Rates of warming (°F per decade) for average winter (Dec.-Feb.), 1970-2012.

Click image to enlarge.

 

Climate Central:

“Winter warming accelerated almost everywhere since 1970, and all states have warmed since that time. Nationwide since 1970, winters warmed more than four-and-a-half times faster per decade than over the past 100 years.

Winter nights have warmed in all but one of the lower 48 states since 1970. Across the continent, winter nighttime temperatures have warmed about 30 percent faster than nighttime temperatures over the entire year. Since 1970, overnight winter temperatures in Wisconsin, Minnesota and Vermont have warmed faster than 1.29°F per decade, or more than 5°F in just 43 years.

Since 1912, states with average winter temperatures below 32°F warmed three times faster than states with average temperatures above 32°F. Since 1970, winter warming has accelerated almost everywhere and states that previously cooled began to warm in winter.”

Wow . . .

 

As per our prior discussion of comments, I am looking to identify people who do not belong at this site.

Have fun!

Category: Digital Media, Science

Please use the comments to demonstrate your own ignorance, unfamiliarity with empirical data and lack of respect for scientific knowledge. Be sure to create straw men and argue against things I have neither said nor implied. If you could repeat previously discredited memes or steer the conversation into irrelevant, off topic discussions, it would be appreciated. Lastly, kindly forgo all civility in your discourse . . . you are, after all, anonymous.

50 Responses to “Winter Warming Accelerated Since 1970”

  1. BennyProfane says:

    Well, Ok.

    “Nationwide since 1970, winters warmed more than four-and-a-half times faster per decade than over the past 100 years.”

    Now, 100 years ago, did we really have a reliable and extensive network of sanctioned instruments throughout the country? Precise instruments? I’m guessing that the technology of recording climate conditions have advanced almost exponentially since the mid century, especially when the first weather satellites were put into space in, what, the 60s? So, can we really rely on a statement that claims that temps rose so quickly in a modern period, relative to before that. How do we know what temps were in, say, 1919?

    Let’s not even mention 200 years ago. Large areas of the continent were unexplored.

  2. highway61 says:

    It’s a fine chart, but it begs the question, “What do you suggest we do about it?”

    ~~~

    BR: High octane gas (even polluted as it is with that corn crap) is cheap at $5. Until changes, nothing else will change. If you don’t want me tearing up the roads or the water in gasoline powered machines, dont make the fuel so damned cheap!

  3. PeterR says:

    Benny, surely you jest?

    Accurate instruments for measuring temperature have been around for many hundreds of years. You know, the old mercury-in-the-glass tubes?

    SuperStorm Sandy was just the beginning of climate change hitting LOTS of average people in the pocketbooks IMO.

    A fool and his money are soon parted . . .

  4. Oral Hazard says:

    @benny: You can do cool stuff with, ya know, science, like identify and correct for bias or throw out altogether unreliable historical data.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cmb-faq/temperature-monitoring.html

    And: http://www.isws.illinois.edu/pubdoc/CR/iswscr2011-02.pdf

    Abstract

    The Climate Database Modernization Program’s (CDMP) Forts and Volunteer
    Observer Database Project has resulted in a dramatic increase in the number of U.S. daily
    cooperative network observations available prior to 1893. Currently, data from 395 stations
    have been captured from the original scanned images. The stations are primarily located
    east of the Mississippi River, but coverage extends to all 48 contiguous U.S. states and
    Alaska. A rigorous quality control process is used to ensure that the keyed data matches
    the original form. This process involves careful collection of the metadata from the form,
    double-keying of the data, and a series of automated quality control tests. Values flagged
    by these tests are typically verified manually and corrections are applied as needed,
    although in some cases errors are automatically corrected.

    An analysis of the quality control process for 40 stations shows that on average,
    about 31 percent of the flags verify the information, 52 percent can be corrected, and 17
    percent are deemed uncorrectable. The correctable errors typically result from unclear
    forms, mis-keyed data, and errors in the metadata for the image. Due to changes in
    observation practices since the nineteenth century, care must be taken in using the data
    for analysis. Despite these caveats, the nineteenth century weather dataset is being used
    in an increasing number of climate studies.

  5. BennyProfane says:

    @Peter R

    Sure they have. But, read my post. Did we have a reliable network of instruments placed and monitored well in 1919? I know we do today. Lord, they’re everywhere. But, in 1919, we barely even had a weather service. Did we have one at all? If we did, it was probably quite crude, compared to today. Just like the rest of science. Can we rely on the same data from both periods?

    In 1938, a very strong hurricane hammered mid to Eastern Long Island, crossed the sound, and went on to damage New England severely. We didn’t even know it was coming until it hit. One morning, blue skies, the next day, many dead and most structures in pieces. Probably the worst storm in Northeast known history. That was 1938, and, yes, we had a weather service. Totally blindsided, just about 70 years ago. And you think data from that period is reliable? And, earlier?

  6. Benny,

    interesting point, I was, just, fixin’ to ask that, similar, Accuracy/Prevalence Q..

  7. krice2001 says:

    For those of us in the northern tier (Boston), the changes are fairly obvious. Spring arriving earlier and monthly average temperatures above normal nearly every month for the past 2 years (as reported by the local meteorologists). But the storms are clearly getting stronger as well. 2 years ago, we had a tornado spend well over an hour in the ground in Massachusetts, which was unprecendented. While each storm itself is merely anecdotal, combined most of us can see a pattern. And if you want proof from the business comunity, I believe you just need to check what’s happening with insurance companies. They are revising their models to address the changing state of the weather since their business lives really depend on some decent risk analysis.

  8. tryflyfishing says:

    @BennyP
    Methinks you are distracting/diverting the issue. Lets assume you are correct about data management/gathering from 100 years ago.
    The change since 1970-2012 (what the picture shows) is, as BR wrote, WOW.

  9. Smokefoot says:

    @BennyProfane

    The Smithsonian established a cross-country weather tracking system of 150 volunteers in 1849, growing to 500 by 1860. Now you will say that 150 weather stations is not enough, but that data can’t be dismissed unless an actual problem is identified. We also have tree rings and ice cores which give information about climate both recent and ancient.

    Your comment on hurricane prediction is off the subject – prediction is much harder than recording facts, and information on the mid-atlantic was limited by ship speed.

  10. BennyProfane says:

    @tryflyfishing

    Well, fine, but, my answer to that is, what’s 50 years in the time frame of weather history? A little blip. Nothing.

    I’m not trying to be weather change skeptic here, but, obviously, I am bothered by what I hear sometimes when historical data is whipped out. I read recently a blanket statement that the Middle Ages were three degrees cooler in Europe. I mean, really? How the hell……….
    Some actually try to tell me what temperatures were 200-300,00 years ago. C’mon.

  11. WFTA says:

    http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pa/history/index.php

    We did not have satellites 100 years ago. Wireless reports from ships at sea had to serve for hurricane preparedness.

    Thermometers, I think, were plentiful.

  12. Petey Wheatstraw says:

    A “little blip” is all it takes to change from driving down the highway listening to your favorite song on the radio and then picking your teeth out of the dashboard.

    I can say this:

    When I was a kid in the ’60s, and up until roughly the time the Air Florida crash into the Potomac river, the river froze solid every winter. A little further up river, the ice dams would form against the rock islands in the middle of the river, to the point that you could hear large trees cracking when the ice up stream broke up and pushed the dams up onto the dry land. For the last decade, or so, that doesn’t happen. At all. You can fish the Potomac in January nowadays.

    Might mean nothing, but I don’t think so.

    As for judging temps 100 to 100,000 years ago, or more, there are many reliable natural records such as tree rings, ice layers, glacier melt, polar ice melt, etc. We’re even seeing the northward expansion of species from their traditional ranges.

    BTW: it’s not “weather change,” it’s climate change. And there’s plenty o’ scientific data behind it.

    Of course, human/geologic history only goes back 5,000 to 7,000 years, according to some “reliable” sources, so anyone arguing that they could posit temperatures earlier than that is surely pulling our legs. C’mon.

  13. S Brennan says:

    BennyP,

    An event that occurred in a remote corner of the earth Krakatoa in 1887 was reported by thousands of weather stations worldwide, accurate cross referenced reports where forwarded to several royal societies The generated pressure wave “was recorded by more than 50 weather stations worldwide…The distribution of weather stations around the world was sufficient to reconstruct the wave front and its evolution over several days including its distortion by global wind patterns. ”

    Just because you lack the chops to understand something doesn’t mean you have the status to call into question those do, for example:

    “a blanket statement that the Middle Ages were three degrees cooler in Europe. I mean, really? How the hell…”

    Shows you don’t know of, or understand scientific methodologies, now I could take the time to explain/spoon feed you the answers [I won't], or you could take the time to read up on it [you won't]. So there you have it, you ignorance does not constitute reasonable doubt. Your doubt is a manifestation of your [at this point] willful ignorance, nothing more.

  14. VennData says:

    “I’m starting a site to ignore ALL science not just climate science.”

    – BenStienery.org

  15. RW says:

    I no longer respond in detail to climate change skeptics — there are more than ample resources available for the homework essential to responsible citizenship; e.g., http://www.realclimate.org/ — and I never respond directly to climate change deniers: If they are temperate I label them “wrong” and provide links to data and research from reliable sources so they (and the audience) can see for themselves; if they are intemperate or tendentious I may add the label of fool or troll before providing the same links for the audience alone to pursue.

    What I see now is that the actual root causes of climate change are becoming less of a policy issue than the growing need for a coherent and forceful policy and social response.

    For example, it is becoming clear the warming process is not going to stop but there are potential levels that could make a very large difference; e.g., a globe at 2 degrees Centigrade warmer on average is going to be a rather rough place but a globe at 6 degrees C warmer on average would be hell; see Six degrees: Our future on a hotter planet.

    So it really doesn’t matter how much of the change is caused by human activity or whether it is a secular vs. cyclical change* or some combination thereof: Failure to attempt mitigation now to damper acceleration and failure to begin preparations now WRT infrastructure and institutions necessary for adaptation or evacuation would be a gross failure of stewardship. To those who consider the fate of future generations a worthwhile topic it would also be a gross dereliction of duty.

    *a 1 degree C warmer world during the Medieval period turned virtually the entire Middle West of the USA into a sand desert; i.e., no food production to speak of. It lasted more than three (2) centuries.

  16. farfetched says:

    200 years ago this country was almost exclusively agrarian. Farmers are and were obsessed with temperature and weather (precipitation) and they kept excellent records.
    It might be easy for someone living in the modern city who is not involved with farming or agriculture to focus on ‘temperature’ as something requiring satellites and vast technological infrastructure, but aside from doppler and satellites for predictive uses, the technology is largely the same as it was 200 years ago.

    Just because they used to take note and write it in a book instead of a computer logging it, doesn’t change the accuracy of the thermometers or the recorded historical temps.

  17. SkepticalOx says:

    @BennyProfane

    Historical temperatures can be extrapolated from analyzing things such as tree rings and ice core data, and others:

    This is from the NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration):

    Paleoclimatic data are critical for enabling us to extend our knowledge of climatic variability beyond what is measured by modern instruments. Many natural phenomena are climate dependent (such as the growth rate of a tree for example), and as such, provide natural ‘archives’ of climate information. Some useful paleoclimate data can be found in sources as diverse as tree rings, ice cores, corals, lake sediments (including fossil insects and pollen data), speleothems (stalactites etc), and ocean sediments. Some of these, including ice cores and tree rings provide us also with a chronology due to the nature of how they are formed, and so high resolution climate reconstruction is possible in these cases. However, there is not a comprehensive ‘network’ of paleoclimate data as there is with instrumental coverage, so global climate reconstructions are often difficult to obtain. Nevertheless, combining different types of paleoclimate records enables us to gain a near-global picture of climate changes in the distant past. (source”)

    Also, regarding your time frame argument (which is used a lot by climate change skeptics, btw):

    Large and rapid climatic changes affecting the atmospheric and oceanic circulation and temperature, and the hydrological cycle, occurred during the last ice age and during the transition towards the present Holocene period (which began about 10,000 years ago). Based on the incomplete evidence available, the projected change of 3 to 7°F (1.5 – 4°C) over the next century would be unprecedented in comparison with the best available records from the last several thousand years. (source”)

    BUT, I think Nassim Nicholas Taleb has an even better argument when it comes to this topic: It is that the burden is on humans to prove that pumping all these CO2/greenhouse gases won’t lead to something really really bad, because it is an unnatural act vs. Mother Nature. Therefore, it is better for us to be on the safe side and limit our greenhouse gases because we can’t prove that something bad won’t happen to the climate because of our actions, especially if the consequences can be catastrophic.

  18. Biffah Bacon says:

    For Mr. Profane;

    Yes there is quite a good length of reliable instrumental data for temperatures, air pressures, weather observations and the like and this record is expanding every day. There are currently projects underway to record this information in digital form from ship logs, where hourly watch logs were kept with position records (www.oldweather.org). If you are really interested in the answer to this question then here is the source for data: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/data-sources/ and here is the short answer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instrumental_temperature_record

    I think what we need to do to move on from this fake dialogue about whether an observable phenomena is real or not is to figure out ways to mitigate the reasonably anticipated effects and construct a plan for adapting to the changes and trying to reduce the damage where we can. It is already too late to stop the climate from changing, any more than you can stop a speeding dump truck-too much inertia already. Look at the photos of Alaska’s northern coast at http://www.tundradaisy.org and you will see that the horse is already way out of the barn. With a national program similar to war preparation we could get a few years of national action that would be sufficient to allow the private sector to take over. Solar, wind, waves, geothermal, efficiency improvements, subsidies for electric vehicles and carbon taxes sufficient to reduce fossil fuel use could help.

    Of course there is not only natural inertia working against this, there is the disheartening fact that Obama is basically black Bush, policy wise, golfing with oil and pipeline guys and hiring oil industry folks. But I think that a transition to a reduced hydrocarbon economy could be a profit center and it wouldn’t be the first time that oil companies have moved into alternative energy-Exxon ran nuclear reprocessing plants and BP had a solar group. But we would have to find a way to make the more egregious backsliders join the program, and convincing the likes of the Kochs would be tough without sufficient dollar signs attached.

  19. vanrcamp says:

    rationally debating the likes of “benny” is impossible, regardless of whether is a real person or an astroturf-ed commenter.

    My fav. Neil DeGrasse Tyson quip is that “Republicans don’t want to die poor.”

    The real effects of warming has hit, is hitting and will hit bottom lines for years to come.

    And the effects of warming are so clear (ask any gardener friend) that only the truly ignorant or those on the payroll of CO2 intensive industries) will continue to spout their nonsense.

  20. PeterR says:

    Benny, the point of the map/piece (and my comment above) is that we are ONLY talking about temperature data here, repeat after me, temperature data only.

    This is the most basic climate data, and yes accurate for hundreds of years, especially when we are talking about temperature changes of many degrees (not tenths or hundredths, etc.)

    YOU are missing the folly of your own myopia, trust me!

    Did we predict the Hurricane of ’38 on LI? No, but does the map say we should have?

    You are digging WAY deeper into this than the map asks for.

  21. PeterR says:

    PS, the lack of many weather stations many years ago for basic temperature data. Even if we had only 100 US cities recording max/min temps consistently, if they ALL show the same pattern, you Benny just have to “get it” that there is a systemic problem.

    Again, take the blinders off, the voice in your head may be misleading you?

  22. Slash says:

    RE “As per our prior discussion of comments, I am looking to identify people who do not belong at this site.”

    Well, this should do it.

  23. farfetched says:

    Hopefully, with BR’s permission and grace, I will push this discussion just a hair further than climate change. Perhaps more important than climate change, we are changing global chemistry. CO2 affects soil and sea pH. We are acidifying our oceans. The food chain of the seas starts with very small creatures called zoanthids which in turn feed corals and filter feeders. These are calcium carbonate based life forms, they depend on a stable, relatively high pH to maintain and build shells. Corals provide habitat for fish and other animals that feed half a billion people worldwide. Add to this mix all shell fish which feed many more and you are talking about something much more serious. Not only will agriculture and soil based food production be seriously affected, but sea food and related products will be too. It doesn’t take much CO2 to dissolve calcium carbonate shells and kill or reduce shellfish and in turn, fish ecosystems. Already this is being observed in places known for shellfish like Puget Sound, where in some places clam and oyster ‘seedlings’ have very high mortality due to dissolving shells due to CO2 driven low pH.

  24. Takeyourfinger says:

    It should be accelerating for at least two reasons: (1) global consumption of fossil fuels has kept growing (until one day…) and (2) there is positive feedback in the system in that snow is white and reflective of solar radiation, whereas the ground or water is generally darker and less reflective, so that the less snow there is, the faster things warm up, repeat over and over…

  25. Clem Stone says:

    Having lived in Minnesota most of my life, I’ve seen it, I believe it, and I have a hard time not liking it.

  26. RW says:

    @Clem, I lived in the Rockie Mtns for some years — no, not in Denver with the flat-landers, the Mtns I say — and I sure hear what you’re saying …except

    …except when it starts getting too hot folks are going to start moving north and they won’t be the only ones; e.g, those Minnesota mosquitoes (that I remember not fondly at all) are going to start carrying malaria, dengue and yellow fever.

  27. 873450 says:

    We can’t talk about saving the environment for our grandchildren while burying them in debt. What good comes from inheriting an earth that can’t be exploited for profit?

  28. RW says:

    @873450, careful now, someone is going to call Poe’s Law on you if you aren’t careful. [lol]

  29. whskyjack says:

    Yes winters are warmer, A marked difference just in my lifetime(60yrs). As a person who has worked out side all my life it is a reality that you notice.
    But here on the great plains the summers have also been milder and wetter, so much so that Kansas has produced more corn than wheat in several recent years. In the later part of the twentieth and this century there had been a change in drought patterns away from the mega drought more to regional droughts. Last year was the first mega drought since the 1950s. In the 50 years before there had been three.
    So is last years drought a return of the mega drought, (which last for several years) or is it just a one time event and we return to the trend of the last 50 years. It makes a lot of difference in our public policy, which one it is.

    Jack

  30. WickedGreen says:

    Hello everyone. Frequent visitor and respectful admirer of BR; I just now registered.

    I think Profane Benny inspired me, not least perhaps in conjunction with BR’s recent post venting about the trolls.

    Why did Benny “inspire” me? It’s obvious s/he’s yet another soldier in the impressively large zombie army that has been sent out across the tubes to toss red herrings and obfuscate, and as such embodies the frustration BR was manifesting. On the other hand, the many awesome, well-referenced responses thoroughly validate the free speech approach I think we all need to know and want to love.

    Bottom line? Sure, s/he threw a few grenades, but even more surely, s/he has been properly gobsmacked. Dog bless America.

    I would appreciate knowing if there is a way other readers might suggest is a good one to play the (more) accessible markets to support a better approach to (the myriad) macro env. concerns ? It’s a subject I almost never hear mentioned on the financial tv/radio/web spheres. From solar etf’s to startup capital to blue chip carbon disclosures … is there an inherent conflict between the current econ. system and stewardship?

    Where are the smart money types putting money to work where impacts will be mitigated?

  31. formerlawyer says:

    Benny, not to pile on, but look at:
    http://www.skepticalscience.com/

  32. kek says:

    using 30 years of weather data to predict the future seems a bit thin to me. Arizona has had tremendous variations of climate and moisture cycles over the past thousands of years as evidenced through pat rack midden materials, tree rings, fossils and the disapearence of whole native American settlements through super droughts.

    Study of middens near the Waterman Mountains (the range on the west side of Tucson), shows that 11,000 years ago the area was a woodland forest with pines and oaks. Study of fossils from middens show that the desert has come and gone many times. Since the last glacial epoch, as temperate forests retreated to higher elevations, plants from much farther south migrated northward. Analysis of midden material indicates that mesquite trees arrived in southern Arizona about 15,000 years ago; saguaros about 9,000 years ago, and Foothills palo verde trees about 4,000 years ago.

  33. dcf55 says:

    Im on board with climate change and humans as the cause. But the argument seems so hard to prove, and easily muddled by those whose livelihood and power would be effected from the change needed to mitigate it. So why not focus on something more tangible and real time – like pollution? It seems much easier to quantify the health effects of say coal pollution, than to try and convince non-scientific types of a theory that takes decades to prove. Remember 46% of the population believes in creationism. But would they want to live in Beijing?

  34. bear_in_mind says:

    Not going to take the troll bait… bu will say that the findings of this research is pretty damned startling!

    I will, however, quibble with the slight increase that’s been measured for California. It sure as heck seems like the winters have been significantly warmer over the last 40 years.

    Additionally, I know the Napa Valley (and other CA grape-growing regions) have seen a significant decline in “chilling hours” which assist to keep the vines in a dormant state — an important factor in promoting vigor in the subsequent growing season.

    There’s also the urbanization of large areas of the state that previously were pastoral and covered with native flora. We’ve measured how large cities are essentially islands of concrete, which hold and generate exogenous radiant heat.

  35. Ajax says:

    I wonder if the some of the increase in nighttime highs could be caused by airline jet contrails. That would make heavily subsidized airline travel even worse for the environment as it already contributes a substantial fraction of the greenhouse gas pie.

    http://www.csmonitor.com/Environment/Bright-Green/2010/0201/Airplane-contrails-and-their-effect-on-temperatures

    Revenue passenger miles have increased steadily (by about 600%) since the 70s. (see page 11 below).

    http://web.mit.edu/airlines/industry_outreach/board_meeting_presentation_files/meeting-nov-2010/Hansman%20F&T%20IAB%20Fall%2010.pdf

  36. willid3 says:

    i guess some over looked that west Nile problems we had in Texas last year. guess that will be heading North. and thats not a good thing. it can be fatal.

  37. willid3 says:

    Ajax, not sure that airlines have that much impact. I suppose they could have some, but cities almost always have a much bigger impact, especially as they get bigger, they get warmer and they tend to get drier based just on pollution.
    but then again, climate is always changing, but to make it likely that we made it change, all it takes is a little extra energy to send it over a cliff. so we added that extra impetus. now i suspect that the deniers will keep us from doing any thing at all about slowing it or even stopping it.

    so we might as well resign our selves to the fact that the climate disaster is coming. but they probably will stop us from doing any thing about that till we absolutely have to. of course they will have a new story after that to explain how it wasn’t their fault. sort of like the banksters

  38. hankest says:

    Benny Profane, i think your question is reasonable, and has been somewhat well addressed already. Here’s a short video showing how the corrected temperatures from world wide data over the last 100 years correlates fairly well with independently derived “proxy” data.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=oRa-yvQVLrs

  39. miamiocean says:

    @kek, climate scientists are concerned about the steepness of the warming trend which is accelerating, and faster than models five years ago predicted. There is plenty of evidence to support that the rate of change has never occurred in known historical records. Sure you can figure out how to adapt to water rising in your house at an inch a day, but an inch every 5 minutes is an entirely different scenario. The fear is that if you don’t start planning now then when the changes accelerate enough, it will be too late to do anything more than massive evacuation and relocation programs.

    There are increasing effects due to increasing available water vapor (more large rain and snow events) and the decreasing temperature difference between the Arctic and mid-latitudes. Simplistically, the latter temp diff produces the jet stream which, in turn, hustles the lows and highs representing weather systems along from west to east. Decrease the temperature difference enough, and you can end up with stagnate weather patterns, especially in the summer, can we say two month long heat waves ? It is the roll of the dice as far as I can figure if the heat wave ends up in the US or Europe. Sort of a high stakes game of musical chairs. Where does the blocking high stop and for how long ? Our food production is based on assumptions on what range of rainfall and temperatures can be expected during most growing seasons. Anomalous stagnant weather systems throw a big and ugly monkey wrench into those assumptions.

    I will only add that as an analyst working with physical data sets, it takes so long to come up with answers and publish papers on temperature records precisely because we expend so much effort vetting our data sets. This includes looking at sensor calibrations, doing sanity checks (does it make sense), comparing to nearest neighbor data sets and comparing to historical databases. We need to do this carefully so as not not throw out real anomalous signals, but to remove incorrect data records. I am sure every profession that does data analysis has similar strategies. A recent book I am reading addresses this topic broadly, “Bad Data Handbook, by Q. Ethan McCallum”, which is actually a collection of topical essays by top data science professionals.

  40. Lugnut says:

    Sure its getting warmer. 7 Billion people consuming resources like never before, 30 billion tons of CO2 emissions annually, and a net reduction of plant and tree life to offset the carbon cycle will do that. Why do you think there is no snow on Kilmanjaro anymore? Its not due to global warming, its due to regional warming, due to increased land use and deforestation of the land surrounding the base.

    The US is warmer because the landscape profile is compeltely different. Where once were trees and farms are now rodas and concrete. The capability of developed countries to be endotermic is not what it used to be due to development. US has actually decreased its CO2 output. Sure increasing the gas tax will change the CO2 profile here in the states, but don’t kid yourdelf it will deal with the rest of the parts of the equation, unless you can also come up with a cheap way to convert people to deisel.

  41. flakester says:

    Back in the 1930s & 1940s, Professor Wheeler also studied long term tree rings, ice samples etc. and came up his weather cycles. They don’t quite align with current day AGW, but the cycles fit the actual NOAA data

    http://www.nowandfutures.com/images/wheeler_cycle_temps.png

  42. farmera1 says:

    Pollution dilution, warming, cooling, but I did go north and bought farm land in North Dakota about 10 years ago.. based on the predictions of more droughts, more variation (which is bad for crops) and general poorer growing conditions in the corn belt. So far the move to buy in North Dakota has been spot on. Growing seasons getting longer and so far NOrth Dakota hasn’t suffered from the droughts as has the majority of the corn belt. IN fact corn and soy beans were unheard of in the counties where I bought farm land 10 years ago. Now because of longer growing seasons, and milder/warmer weather, corn and soybeans are common in my part of North Dakota. The value of crop land is going up a lot faster (as a percentage) in North Dakota than it is in the rest of the corn belt. In fact prices increased 30% last year.

    My only issue is weather I went far enough north, but Canada is the next stop. Only time will tell if I went up enough.

  43. AHodge says:

    1 we have a warming climate change problem

    2we (people) probably did most, directly or indirectly

    3 you can take some steps but further warming inevitable, less you going to stop china india etc etc etc development

    4 so buy property further back from the coast

    5 if you want to do something–apply Simpson Bowles which calls for a big Gasoline tax–
    look it up i kid you not, thank you all you republicans who say you support

    but really
    if the warming is mostly in the winter and in north dakota minnesota or other arctic like places-
    -how bad can that be? aside from that little sea level prob/ and the polar bears

  44. farmera1 says:

    Here is a reference for the increase increasing prices in farm land.

    http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/02/13/something-remarkable-is-happening-right-now-with-farmland-prices/

    AHodge, you will find out how bad it can be if temps keep rising, droughts keep increasing with the impact on food production. In the part of the world where I live (not in North Dakota that is strictly an investment) irrigation is a common practice. Last year for the first time, water ran out locally. I live in the Great Lakes water shed, and the lakes are at record lows due to higher temps and increased water usage. The situation is much more than just an increasing temperature in artic like places. Trust me on that one.

  45. The Pale Scot says:

    Climate change can be distilled down to a couple physical and chemical laws. Simply put, CO2 is able to absorb a much greater amount of heat that radiates off the planet in the form of infra-red light waves (same thing that thermal imaging devices measure) than the other gases that constitute the atmosphere. All molecules absorb or are transparent to different wavelengths of light photons differently, this is caused by the electromagnetic properties of their atomic structure and their chemical bonds. CO2 is opaque the infra-red light band, it absorbs the photon and is energized. This isn’t a guess or a hypothesis, it was measured and quantified over a century ago. Svante Arrhenius wrote the equation that is still used today.

    CO2 is just the first act. Much more dangerous is the methane that is being released from warming Arctic tundra. That too is being measured and papers are now coming out with an analysis of how fast it will happen. Methane is hundred of times more infra absorptive than CO2, which is thousands of times better than almost all other gases in the atmosphere. If the tundra methane is released, it could warm the oceans to the point that methane hydrates, which are a slushy mixture of semi-frozen water, methane and mud on the continental shelves, will start melting and releasing its methane. It wouldn’t trickle, it would burp. releasing millions of tons of methane at once. At that point it’s game over for most complex life on earth, this phenomena is implicated in several mass extinction events.

    Please consider that most predictions made in the 70′s and 80′s about greenhouse effects have happened much sooner than expected. Thirty years ago an ice free summer Arctic was figured to happen sometime after 2050. Now the date is 2020.

  46. davecjohnson says:

    The question I ask when climate-denial (or other right-wing) trolls show up in comments and discussions is this:

    With so many people being paid good money to do astroturf and disrupt discussions like this one, are you doing it for pay, or for free? If you are doing it for free when so many are being paid, what does that say about your “market” values? Shouldn’t you be getting paid to do something that so many others are colelcting good paychecks to do?

  47. DeDude says:

    @BennyProfane

    It is true that the accuracy of temperature measurements may have been less a hundred or more years ago. But climates are averages of temperatures. If the inaccuracy is as likely to be giving too high a value as too low a value, then the accuracy is not going to change the end result or conclusion drawn from thousands of measurements (excessively high temperatures are balanced out by excessively low temperatures). So why would you think that the accuracy would produce a too high (or a too low) temperature in a systematic way.

  48. [...] 2013/02/21: BRitholtz: Winter Warming Accelerated Since 1970 [...]

  49. JackWayne says:

    Per davecjohnson

    The question I ask when climate-warmenists (or other left-wing) trolls show up in comments and discussions is this:

    With so many people being paid good money to do astroturf and disrupt discussions like this one, are you doing it for pay, or for free? If you are doing it for free when so many are being paid, what does that say about your “market” values? Shouldn’t you be getting paid to do something that so many others are colelcting good paychecks to do?