E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
NASA and NOAA
This composite image shows a global view of Earth at night, compiled from over 400 satellite images. New research shows that major cities, which generally correspond with the nighttime lights in this image, can have a far-reaching impact on temperatures.
Heat that escapes into the atmosphere from the energy used to warm homes, drive cars and run factories is altering the jet stream and causing wintertime temperatures to rise in remote, sparsely populated stretches of the Northern Hemisphere, according to a new study.
The finding helps explain a mismatch of up to 1.8 degrees Fahrenheit (1 degree Celsius) between the observed temperature in some regions and what is produced by models that simulate the global climate. Scientists had attributed the mismatch to natural variability or errors in the models.
"We put in our energy consumption [to the models], and bingo! We saw that same pattern," Ming Cai, a meteorologist at Florida State University, told NBC News.
Most of the world’s energy is consumed in the world’s major cities, which tend to be located along the coasts of North America, Europe and Asia. Thus, that's where most of the world's waste heat is generated as well.
Cai said he and his colleagues "squashed our hands for a very long time" trying to figure out how the waste heat from cities such as London, Beijing, Los Angeles and New York came to warm up winters in the Canadian Prairie, Russia and Northern Asia. "But we do have some partial story to tell," he said.
The team reckons that heat rises up from the cities and interrupts the jet stream, making it "weaker in the middle and wider," he explained. This changes the dynamics of the jet stream enough that it enhances the flow of southerly winds. As a result, more warm air from the south blows north.
"What causes that temperature change is not the energy consumption itself, rather the energy consumption changes the circulation, and that changed circulation causes additional warming in other places," he said.
The changed circulation is thought to have an opposite effect in Europe, causing a cooling effect that amounts to 1.8 degrees F (1 degree C), experienced mostly in the fall.
The net effect on global temperature is almost negligible, the researchers note, but it does help explain why some regions experience warmer winters than projected by the models.
"That pattern is not some natural variability or something wrong with the models," Cai said. "It’s just that we haven’t considered this atmospheric forcing, which is energy consumption, in our model."
The findings were published Sunday in the journal Nature Climate Change. In addition to Cai, the authors of "Energy Consumption and the Unexplained Winter Warming over Northern Asia and North America" include Guang Zhang and Aixue Hu.
More about climate change:
- How to cool down urban heat islands
- Big chill vs. global warming: What's going on?
- Video: Obama puts climate change front and center
John Roach is a contributing writer for NBC News. You can learn more about him on his website.
Leave a Comment:
As interesting as the article was, what will be more interesting is the long list of posts soon to come from the deniers of mans impact on our global climate.
And OOHHhhh! I'm first!
It's not the denial that bothers me so much as the stunning lack of scientific literacy. It's scary to realize our school system is producing people who know so little about the scientific underpinnings of our society, or people who are unable to do even elementary research on it despite having the greatest collection of human knowledge literally at their fingertips.
People believe what they want to believe. Facts have almost nothing to do with it.
It's NOT TRUE. THEY MADE IT ALL UP!!! They couldn't explain something so they 'make up' this 'science.' These bigwig scientists just want to do away with oil consumption and make money from their 'reusable' energy. They're all wealthy millionaires and billionaires that just want to sell solar panels and windmills. They've probably invested millions in stocks for these 'renewable energy' companies. They know that once you buy a solar panel setup, you're going to have to spend money on that sunshine that makes them work. Uhmm, on the monthly updates. Uhmm, on the monthly maintenance. Uhmmm. Uhmmm. OKAY! In Thirty Years you're going to gave to replace the solar panels. That's IT! They're lying to you to force you to make an investment every thirty years! That's It!
Scuba
The sad truth is that you have been duped by the misinformation generated in large part by folks such as the Koch brothers who actually do have a financial stake in this issue. The amount of money generated by the fossil fuels industry dwarfs the alternative energy money and there is no question that the energy companies have been denying the climate science for many years.
You, through your obviously ignorance-based comments, have demonstrated that you are a rube ...... a lackey who was easy to co-opt because of your obvious lack of science knowledge. You are fertile ground for anyone with an anti-science conspiracy theory that can be blamed on the liberals that you despise.
How do you come up with a scenario that requires a conspiracy among scientists? What do you imagine is the incentive for these people who have spent their lives trying to understand the natural world to collude in a web of lies for some unidentified reward?
It's hard to believe that Scuba was actually trying to be serious, but the notion that climate scientists even have millions to invest in renewable energy companies is laughable.
Someone didn't catch his sarcasm...
You would think the included uhmm's would've given it away, right? That's why I thought a /s/ tag was unnecessary. Not to mention how totally asinine the comments were.
I just have to remember, sometimes I have to go to someone's column page to make sure if they're serious or not. Some of the ridiculous crap I've seen by some I just knew had to be sarcasm, until I checked some of their other comments.
Poe's law strikes again. I just hope don is someone who doesn't waste enough of his time or attention on message board silliness to have recognized the joke. Either that, or he's piggy-backing a more subtle piece of his own on top, in order to underscore his derision for denialists.
Or perhaps some people are not very skilled at sarcasm. You have only to view nearly identical comments that are clearly not sarcastic to understand that my comments were reasonable under the circumstances.
lol, yup. as Scuba said:
The internet, like all addictions, ends up being hazardous to your mental health.
I'm all for forcing brown outs in the cities every day to off set this pollution. It is all about the environment. Since the major cities are causing the problem they need to turn off the electrical grid for at least 3 hours every night.
It is time to take drastic steps. FORWARD!
I love how 20 years ago Manhattan was going to be under water in 2000. then 10 years ago it was 2010 now its 2040. If you looked at the models run the main model said a rise of 4 inches by 2010 with a accuracy of 90% instead of reporters reporting that they reported the 40% accurate model that predicted 4 to 6 feet! Guess how much it rose, about 4 inches. However no one cares about 4 inches, it isn't something anyone would worry about so they publish this ridiculous 4 to 6 feet rise inaccurate model and never tell us about what scientist really predicted. Why? Nice. Instead of exaggerating maybe if we actually started to focus on the truth we might actually have people pay attention to us instead of "denying" the lies they keep spreading.
Ya know... I was giving you some slack until that came out. Perhaps someone needs a refresher in Reading Comprehension. Or did you even read past the second line? No? Maybe try that sometime. Or maybe explain to me how the following (not to mention the billionaire scientists) could be taken as serious:
BUY sunshine? No. Well then, monthly updates? On WHAT? No. Monthly maintenance? Again, on What? Maybe once a year... maybe. But, No. Not monthly by any means. Oh, but in 30 years you may have to replace solar panels. So, Yes. (Likely due to damage from tree limbs, neighbor kids rocks, etc.) And most likely to much more efficient panels that would further offset their cost, as well as there being a much larger supply to reduce the costs.
Damn Don, Lighten up and enjoy life a little, buddy.
"energy used to warm homes, drive cars and run factories"-
Something they did not mention, what about all those jet planes spewing pollution & heat directly into the freaking jet stream? Mostly civilian, but military too. I would believe jet planes are polluting more than anything on the planet. Huge amounts of pollution & directly into the atmosphere. We always hear about cars when they actually make up a much smaller amount of the pollution problem.
The researchers will be able to gain more fidelity in the model if they also take into account the effect of all the climate change deniers' hair that is on fire from reading this article.
So it's due to all the hot air emanating from urban centers? Now that is funny.
Everyone on here always argues back and forth on if it is happening. Nobody stops to realize that if any of these "scientific models" are correct then there is nothing you can do about it. Most of these models agree that the co2 level stayed pretty level for thousands of years when suddenly around 1800 the co2 level began increasing at an abnormal rate and has been increasing ever since gaining speed as it goes. So If man is responsible for this increase then that means we began affecting the co2 level pre 1800. In 1800 there was approximately 1 billion people on the planet. The biggest polluter was wood for heat and cooking. No cars, planes or any of that garbage. Now 210 years later we have 7 billion people on the planet. What is your plan to get us to pre 1800 co2 emissions.
Replace fossil fuels with wind, solar, wave, geothermal, and other green energy sources, allislost. We already know how to do it - and some countries, like Denmark, are on track to do exactly that.
Is Denmark smarter, wealthier, and more advanced than the U.S.? Or do they just care more about their grandchildren?
Germany is also well along with their solar generation.
It's time to stop arguing about who's fault it is and get prepared to deal with it.
Global "warming"? We're back to that again after all the backpedaling renaming it "climate change" when the hockey stick graph Al Gore modified was exposed? Things like this are why everyone equates liberals to "low information voters".
Real scientists don't rule out volcanoes, natural occurences of ice ages, and solar cycles (all irrefutable scientific data points). Quoting those who blatantly disregard those giant "facts" isn't helping your cause. It makes you look like a cult.
Yes, we have an impact. No, we don't know how much. Peeing in the ocean has an impact too.
If there were a viable alternative energy source, at least one of those "evil corporate billionaires" who don't have the fossil fuel sources other corporations do would have started cashing in on it at the ground floor when the most $$ is to be made.
Allen
The "real scientists" don't rule out those other factors. They understand those factors and they understand that those factors do not explain the current climate change. They realize that volcanic emissions of greenhouse gases are on the order of 1% of human-generated emissions. They realize that solar cycles do not explain the current warming event.
The "hockey stick graph" is valid. It was not, as you say, "exposed." It is ironic that you would accuse those who actually understand this issue of being "low information."
Humans do indeed have an impact. While it is true that we don't know precisely how much the temperature will rise in the near future, it is clearly significant, nothing that could possibly be described as "peeing in the ocean."
Don97524 sorry but the hockey stick was "exposed" as a fraud and that is easy to verify for yourself. What amazes me how people just accept something at face value when it supports their position. Firstly, the model did not match a pre concieved figure (regardless of the source of that figure) so they amde an adjustment and wham the figures match. Great but given the number of variables that would have caused the difference how do you know their adjustment was the correct one. Secondly, where is the real life data & measurements to support their claim. Given the height of the jet stream there would not be much warmth left in the air by the time it got that high plus the speed of the winds would just plough straight through any column of air at that height. Thirdly, any heat generated in my place stays in the unit and is not expelled to the oustide of my place so how does the energy trapped in my place suddenly appear kilometres above my place whilst still remaining within my place. You really need to think about what you believe if you want the truth but that's the sad part most people decide what the truth is before they even investigate anything and spend all their time trying to bolster support for their BELIEF instead of devoting their time to real research to find the truth.
Climate-change deniers are from the same cranially-stunted group as holocaust-deniers, evolution-deniers and anti-science Luddites in general. Ostriches with their heads in the sand. "Living is easy with eyes closed - misunderstanding all you see." - JL
It's the remaining believers that are condemning billions of helpless children to a their CO2 deaths in a catastrophic climate crisis, not us former believers. I'm sure Bush admires our fear mongering. Climate blame was exaggerated.
Well you'll need to add Isaac Newton to our list of "cranially-stunted"! He explained this "mystery" in 1755! It was finally proven to be true in 1976 by Hays, Imbrie and Shackleton. Interestingly enough that signaled the end of the last attempt by these Global Redistributionists to hy-jack our Energy Industry!
Remember the dreaded "New Ice Age" they were warning us of ? This is just the latest attempt to use Junk Science to fool the uninformed! By the way few, if any are denying "Climate Change" rather we are denying the Anthropo genic nature of Climate Change! It's IS occuring and has been for at least 250 Billion years! It will continue, with or without the influence of mankind!
tedcrawford
The "New Ice Age" was an idea that had no strong following in the scientific community and climate data demonstrated that the idea had no credibility. It is not unusual for hypotheses to be widely published before enough data is collected to substantiate those hypotheses.
That is how science works, ted. People have ideas, they gather data and ask more questions. Other scientists test those ideas. Good ideas develop into theories (like the current global climate change theory and evolution) and bad ideas are rejected. It is called the scientific method and it works.
Climate science as well as weather prediction has advanced remarkably during the past 40 years with the advances in computing power and the greater attention by climate scientists.
Your sneering comments about weather science make as much sense as would a person deciding not to believe in medical science advances because doctors were bleeding patients with leeches in the not-to-distant past.
Ted and other deniers.... Humans started changing the climate dynamics of this planet as soon as they cleared forests to plant fields. Granted it started slowly at first with the planet compensating with natural processes, but it started. Then came the industrial revolution and humans started pumping CO2 into the atmosphere with a vengeance making changes to the natural cycles that were too large for the planet to compensate. According to the earth's history and our orbit around the sun we should be going into another ice age but instead the planet is warming dramatically. Humans now number over 7 billion, numbers exceded only by cockroaches and rats. You have to be dead between the ears to continue to deny man's input here. I imagine you still think the planet is flat too.
Don .... You have to remember that any computer model is only as good as the premise and information put into it. If you begin with the premise that increased CO2 levels will reflect sunlight heat you get an ice-age, the big trendy cause of the 60s and 70s. If you begin with the premise that it traps heat you get global warming. Current climate is indeed increasing, how much is human activity and how much is natural cycle is the debate. Even if you accept the premise that human activity increases a natural cycle how much? A model will give you results that exactly match the imput premise.
The earth has been warmer and colder throughout recorded history. It was warm enough to allow settling Greenland for over 500 years, and then cold enough kill off the settlers. It was warm enough in Roman era to allow grapes to grow in England, then cold enough for the Thames to freeze and years of no summer.
Some say that the entire solar system of planets is warming, some dispute that other planets are warming ....... More information needs to determined before jumping on the "the sky is falling" panic mode.
MLADY .... That is a good point. In the past massive amounts of heat trapping gasses were released by valcanic activity that dwarfs anything humanity could produce in its entire time on the planet. What is different today? It very well could be its not human activity so much as the loss of natural CO2 traps like the S. American rain forests, massive deforestation of Asia and Europe. I would add N.America but in some respects there is more trees today than when the settlers arrived, just differently located. What effect did massive scale slash and burn agriculture of earlier civilization and tribes in the Americas have? What effect does the massive annual Asian "brown cloud" of air-born particulates that spans an entire continent and most of the pacific have?
Dennis
Climate scientists are well aware that global climate has been fluctuating throughout the history of the Earth. They understand that changes in the composition of the atmosphere is one of the causes of the heating and cooling of the Earth. The consensus among climate scientists is that there is a 95% probability that global temperature is rising due to the increase of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases."
The fact that climate changed in the past for a different reason than it is changing now is a very poor reason to decide against current science theory.
The fact that you believe that volcanic gases are the problem when, in fact volcanic emissions of those gases are on the order of 1% of human activity emissions is a clear demonstration that you are believing the right wing media rather than scientists on this issue. Beware, Dennis. The disinformation campaign funded by energy sources such as the Koch brothers and promulgated by the Fox News clowns, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck, among others is not science. It is propaganda. It is untruthful. It is disseminated for profit because those who fund the lies make their fortunes from fossil fuels.
But you have demonstrated that just as there are a variety of reasons that climate has changed throughout Earth's history, human beings have lots of different reasons to put their heads in the sand.
For Ted and the others:
Take a 16 oz glass and fill it with water. All the way. Get the concave surface on top. That's what the earth does itself. It balances itself out and has been doing so for 'over 250 billion years.' (You do get a point for not claiming 6,000 years, BTW)
Now you have about 16.15 oz of water, perfectly balanced. Now pour another .15 oz of water on top. What happens? It overflows, right? Including the loss of the concave surface above the rim of the glass. In this equation think of the water as CO2. Your additional .15 oz is too much. Your additional .15 oz is man made CO2.
Okay, now let's go to temperature. It's easy. Take an ice-cube from your freezer. Put it in your refrigerator at 33° and watch it melt. One degree in the wrong place. That's all it takes. And MAN is doing it faster than the earth can compensate.
Why is it so hard for you all to comprehend S C I E N C E ?
Also, your "New Ice Age" model of the 70's was a result of the change in the Jet Stream (WOW! What this article is about) and the Ocean currents due to the continued increase of the world's temperature.
PLEASE TELL ME HOW THESE SCIENTISTS ARE BENEFITING FROM "LYING" ABOUT MAN EFFECTED CLIMATE CHANGE.
You guys were born too late. Science has already proven the earth is not flat nor the center of the universe. It's also proven that man has caused a drastic change in the earth's climate.
"That is a good point. In the past massive amounts of heat trapping gasses were released by valcanic activity that dwarfs anything humanity could produce in its entire time on the planet. What is different today?"
Dennis, two things are different -
1) The resulting CO2 levels then were much higher than they are today - over 1,000ppm.
2) The global warming that resulted triggered the worst extinction event in our planet's history, the Permian-Triassic extinction, which wiped-out approximately 96% of all species from the face of the Earth!
As world-renown paleontologist and astrobiologist Peter Ward (who was the lead scientist in a recent study of this extinction event), put it -
"It got hotter and hotter until it reached a critical point and everything died"
As an added bonus, the resulting proliferation of sulfur bacteria in the warmer oceans resulted in pumping mass quantities of poisonous hydrogen sulfide gas into the Earth's atmosphere!
So if the heat didn't get you, the poison gas did.
So, not exactly an event we would want to repeat!
For more details on this event, as well as scientific links about it (including a nice video by Neil deGrasse Tyson on Nova ScienceNOW), see my posts #5.3 & #5.11, here -
http://technology-science.newsvine.com/_news/2013/01/11/16468930-massive-draft-report-warns-warming-is-changing-life-in-us#comments
I am not sure why the "it's all natural" argument is even tried. Arsenic and poison mushrooms are also natural, but are not something I am willing to ingest. Man is a part of nature, so everything man does is also "natural." Doesn't change the fact that we are the ones doing it.
Wait, weren't we supposed to be wearing gas masks via Jack kennedy by 1980? Wasn't NYC supposed to be 4 feet under water 3 years ago? weren't we supposed to be 6 degrees F hotter today? If you read what scientist really say they actually don't say the above at all. Reporters take the worst of the models run and report on that, these models were known to be the worse of the worse. Inaccurate when compaired to hold out observations. Those that were accurate predicted exactly what we've experienced, just less than a 4 inch rise in ocean levels. No one cares about 4 inch rise in 30 years. Why lie? It makes everyone, even supporters, forced to question the movement regardless of its validity. Real scientist are not predicting the end of the world. They don't see this as a quick sudden death situation, actually they see it as gradual and that humans will easily be able to adapt to the changes. No one wants to report that though. Its too boring.
Sure, it'll be cake for those of us who have plenty of fossil fuel burning energy generators to power our movements and control our environments, and can threaten to take what we want or 'need' through force of arms.
Just another day at the beach, wherever that may end up being.
In a word, no.
'Real politician' like Inhofe make ridiculous statement like that. Meanwhile, 'real scientists' are most alarmed at the rapid changes to our climate, because they understand that the effects will be devastating.
A rise of 6C or more by 2100 is now entirely possible. The last Great Extinction Event (the PETM) involved a rise of 6C over 20,000 years, and many species couldn't adapt that quickly (hence the Mass Extinction).
We're on track to accomplish that in less than 250 years of using fossil fuels - 40 times faster than a Great Extinction Event. And you say we'll be able to 'adapt'?
Even if a handful of people do figure out how to survive (and that's an 'if'), what are they going to eat?
Its not that humans won't be able to adapt. Some of them, at least. But the greater and faster the change, the greater the impact. Physicist-retired has it right - the changes are occurring far faster than evolution typically can react. Some humans will likely survive a climate change, but if the change is too great, the majority have to adapt very fast to a global cataclysm. As resources get strained, there is in addition the risk that humanity will do themselves in with war (nuclear and/or biological).
The problem I have with most deniers is that they are the first to claim that we are strangling our future generations with debt. But when it comes to the burdens of climate change, no - we need to study it to death until we are 100% certain. We are 97% certain now. Will only be 100% certain after it has occurred and is too late to change. Think of that burden we are putting on future generations, just because it is expensive and inconvenient...
Brisaber,
We don't even have 100% agreement among scientists regarding the Theory of Evolution or Germ Theory. There are probably a few out there that deny the existence of gravity, too.
But every single scientific organization in the world agrees that human activities are warming the planet in a very dangerous way. Every single one.
Bingo. Our current debt is peanuts compared to the costs associated with climate change. There isn't enough money in the world to fix this problem once we hit 4C. And on a 'business as usual' track, we will hit that - by 2100, if not sooner.
When I was in school I remember scientist claimed that the earth was 10 degrees warmer during the Jurassic period. During the Jurassic period there was enough plant life to allow dinosaurs to grow to crazy sizes. Why do we think an increase of 10 degrees would result in something different this time? Plus another coincidence. I remember scientist claiming that on average the world is generally 10 degrees warmer than it is now, but that we are coming out of a little ice age so it is slightly colder than average.
Dude, are you just making up numbers as you type?
"The age of the Earth is 4.54 ± 0.05 billion years (4.54 × 109 years ± 1%).[1][2][3] This age is based on evidence from radiometric age dating of meteorite material and is consistent with the ages of the oldest-known terrestrial and lunar samples"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth
Because life on this planet evolved to thrive in today's temperatures, allislost. If an increase of 6C over the course of 20,000 years resulted in a Great Extinction Event 55 million years ago, why would anyone think that we can survive a similar increase that happens over the course of just 250 years?
We already have proof that most lifeforms can't survive that kind of rapid change.
Deny this:
911: “911, what is your emergency?”
Scientist: “I think my planet could be on fire maybe.”
A catastrophic “climate” can’t be real when none of the IPCC
warnings say it WILL defiantly happen, just “might” and “potentially” and “likely”
etc. could happen? And science only
agrees it is “real” and “happening” and “COULD” cause unstoppable warming and never
have they said the worst crisis imaginable WILL happen most definitely. So who
is saying it “WILL” happen? -only lazy copy and paste news editors and
politicians and ideologues riding the back of exaggerated climate change fears.
It’s been 27 years now of intensive research and almost all of it was into
effects not causes of an assumed to be real crisis of climate change. These lab
coat consultants played us like fools.
How close to the point of no return from complete runaway
unstoppable warming will the world of science take us before they stop saying “maybe”
and start saying “will be”?
How many climate blame believers does it take to change a
light bulb?
None, but they do have full consensus that it WILL change.
I have no idea what you're babbling about, but you can't be as smart as you think you are if you don't know the difference between 'defiantly' and 'definitely.'
mememine
Your insulting comment did nothing but reveal your own lack of scientific credibility. Science is based on probabilities, not certainties. If you want certainty, seek your answers in the religious community where you will hear from people who have no proof that God created the Universe and all of its inhabitants in seven days.
Consider medical science as an example. If you have a diet of beer and pork rinds the doctor will tell you that you run a serious risk of cirrhosis of the liver and heart disease, but it is a rare doctor who will predict a 100% cause of death or the date of your demise. He will tell you, however, with a high degree of certainty that you probably won't collect a large number of Social Security checks.
Your lack of critical thinking and your certainty in your own flawed conclusions causes me to predict that you have a very low probability of receiving a Nobel Prize.
I also think that there is a high probability that anyone who uses "69" in his screen name is a teenaged boy with a poor academic record.
Don, what would the doctor say if you had ingested 5 grams of hydrogen cyanide? Would that be stated as a probability, or would drastic action be taken?
There are instances where the correlation among events is so strong (large doses of poisons lead to death without intervention) that there is an effective "certainty" to the process and there is no need to discuss probabilities.
If, instead of discussing an abstruse philosophical point, do you want to discuss the accuracy, precision, and verifiability of climate models?
Ben
What is your point other than illustrate the obvious .... that sometimes probabilities are close to 100% or zero. As I stated earlier (#2.7) the generally accepted probability that human action is causing global climate change is approximately 95%. If you want more detailed information it is available to you.
Then it's going to be, "Oh well, too late to do anything now."
The problem isn't really the scientists. They run hundreds of models, holding out observations, then test the model vs. the observations. The models that have high accuracy tell us nothing huge is happening, but there is change. The problem is the models that predict death and dismemberment, which are published as being highly inaccurate vs. the hold out observations, are the ones reporters write about. The real ones they don't bother writing about because 4 inches and .2 degree change in temperature isn't interesting.
@Ted...
The problem is not the scientists (only some), but more of the general population that does not understand mathematics, modeling, or the science and must rely not even on the primary literature, but on secondary sources like a news article on NBC instead of reading and understanding a much more complex journal article. Many models are only as good as the parameters that are used and given enough variables, a model can be made to fit anything. Most people that like to armchair comment on the whole climate change issue could not do the analysis themselves given the data. I am also surprised by how many scientists I have met that are innumerate meaning that they do not fully understand the math they are talking about or apply mathematical methods to data where it should not have been applied. I am also surprised by how many scientists seem to think that fitting a linear least-squares fit to a borderline nonstationary stochastic data set is appropriate since any linear fit will be determined by the range of samples included in the fit.
Without a good understanding of the underlying mathematics, most people tend to overstate their interpretations when in fact the mathematics or models yield a much more reserved conclusion.
don, I am not going to follow all comments on a given thread. I was responding to the comment above mine, where you were off base in your analogy.
I am a physicist and I can tell you that there are many scientific areas where we can speak from practical certainty. Anything having to do with climate is not one of those areas.
Insanity in action.
Btus are heat energy. A small fire releases btus into the environment. So does an electric motor. So one hot day a wise guy figures out how to make an air-conditioner using an electric motor to take the heat out of his personal space and send it elsewhere. The next guy gets a wee bit hotter and sees what the first guy did so builds his own AC. He gets cooler too. Then, suddenly, we have in the summertime zillions of ACs (each equivalent to a small fire, remember) dumping "heat" into the environment to keep each of our personal spaces a wee bit "cooler".
Just remember, every time you see an electric motor you're seeing a fire dumping btus.
Most efficient BTU=Before The Utilities
This is an interesting article that kind of ties in with older research in an abstract way. It has been known for years that just the structure of a large city itself increases temperatures through blacktopping soil, rooftop reflection, absence of vegetation, etc.. Maybe it is not the use of energy so much as the city itself.
Also after the grounding of all air traffic for the first time in living memory after 9/11 the range between high and low temperatures increased about 5 degrees. Whether it was higher highs or lower lows I dont recall now.
Probably both. The lack of contrails allowed more radiation to reach the surface during the day and warm the soil, while the clear skies at night allowed heat to escape more rapidly.
Dennis
Just as well you don't remember the details of the 5 degree temperature increase. If it really did happen it is called a weather phenomenon because it covers a period of only a few days. When you don't know the difference between weather and climate you have no business criticizing the work of climate scientists.
AG
The contrail influence on temperature is very, very minor when compared to the atmospheric gases released by human activity.
Do the models also take into consideration the sheer number of human on the planet who are dissipating body heat and releasing methane and CO2 into the atmosphere?
yes, the models account for the significance of those effects, which is essetially zero in comparison to the other factors.
YAAAWWWNNN: I get tired of commenting so I;ll just post a few links after my (breif) comment.
So the recent cold weather "dip" in the jet stream was a "weather" event and not a "climate" event... the record cold was just a "one off" and the Warming trend from man made sources not only continues but is the cause of our "record" weather (be it hot or cold)... Right? The Sun has nothing to do with this "warming trend"... So if I point to scientific data... I'm denying science because I disagree with your "conclusions". So be it.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jul/18/20040718-115714-6334r/?page=all
wait there is more:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/01/24/greenland_ice_sheet_simply/
and MSNBC:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/50568211/#.UQNDQ_L4ajY
Ok... I'm done... all ready on another vine "duking it out" so don't let me disturb your HCGW Bliss please continue your "Amen" corner.
Nobody has ever said that the sun has no effect.
And the Washinton Times is not a reliable source for news, let alone science. It is a Moonie-owned newsletter of the rightwing noise machine.
They name their sources... just like the one from NBC... don't try to mince the science because of the "paper" it came from... just look it up and roll with it. (Not a "reliable" source... sheesh)...
Also I remeber using a Source that showed all the EX-Scientist of NASA (40+) said that NASA has become a political arm of HCGW... and a viner said "All those scientist are dicredited and they are not a "reliable" source.. it was quoted on the Huff. Post. ... (Give me a break) I could find every "reliable" source and it still would not be reliable.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11/nasa-global-warming-letter-astronauts_n_1418017.html
I'm a Christian.. and so many times on the vine I'm told that the Bible is NOT a Reliable source... The cool thing is... it is my ONLY source.. so.. you can find fault with it but .. it isn't Fox News or NBC... it' just the Bible... ... Tell me a source that gives you 100% unfiltered/unbiased news that YOU consider reliable and I'll use that source.
Science is the only way we have to understand the world. The Bible was written by an obscure Middle eastern cult 3000 years ago.
You see an article that seems to say something different about global warming, look for sources. Ah, I see you did that. Wait! Don't stop there! Go to the sources, read and understand them. You may find your article was "cherry-picking" facts.
This radiative forcing is a component in all the credible models. But the solar input of energy alone does not account for what we have been observing.
Ha ha ha you idiots that say there is no global warming and think it's some kind of government hoax. Yeah, it's normal for the global ice caps and all the glaciers to all melt every few years. Who told you that? Art Bell? Rush??? Pull your heads out people and use them for something besides a hat rack.
I am surprised that this is a news article. The urban heat island effect (cities on average are 6 degrees warmer than the surrounding countryside) is something that has been known about and well studied for years as is the urban rain effect where you tend to have increased rain downwind of a city due to the heat island and inputs into the atmosphere by the city.
It seems like the scientists should have been including the effect of the cities in their models from the beginning.
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/UrbanRain/urbanrain3.php
As anyone in computational physics will tell you, it's all in the boundary conditions! Usually when you get the core methods and algorithms wrong, something blows up big time and helps chase down the problem, but subtle errors in boundary conditions just have you doing the wrong problem rather than the relevant problem! You may compute the wrong problem to high precision, but your customers just see failure.
Big cities are just not the answer for mankind. Living rural is healthier for the human, and for the earth.
It's a little difficult for all 7 billion of us to "live rural."
I think you would find that everyone would have considerable room if they spread out, and it would be better for the Earth that way. Sometimes doing what is right is difficult, but that does not mean you shouldn't do it.
John Roach didn't do his homework.
As someone who plays an active part in the climate models under study, the question of forcing in urban areas was dealt with a decade ago. In fact, as recently as last year there was a heated debate over whether several thermometers in a few metropolitan areas may experience too much sun exposure, too little, or be set too near exposed blacktop - yes, everyone is THAT nit-picky about how the data is collected.
This story reports nothing new.
Thus only the solution remains,
ALL GREEN AGW"S REPORT TO EXTERMINATION BOOTHS 3473-8942 IMMEDIATELY, repeat...
So what. You think I 'm giving you an out because you all have no concept of the true nature of the carbon cycle and YOUR lack of understanding of the Galaxies Thermodynamics as it relates to gravitation and plasma streams?? no frigging way. And what is the band gap of co2 again? and of course I am supposed to accept that it's not an omni directional phenomenon because some clown wrote a book and is campaigning for a nobel prize (that's a real loaded pun in fact)...So the models were wrong, they are still wrong and will continue to be wrong. The knowledge on the subject is so far from being comprehensive and so littered with bias that it's proper category is witch doctory not science. I for one note the total abject lack of succinct data gathering techniques that, among other things, would require the double blind data set, say for instance from another planet. As an example mars is only now beginning to present it self as a secondary data source, and not a bad one at that since we human infestation units do not yet occupy or otherwise adversely affect it's atmosphere (as far as we know). As well, (I love feeding the green goonies who love thier mirrors so much) I wonder what removing those vast thermal blankets from teh earths crust is doing in the long term (large oil reservoirs surely must be large thermal insulating barriers layered within the crust...watch that'll be a story one of these years). The last time I fed the goonies they all ran out to count cow farts...I am still laughing, wonder how much money that cost, see they were right originally, the entropy was equal whether or not the cows ate the grass that was destined to decay, either on the ground or via microbes that speeded up the process. Man's worst enemy is man, nature is a damned close second. There are no boogie men and the democrats are just a crooked as the repbulicans. Don't pay more for living through carbon taxes so china can make more iphones. Idiots. Here is an idea, don't buy iphones!! Idiots. If you gotta a degree and know nothing of atmospheric collapse, turn it back in. More to follow ya buch of sheep.
So now it's not just using fossil fuels that are driving climate change, it's the use of ANY energy. Sounds bad. I guess I'll have to just turn off the heat and freeze to death this winter.
But there are ways to use the energy more efficiently and to shunt the waste heat into areas it will be useful. What if everything that produced wait heat was located inside of something that needed to be heated?
Let us assume for the moment that we pay all those carbon taxes, convert all energy sources to nice renewable solar and wind power, and then settle in for the long haul, certain that the problem has been averted.
We'd be wrong.
The waste heat will still be there, and the problem only gets worse as the population goes up. We don't have any place to dump the heat. It's going to stay in the atmosphere longer, raising temperatures. (Air is a very inefficient way of transferring heat, and the IR radiation can't simply leak directly into space--the air inhibits that.) I have your global warming right here, ladies and gentlemen.
Worse, per-capita availability of water and other resources drops as the population rises and individual humans live longer. If you're one of those who thinks we need to take better care of ourselves so that we live longer, and that humans are bad for the planet, you need to sit down and have a good long think about that. You're contradicting yourself.
To borrow a phraseology from Bill Clinton in the 1990's: it's the population, stupid.
As the very first post says..That the deniers will follow. I'm not a denier, so you can't label me as one. I embrace the climate change. Everybody wants a tropical eden, and this is the quickest way there. As an example the great lakes themselves formed by glaciers leaving this area, and look how good that turned out, so quit denying it, and quiting complaining about it, just except it. Anyone remember back in the 70's when they said we only had enough oil for 50 more years?? (Looks like around 2023 we will run out of fossil fuel anyways so why worry.)
In a word, no.
'Real politician' like Inhofe make ridiculous statement like that. Meanwhile, 'real scientists' are most alarmed at the rapid changes to our climate, because they understand that the effects will be devastating.
A rise of 6C or more by 2100 is now entirely possible. The last Great Extinction Event (the PETM) involved a rise of 6C over 20,000 years, and many species couldn't adapt that quickly (hence the Mass Extinction).
We're on track to accomplish that in less than 250 years of using fossil fuels - 40 times faster than a Great Extinction. And you say we'll be able to 'adapt'?
Even if a handful of people do figure out how to survive (and that's an 'if'), what are they going to eat?
It is true that real scientists are not predicting the end of the world, but it is false that we should easily be able to adapt. It will be a big mess and many human populations and ecosystems will suffer, but it is unclear exactly how "catastrophic" it will be. Definitely something we want to avoid, though.
At the rate we are poisoning the environment (water, air, soil, etc.) it will take a world wide flooding just to start reversing the damage that our so-called advanced civilization has done to the planet. Only 3% of all the water on the earth is usable for humans to drink to start with, and just about every river in the US is poisoned to the point that you can't even swim in them (at least anyone with a brain wouldn't). Every drop of commercial food produced today has been treated with at least 20+ toxic chemicals by the time it hits your table, but yet they expect us to believe it is safe to eat. If we don't stop poisoning everything we have left, the climate changing won't make one bit of different to began with because we will all drop dead from being poisoned long before it matters.
We can slow things down a lot, if people get on board which is a question in an of itself. But we are so hardwired to reproduce getting people to stop having kids is never gonna happen. Mother nature is going to take us down in a long slow increasingly miserable existance. Too bad everything else on the planet will die before us. So much for huming beings aren't animals and having free will.
Anyone that buys into this, just bought a boat load of manure!
Everyone seems to assume global warming = bad. Change is always difficult to manage, but in total the Earth may become more "biotic", a term I just coined to describe being able to support increased biomass (the sum of the masses of all biological organisms). Certainly some will be adversely affected (penguins, polar bears and people living in low coastal areas are obvious examples), but global warming might make it possible to grow enough food to support the exploding human population. At a time when the Earth was much warmer than it is today, the burgeoning plant life enabled the evolution of massive dinosaurs. It would be ironic if the burning of fossil fuels ultimately saved the human race from mass starvation.
It turns out the answer is no. Most people in the world live in tropical areas where increased temperatures are already decreasing crop yields.
So we have UHI (Urban Heat island effect) where man made structures, roads and parking lots absorb more heat from the Sun than do natural materials like dirt, grass and plants. These man made objects then radiate the heat back out more slowly than natural materials that keep night time temperatures from cooling as much.
NOAA has admitted that over 70% of the US weather stations are improperly sited and have been corrupted by UHI. A new CONUS system of weather stations that are properly sited recorded temperatures that averaged 2 degrees COOLER than the corrupted "hottest July ever" of 2012. Which is 1.9 degrees below the record set in 1936.
Now we have waste heat. Even if you have an entirely electric house, car, etc, that used electricity generated from wind turbines or solar panels heat is still produced. Electric motors warm up when being used, your computer, your iPod and Smart Phone, all electric devices produce heat.
Between UHI and waste heat almost all of the warming has been accounted for.
CO2 is plant food. Plants grow stronger and faster with more CO2. They are also more drought tolerant and more water efficient with more CO2.
None of that is at all contrary to the scientific facts of anthropogenic climate change.
There is a limit to the effectiveness of more CO2 in the air. It exists somewhere between the current level and the point where all plants turn brown and crispy.
Bingo? That is an assumption they now figure out, could figuring the higher average temperature of cities done the same thing. This only one item of many they accidentilly find after they say they know it all!!! When will they admit the truth that our modern methods of farming are responssible???
Sooo, it's all you liberals occupying the East and West coasts and the big cities that's causing all the problem...not us in the "flyover" states. I recommend all you city folks with guilt trips immediately turn off your heat, your air conditioning, your lights, etc, and start proving your commitment to saving the world.