,000 climate scientists who have studied the issue disagree with the conclusions of the thousands of climate scientists who say global warming exists and is caused by human activity, that would be a valid point. But that’s not what you’re saying. You’re comparing apples and aardvarks – climate scientists who have devoted their lives to studying the issue vs folks who got degrees in one of 40 different disciplines (including food science and computer science) but might not even be practicing science, never mind following the issue closely enough to make a substantive judegement.

            You could probably get 31,000 “scientists” according to OISM’s definition to tell you they fully believe in all practices of Scientology. But that wouldn’t prove they were right, or that scientists in general agree with them.

          • asdf says:

            To which real world scientists do you refer? The 10′s of thousands of qualified independent scientists who all consider global warming nonsense?

            Or the handful of ridiculed political/environmental advocate groups like ‘melting Himalayas’ IPCC, ‘hide the decline’ CRU, ‘ never see snow again’ Met Office etc?

            The point of science is not having to take anyone’s word for it, esp. politicians. Politically institutionalized consensus is not science, Einstein, Galileo and Darwin would all remind you of that.

            There is no known scientific process by which a trace extra Co2 can realistically cause massive climate disruption. This fantasy is not demonstable by any experiment, mathematics, observations or measurements of any kind. It exists only in the predictively hopeless computer simulations you mention. No amount of political weight trumps scientific method, science wins in the end, and this is what we see from the fast dwindling support for AGW the more educated people become

            Ordovician ice age =4400ppm

            Spin that!?

          • Jeremy Bloom says:

            This is how science works. It is not a house of cards where you knock over one card and the whole edifice crumbles. It is a painstaking, exacting process of gathering knowledge, filling in gaps, and learning. As opposed to deciding what you want to believe and repeating the same thing over and over even after your arguments have been widely disproved, or denying basic science, like the existence of a greenhouse effect.

            This is not spin, this is science:

            “Past studies on the Ordovician period calculated CO2 levels at 10 million year intervals. The problem with such coarse data sampling is the Ordovician ice age lasted only half a million years. To fill in the gaps, a 2009 study examined strontium isotopes in the sediment record (Young 2009). Strontium is produced by rock weathering, the process that removes CO2 from the air. Consequently, the ratio of strontium isotopes can be used to determine how quickly rock weathering removed CO2 from the atmosphere in the past. Using strontium levels, Young determined that during the late Ordovician, rock weathering was at high levels while volcanic activity, which adds CO2 to the atmosphere, dropped. This led to CO2 levels falling below 3000 parts per million which was low enough to initiate glaciation – the growing of ice sheets.

            Last week, another study headed by Seth Young further examined this period by extracting sediment cores from Estonia and Anticosti Island, Canada (Young 2010). The cores were used to construct a sequence of carbon-13 levels from rocks formed during the Ordovician. This was used as a proxy for atmospheric CO2 levels, at a much higher resolution than previous data. What they found was consistent with the strontium results in Young 2009 – CO2 levels dropped at the same time that sea surface temperatures dropped and ice sheets expanded. As the ice sheets grew to cover the continent, rock weathering decreased. This led to an increase in atmospheric CO2 which caused global warming and a retreat of the glaciers.

            Thus arguments that Ordovician glaciation disproves the warming effect of CO2 are groundless. On the contrary, the CO2 record over the late Ordovician is entirely consistent with the notion that CO2 is a strong driver of climate.”

          • asdf says:

            ZACH,

            97% yes I saw that- it was a pretty mildly worded statement and still couldn’t get 100% consensus even among climatologists!!

            Thing is, 100% of paranormal investigators concur on the existence of ghosts, and they should know, they are the experts right?

            The red flag, here and with global warming, astrology, big foot etc, is were support drops off precipitously amongst other more well established/ less soft fields of science. Meteorology, cosmology, geology, geophysics etc etc, all of which existed long before the UN invented the now ridiculed ‘climatology’ a couple of decades back.

            So yes, if a certain medical opinion was only held among a minority ideologically and/or politically motivated group that maintained that even though I present no symptoms, I should hand over a large portion of my wealth and freedom to ‘pre-empt’ this invisible disease from showing itself, and everyone else in medicine considered them a bunch of crooks, then yes I’d be skeptical, (chiropractors?) and so I am skeptical of alternative medicine as well as alternative energy! :)

      • Rhjames says:

        Three comments – 1998 was still the hottest year according to most data sets. Recorded history is 160 years for surface measurements, and about 30 years for satellite – insignificant. Even if it’s getting warmer, there’s no evidence that human activity is the cause – failed computer models aren’t a valid proof of cause.

  7. Pingback: Climate Skeptic Lomborg Proves We SHOULD Act On Global Warming – Red, Green, and Blue

  8. Pingback: Hansen Insists It Is Just Europe | Real Science

  9. John Curotto says:

    I wonder which fossil fuel industry-hired PR firm these skeptics posting comments on this article work for? It’s at times like these I wish I were a first rate hacker so I could trace their IP addresses.

    • Will Hood says:

      John,if fossil fuel industry has a vested interest in disproving AGW, then I would advance the idea that AGW researchers have a vested interest in proving AGW to continuing receiving millions in research money.Each has their own agenda and each can point to numerous studies to back their claims.

      • Jeremy Bloom says:

        Why would scientists interested in money join a conspiracy of people with no money?
        It’s the oil companies that hand out million-dollar grants to their pet scientists. Grants to university research departments are much smaller, and with budget cuts across the board they’re only going to get smaller. Your argument makes absolutely no sense.

        • booogiemann says:

          Jeremy, tens of millions or more have been handed out via Grants by the US Government and all 1st World Governments around the World.

          There’s more money, our tax dollars, in the pool for pro-Global Warming than there is against.

          You’re really getting your ass kicked here. Perhaps you need to consider the validity of arguments on the other side.

    • Guybrush says:

      Yeh man it’s all a conspiracy! the majority of the independent scientific community and public that think global warming in rubbish are all paid off by Exxon!

      But the handful of disgraced political groups IPCC, CRU,GISS etc that receive money from gov’t to advocate the gov’t taking more money and power.. are all totally credible! No conflict of interest whatsoever!

      • Jeremy Bloom says:

        “Half of all Americans believe they are protected by guardian angels, one-fifth say they’ve heard God speak to them, one-quarter say they have witnessed miraculous healings, 16 percent say they’ve received one and 8 percent say they pray in tongues, according to a survey released Thursday by Baylor University.” – Washington Times
        I guess that solves that vexing guardian angel problem. Let’s cut ALL safety measures and put the insurance companies out of business – since we have guardian angels looking out for us, we don’t need to worry about anything.
        As for “The majority of scientists”:

        The study released today was conducted by academics from the University of Illinois, who used an online questionnaire of nine questions. The scientists approached were listed in the 2007 edition of the American Geological Institute’s Directory of Geoscience Departments.
        Two questions were key: Have mean global temperatures risen compared to pre-1800s levels, and has human activity been a significant factor in changing mean global temperatures?
        About 90 percent of the scientists agreed with the first question and 82 percent the second.
        The strongest consensus on the causes of global warming came from climatologists who are active in climate research, with 97 percent agreeing humans play a role.
        Petroleum geologists and meteorologists were among the biggest doubters, with only 47 percent and 64 percent, respectively, believing in human involvement.
        “The petroleum geologist response is not too surprising, but the meteorologists’ is very interesting,” said Peter Doran associate professor of earth and environmental sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago, and one of the survey’s authors.
        “Most members of the public think meteorologists know climate, but most of them actually study very short-term phenomenon.”
        However, Doran was not surprised by the near-unanimous agreement by climatologists.
        “They’re the ones who study and publish on climate science. So I guess the take-home message is, the more you know about the field of climate science, the more you’re likely to believe in global warming and humankind’s contribution to it.
        “The debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes,” said Doran.

        • Doc Vega says:

          jeremy,
          You can smear and criticize everyone else’s religious beliefs all you want as proof that they don’t see the same ingenious delusion that you have, but it won’t change the fact that we are experiencing some of the coldest temperatures on record and these are not due to a driving green house effect. Stick to the facts and not opinions. Great Britain is being hammered by the coldest weather on record, so is China as well as the United States these occurrences are not symptomatic of carbon dioxide am essential naturally occurring gas that we would not have plant growth or crop production without, and yet the UN and globalists have demonized this essential gas. This is emblematic of theories that are designed with an agenda by alarmists who are contributing to political ends that are all about controlling the masses with unfair taxation and restriction upon people’s lives. Sun spots, orbital stretch, volcanic ash in the upper atmosphere, these are elements that are really controlling global temperature. Wake Up and stop being a pompous ass.

          • Jeremy Bloom says:

            First off, I love the way you say “stick to facts and not opinions” right after you call me delusional and accuse me of smearing peoples’ religious beliefs. Way to maintain a factual, non-emotional, opinion-free discussion.
            As for the rest:
            1) Weather is NOT CLIMATE. Within the global climate system, it should not come as any surprise if pockets of weather, even country-sized pockets, are colder than the over-all system. This is particularly true when you’re putting more energy into the system, and changing major aspects of the system, such as having an ice-free arctic. If the arctic is 10 degrees warmer than usual, that’s still damn cold compared to what the temperature should be in England or Maryland, and if that arctic air gets shunted south because of the instability in the system, you’re going to get record highs in Greenland and record lows in Denmark. That’s the fact, jack. It’s also common sense, on top of sound science.
            2) Of course carbon dioxide is a naturally-occurring gas, essential to plant growth. Nobody is suggesting otherwise. What’s your point? According to your logic, nobody can die from drowning, since it’s a well known fact that water is likewise a naturally-occurring substance that makes up 70% of our bodies, so how could a 200-pound man die from having an insignificant amount of this healthful substance in his lungs?
            3) I thought you were going to stick to facts, not demonize people as “alarmists who are contributing to political ends”?
            4) We are in an 11-year stretch of MINIMAL sunspot activity. Yet, for the entire globe the past 11 years have been among the hottest on record. If you’ve done any research on sunspots, you MUST know that… yet you keep repeating the same tired disproved mantra over and over.
            5) Give me ONE SINGLE FACT (a fact being defined as “something that is proven as correct, as opposed to having been thoroughly vetted by scientists and proven WRONG) that demonstrates “Sun spots, orbital stretch, volcanic ash in the upper atmosphere, these are elements that are really controlling global temperature.” Then maybe we can talk some more. Right now, you’ve got nothing.

  10. Pingback: Bill McKibben: Why Obama and Cancún miss the point — War in Context

  11. jim says:

    yea coldest weather in decades…must be a sign of global warming ha

    let me guess, hot summer weather must be a sign of global cooling!

    • Jeremy Bloom says:

      Dude, your entire planet may be South Carolina. But just because it’s cold in South Carolina doesn’t mean the planet is cold. As it happens, this is shaping up to be one of the warmest years ever.
      Global warming doesn’t mean the entire planet is warmer than you expect all the time, because the heat isn’t evenly distributed. It’s kind of like banks and oil companies making record profits and millionaires buying luxury yachts… while record numbers of guys like you are unemployed.

  12. Jeff S says:

    Yes, maybe it’s getting colder because of global warming. OR, maybe Mr’ Hansen, perhaps you might entertain the possibility that you’re frickin’ WRONG. A reputable scientist would.

    • Jeremy Bloom says:

      Goes both ways, Jeff S. Either Hansen is wrong, or YOU are.
      And guess what? If Hansen is wrong and we spend a few hundred billion dollars on upgrading our energy infrastructure, all we get is a cleaner world with cheaper energy and less dependence on foreign dictators for our fuels.
      If you’re the one that’s wrong, what we get is global devastation.
      Since he’s a top scientist who has studied the issue for years, and you’re just some guy with a chip on his shoulder, I’m going with Hansen.

      • Booogiemann says:

        So far every dire prediction made by you and the Al Gore’s of the World have not come true. You assume higher temps mean Global Devastation yet can’t even prove higher temperatures right now.

        Well before I change my lifestyle to that of a 3rd Worlder there needs to be more evidence and less lies/politics.

        Many of these so-called “top scientists” you cite have never left the University grounds nor their office. I’m not convinced by Michael Mann’s Excel Spreadsheet “Climate Model”.

        You sound like a fool. buying a car before driving it, starting it up, or even looking under the hood to check for an engine.

        Wanna buy a Bridge?

  13. Pingback: Fox News Viewers Misinformed About Global Warming (And Lots More) – Red, Green, and Blue

  14. Booogiemann says:

    What a load of shit.

    You guys highlight hot spells then downplay an epic freeze … lowest temperatures ever recorded in the UK, and in Cancun during the GW Conference.

    Bottom line: to have Global Warming there needs to be higher Temperatures … even your man Phil Jones says “no statistical warming for the past 15 years” .. just when GW theory says we should really be able to measure this increase .. it hasn’t happened.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1250872/Climategate-U-turn-Astonishment-scientist-centre-global-warming-email-row-admits-data-organised.html

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/09/gore-effect-strikes-again-new-coldest-ever-december-record-temperature-in-cancun/

    redgreenandblue isn’t science, it’s politics, and bullshit.

  15. Pingback: Cold weather does not means cold climate | Nav's Blog

  16. Pingback: Dear Global Warming Skeptics, | The Busy Signal

  17. Pingback: Is Sea Level Rise Really a Big Deal? – Red, Green, and Blue

  18. Pingback: Climate Change and Science – Cutting Through the Talking Points to the Truth – Red, Green, and Blue

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Back to Top ↑