Friday, February 21, 2014

Chaotic Climate January 2014

If you’re locked in a freezer that’s set in the middle of a sweltering desert then you might assume there are no problems regarding an ever warming environment and its associated chaotic climate.  That seems to be the attitude of some people who, based on their local weather, have concluded that warming temperatures are a myth.  So let’s call this phenomenon, “Locked in a Freezer Syndrome” because as the following data shows, this past January was hotter than normal worldwide.  As such we might expect blizzard conditions in parts of the world where significant amounts of evaporation off our ultra-warm oceans waft to places where it gets dumped as snow.  That scenario is entirely within the parameters of chaotic climate theory that is now, by the way, even more supported by the data.  No, Uncle Wilber, it’s not a hoax; and no Aunt Molly, it’s not a conspiracy; and no Cousin Billy it’s not a secret plot to “take away our rights.”  It is simply data—supportive data—that keeps accumulating showing we can expect more and more chaotic climate incidents.  Take Australia and the US state of California for example.  Both places are suffering from extreme drought—which, of course, leads me to question whether Australian born plutocrat Rupert Murdoch ever checks the weather reports Down Under.  Seems Murdoch enjoys disseminating poorly thought-out and data-deficient pronouncements denying chaotic climate and the ever-growing mountain of data suggesting its human related causes.  But for Murdoch and all the others who have failed to look up the data then perhaps the following maps will, if nothing more, raise an eyebrow or two.

What the above maps show is that despite sections of the earth that have experienced blizzards in the past few weeks the overall picture still shows a planet in the throes of increasing record breaking temperatures that just keep going up and up.

Ah, yes.  I can hear the naysayers even from my enclave in the deep woods.  I recall the old song, Love Hurts (I preferred The Everly Brothers version).  Maybe it’s time for a new song, Data Hurts.

For More Info check out the following website:


  1. For millions of years the Earth's climate has been 100k-250k years of ice age followed by 10k years of interglacial, we are really near the end of that intergalactic part of the cycle.
    Odd weather today? Today is not much time in the Earth's cycle, 100 years is not much time in the Earth's cycle. Have a different 100 years would not be unusual.

    Since the continents collided to form the Himalayan mountains we have been in the ice age-interglacial-ice age cycle, has this changed? I think not.

    1. Very interesting point you're bringing up. I assume then you're well familiar with the Milankovitch cycles and the Vostok ice core data. However it is known that there still is plenty of uncertainty with the correlation between the two. One thing that we can be certain of is that there is a correlation between atmospheric CO2 and temperature in that they move practically in lock step, a lag between the two exists but when one goes up so does the other.

      Now, we can agree then that there has been a massive increase in atmospheric CO2 since the dawn of the industrial age. Even since the 1960s there has been an increase in over 50ppm. So my question is, should we pass off this current trend as a mere hiccup that Earth experiences every few thousands of years, or shall we accept the data and our lack of understanding the climate in order to maintain a way of life for future generations? At the very least I think we can all be patriotic enough to give some credence to the environment to preserve "America the beautiful."

  2. I don't see what Rob's comment has to do with the blog post. Climate oscillations occur on many different timescales - from inter-annual to millennial (or longer). To my understanding, the concerns over global warming caused by anthropogenic emissions relate to a much shorter period of time - an extreme climate event that would occur within the longer oscillations. Mankind may face climate challenges that occur in the 100,000+ year timeframe, but that doesn't mean we should dismiss the overwhelming consensus of climate scientists when they tell us that our use of fossil fuels is mostly responsible for creating an extreme climate event now…albeit one that doesn't negate the fact that ice ages will still occur and dissipate over vast stretches of time. That's like saying, "Hey, billions of years from now, the sun will probably become a red giant star and destroy the earth. Why should we worry about clean air and water?" My advice to you is this: if you care about clean air and water, don't waste time fighting against the idea that climate change is mostly a result of anthropogenic emissions. The people who care about your air and water mostly believe humans affect climate change, and they want to figure out ways to live that will keep your air and water clean. If 97%+ of climate scientists are dead wrong, and "global warming" doesn't exist - or isn't caused by human use of fossil fuels, then at worst you will end up with cleaner air/water and a society that isn't as dependent on using fossil fuels for energy. There are certainly no simple answers, no easy solutions, but one thing is clear: our current way of life is unsustainable. Does that fact change even if you don't believe human use of fossil fuel causes global warming? I think not.

  3. So many questions, it's easy to get lost in all the varied details & claims.

    Pollution is bad, I don't like air I can see & I don't want water to make me or my family sick,
    I'll do my part to clean it up & help keep it clean. I would like all of us to have long & happy lives, we need clean air and water (amongst other things) to do that.

    I see the earth's climate as dynamic, if I don't live long enough to immediately notice the changes that doesn't mean they are not happening.
    If we are going to have change I'd rather be warm than cold. Crops grow better in the warm than they do the cold, look back to the medieval warming period, that's when Greenland got it's name. People lived well in that period.

    If I have to choose I'll choose warming but I don't think I have a choice.

    I see most of the 'answers' to global warming as asking for me to give someone something, usually money. I don't want to have to give you a $100 bill so you can 'stop' global warming. Remember the Kyoto protocol? China & India were exempt...

    I live in an age of distraction. In my society the supreme court has given corporations civil rights, we had a major change in who was running things and nothing substantial changed, just minor things. There is a lot of loud arguing going on in my very divided society about these cosmetic things but the big dollar items remain unchanged. Is global warming just another distraction?

    I see a world where man has flourished in the last 10,000 years. 10k years ago there were 5 million people on the Earth, today we have 7 billion. If we are indeed at the end of the interglacial period things are going to get interesting for mankind.

    With all this talk about everything going I have been unable to get a solid answer to the question "what causes the ice ages?"

    I really think the big question is 'what causes an ice age?'

    1. You should research what it is you're commenting on before commenting. There is so much misinformation or just bad information in this post.

      So much of this post is meaningless emotions that change from the tone of your first post leads me to believe if you even know what you're commenting on or just repeating some propaganda you hear. You start off with mentioning scientific data and then to this.

      First, the most obvious mistake is your story on how Greenland got its name. The name was given by Eric the Red to attract peasants to inhabit the area. Not because it was a "green land."

      Prior to that you lay claim that crops grow better in warm then they do in cold. If this were true wouldn't our warmest climates be the centers of agriculture in the world? All organisms have what is known as a "temperature growth curve" in where there is a point where growth is optimum and two points one being the coldest and the other being the warmest where organisms have suboptimum growth. There is no plant in the world that grows best in a warm climate; most thrive in temperature around 75-85 Fahrenheit with desert plants having developed a thickened cuticle around them and excellent water retention systems so they do not get baked and burn in the heat.

      Also, the majority of prime agriculture land is near sea level, if you chose warming the consequences will be a melting of the ice caps, a rise in water levels and a vast decrease in suitable farmland. This is one of the main concerns with a rising sea level. There are several consequences other than simple warming you’re not thinking through with.

      I don't know where you live that they say you have to "give" something to decrease climate change, maybe give a standard of living carelessly. At the time of the singing of the Kyoto Protocol China and India were still considered developing countries, China at the time was/is also investing large sums to hydroelectric and other clean energies.

      Now your global warming being a distraction is just asinine. If ~97% of all climatologists data points to humans as a cause it is inconceivable for this to be considered a distraction but a real cause, and as user Retroramon mentions at worst if 97% of people who study the climate, which there's no debate that it is dynamic, for a living are wrong (however slim that chance is) then at worst all you have is a sustainable world. Hell, the explosion over Subway having a chemical in its bread recently was more of a distraction than this.

    2. (part 2 of 2)
      While there is no debate on whether or not things have been done in the government in recent years it is also insane to think things can get done when one party so vehemently opposes the person who was rightfully elected that it borders treason. It’s a miracle we finally passed the basic right to health rightfully fulfilling the “pursuit of happiness” suggested in the Declaration of Independence.

      There's no doubt mankind has flourished, though most would say since the population drifted to urban environments in the last 150 years not thousands. If we truly are at the end of the interglacial period and nothing has changed to point towards a shift then yes, things are going to get scarily interesting for mankind.

      Now your last paragraph is what leads me to believe you're just commenting based off what you've been told and not from your own independent research. "What causes an ice age?" There have been plenty of studies and theories done to answer this. I'll let you off on the right foot and provide a link.

      Now I understand fully that this is a blog and the entire point of it is to share ideas and our own slice of this world we live in. However can there be discussion that shows humans are rational beings instead of spewing noise and the ability by those to think? Has society evolved to where we only subscribe to what we want to be true that we desperately cling to it at all cost? I’m not personally attacking you, but when I see such nonsense as this I must admit I fall guilty in holding on to a belief that everybody is capable of rational thought.