I know the difference. Weather is weather when it's a short term event which does not support the CAGW narrative (e.g. cold winters, lack of tornadoes). Weather is climate when it's a short term event which does support the CAGW narrative (e.g. Hurricane Sandy, US 2012 heat wave).
And yes, I'm damn proud of it.
_______________________________________...
Edit@Gary F: "That's a lie. Climate scientists have consistently made it clear that it is difficult to identify physical connections between specific events and AGW "
I know you wish it was a lie. Maybe you'd sleep better at night. It's easy to prove that I am correct. Just look at Climate Central who have a staff considered "among the most respected leaders in climate science". That includes climate scientists like Heidi Cullen: http://www.climatecentral.org/what-we-do...
" Devastating deluges, record floods and deadly heat waves have raised the question of whether there’s a connection between these events and global warming. The bottom line answer is yes" http://www.climatecentral.org/library/cl...
I realize my original answer is mostly a cynical perspective but it's pretty easy to find examples that show more than a ring of truth to it. And keep in mind, I'm talking about alarmist climate scientists. The large majority are more reasonable and objective but those aren't the ones making headlines.
I've seen some crazy things blamed on global warming.
An iceberg breaks off Antarctica - like they have been doing since the last ice age - oh but that particular one was global warming. Bush fires in Australia, like there have been for the last 10,000 years and suddenly it's global warming.
@( ?° ?? ?°)
When will you learn? How long will global warming need to be delayed until you accept that maybe the skeptics got it right or will you just go on denying the obvious for the rest of your life?
Calling climate change alarmism a science, doesn't magically make it scientific.
Theories don't always cooperate with natural climate variability.
I doubt that we have any effect on any jet stream, cloud formation, or ocean oscillations. OK! Maybe 0.01% since that is the approximate change in the atmosphere due to human emissions in about 350 years of industrialized nation building.
Whether Cornell University knows it or not, the Arctic has always melted and refrozen. Fresh water freezes much faster than salty water. Let's see what happens, but my guess is that it will be a cooler winter simply due to changes in the ocean flows.
It's easy to be alarming. The story of "Chicken Little" is a very real educational story for those who want to throw alarm bells into the air.
By the way, changes in the climate "do" effect changes in the weather no matter what other posters here say. The energy imbalance caused by anthropogenic sources (according to science) will create more intense weather activity. The "shell games" of understanding what the AGW theorists really mean is a continuing operation. The more confusing they can be with their information means they will continue to 'dodge' the truth of what is actually happening with the climate.
Gary F - 15 years of near record Global average temps?
Based on what? 15 years of instrumental records that are guaranteed to be within + or - how much? ... and compared to our near-perfect collection of temperature data from the past? We can't even agree on how accurate the "Little Ice Age" temps were.
15 years of near-record temps is called weather. 15 years of weather that prove Global Warming is happening and is the basis of alarm according to you. All further years following your 15 years are included and subject to scrutiny. It is the "Global Warming Era" according to you, so any identifiable cooling that happens from now on is suspect and should be used by both an alarmist and a skeptic in the spirit of the debate. Get your coat ready for some cooling. I believe you'll need it for awhile.
Gary F - By the way, IP CC predictions are also in-line with the theory of Global Warming and should be considered part of the theory. Predictions have been and continue to be way off-base, which means the theory is off-base also.
I don't know if we will have a cold winter yet, it's possible because changes in solar wind and magnetic properties tend to send the jet streams more southerly, which often results in colder winters and warm summers, but we are still at a sunspot cycle peak, all be it a small one.
Blizzards will in the same sentence, hey dook might use two, be called just weather but it's exactly what you're suppose to get because of global warming. More ice will be caused by some unforeseen anomaly but classified as irrelevant because it is young ice or thin ice.
It is much more likely that people will be talking about how warm the winter is. So far for this year (January-September) this is the 6th warmest year on record; the last time even a single month was below the 20th century average temperature was more than 25 years ago.
Despite the facts, if you listen to deniers, you would think the ice sheets were already forming in Northern Minnesota.
EDIT for Ottawa Mike: Perhaps before you post links that are supposed to disprove what Gary F is saying, you should actually read them first, and then if you still think the link proves what you're saying, you should take logic and reading comprehension courses.
Clearly climate scientists have ALWAYS said there was a connection between climate change and weather events--how could there not be? Almost by definition there has to be. What Gary is saying and you haven't provided evidence for is a specific weather event (or its intensity) being blamed on AGW. That's a very difficult thing to prove, although there was a supplement to the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society devoted specifically to that question, so perhaps you should draw your examples from there.
When will you guys ever learn?
To begin with the only alarmists who are regulars in this section of yahoo answers, deny the science of global warming, claiming an energy free future and/or unrepairable harm to the economy and/or a scam to take our money. One particular alarmist even makes the ridiculously claim that Bill Clinton molested, or thought of molesting, every woman he laid eyes on. [1] Now if that is not "alarmist" then tell me what is... (And he is either claiming to posses supernatural powers like knowing what people are thinking or accepting that word of other people who claim to posses that ability.)
Reasonable people will probably say something like "it is all about the complexities of our climate system and how they influence our regional weather patterns". however an alarmist answer will be something along the lines of "it is a flexible scam". [2] (Ironically, awarding "best answer" to that answers is what makes you an alarmist and a conspiracy theorist)
Seriously the world is not going to end in your lifetime, regardless if we choose to act on the climate science or not.
EDIT:
"I've seen some crazy things blamed on global warming." I agree, one of the craziest ones is that "Thousands of scientist are conspiring to falsify the science in order to get politicians to raise taxes on the world population"
"Calling climate change alarmism a science, doesn't magically make it scientific." Again I agree. the alarmist keep making the ridiculous claim that CO2 does not have any impact on the amount of heat the earth retains.
"suddenly it's global warming." Amazingly we agree again. Most of the alarmist don't have a clue about "probability", yet despite this handicap, some will make reasonably good poker players because with their fanaticism, combined with this ignorance they are able to play with "conviction".
If the winter is cold, they will say it is just weather and consistent with global warming. If it very cold, they will say it is extreme weather, and a natural consequence of global warming. If it is warm, they will say it is more evidence of global warming, and what you can expect.
We can see some of that in the comments here.
Oh we won't. It's obvious that a single snowfall in an area that does not get snowfall often means that we are set for another global ice age. Obviously.
I'm sorry but these are just getting sad, when it's quite easy to look up in the past questions who tries to link weather to climate.
I.e. "it snow in my state climate change is over"
"It's snowed in Las Vegas climate change is over"
"It snowed 'somewhere' climate change is over"
One denier even tried to claim the Thames was going to freeze over, stall waiting for that 2 years after the fact. I recall trying to tell deniers many many many times that a region effect at a state, or even a country level is not an indicator of climate, for my trouble I usually get a string of insults and rants.
Even in these points deniers seem to confuse cold and snow, one does not relate to the other in they way silly questions like this try to pretend. The coldest place on the planet has in fact on of the worlds lowest precipitation rates (snow) simply because it to cold.
Even the winters denier claim as cold where in fact not that cold, they had more snow and snow itself requires an input of warmer moist air to form.
But then as deniers seem to know very little about climate why would that be different for weather.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snow#Cause
You give Gary F some advice
"Did you even bother to read the very first paragraph in the article"
Can I suggest you take your own advise the article in the very first paragraph refers to "Snowmageddon" not "Coldmageddon" it's talking melting sea ice allowing sea water to "warm" and excess heat getting into the atmosphere, which in turn affects the polar vortex winds allowing this cooler air to move further South giving more snow in places like Washington.
While dropping less snow in places it has done in the past, this was shown to the world a few years ago in the Canadian winter Olympics when they have very little snow while regions further South had large dumps of snow. But I'm sure you will pretend to not remember that, even though it made the world news. Although it also looks like the up coming Russian Winter Olympics are going to repeat that trend.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-co...
I know, maybe you could start a conspiracy theory that Al Gore had the worlds media remove the snow digitally, it certainly would not be the silliest conspiracy denier have tried to use.
Take a science class, please, you are embarrassing yourself.
Lat year they claimed that melted Arctic ice was responsible for the cold winter.
http://www.news.cornell.edu/stories/2012/06/arctic-ice-melt-sets-stage-cold-weather
Any theories on what they might come up with this year?
"Being too stupid to know the difference between weather and climate is one of things that Deniers seem most proud of. "
Why oh why do you keep blaming the fires in Australia on a dry summer caused by global warming?
Make your minds up!
Being too stupid to know the difference between weather and climate is one of things that Deniers seem most proud of.
===
Zippi --
>>Theories don't always cooperate with natural climate variability.<<
Name one. You cannot mean AGW theory since it is grew out of and was identified by scientists studying natural climate variability.
In any case, until Deniers quit claiming that every snow flake represents a nail in the AGW coffin, that 15 consecutive years of near-record mean global temperature is evidence of global cooling, and until they learn that statistical significance is a measure of sample size that refers to the probability of error that some observation is representative of the true population - their use of "natural variability" is a joke and just another of the thousands of things that they are too stupid understand.
=====
OM --
>>I know the difference. Weather is weather when it's a short term event which does not support the CAGW narrative (e.g. cold winters, lack of tornadoes). Weather is climate when it's a short term event which does support the CAGW narrative (e.g. Hurricane Sandy, US 2012 heat wave).<<
That's a lie. Climate scientists have consistently made it clear that it is difficult to identify physical connections between specific events and AGW - and they have also had to remind people of the multidecadal temperature signal.
Deniers take to the internet like the Million Mindless Idiots March after every weather event with Bullshlt accusations that AGW supporters are claiming some connection with global warming. Time and repitition do not turn lies into reality (if the did, Sagebrush would really become a "real" scientist).
Anyway, I guess it is good that you have something to be proud of - but, it's too bad that it is the kind of thing that would shame most decent people.
I can't wait for the explosion of lies that are certain to follow when Michael Mann wins his defamation suit.
===
Flossie –
>>Why oh why do you keep blaming the fires in Australia on a dry summer caused by global warming? <<
Who does? You only think that because everything you believe comes from idiots and liars and because you are ignorant of everything that requires actual knowledge.
NASA: “Australia may be in for an intense fire season this spring and summer as the warm temperatures settle in. In late 2010 and early 2011, La Ni?a dumped flooding rains over the southern continent. The moist soil allowed thick grass to grow; now that the grass is drying out, it is fuel for fires. In Northern Australia, more than 150,000 square kilometers (58,000 square miles) have already burned.”
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/vi...
=====
edit --
Yeah, I read it. It is the introductory paragraph written by a media person at Cornell and the reference to “Snowmageddon” is used for effect. The scientists make no such reference – and, in fact, the writer does not draw a direct connection. The story is about research into an area where regional changes can have wider-reaching consequences.
Do Deniers take seminars on how to read without using their brains? It must be some Denier-Zen thing, I guess.
=====
Zippi –
>> 15 years of near-record temps is called weather. 15 years of weather that prove Global Warming is happening and is the basis of alarm according to you.<<
Liar. Neither I nor any scientifically literate person has ever made such a statement – especially since those of us properly educated know that there is no proof in science.
It is Deniers who claim that the last 15 years are proof that AGW is either not real or has stopped.
>> Based on what? 15 years of instrumental records that are guaranteed to be within + or - how much? .<<
Based on the fact that they are at the extreme upper limit of the distribution of recorded temperatures and no where near the long term mean.
>> IP CC predictions are also in-line with the theory of Global Warming and should be considered part of the theory. Predictions have been and continue to be way off-base,.<<
The IPCC reports results, it does not make predictions. Denier opinions on climate models are as worthless as their opinion on anything involving science and the collection and analysis of empirical data.
>> which means the theory is off-base also<<
That is logically and practically impossible since AGW theory was not defined based on models and does not depend on model result.
Weather and climate are different topics so I would be reluctant to make a connection. Is there any reason we should be expecting a cold winter this year?
the polar jet stream is an established factor in weather patterns. Maybe you can come up with a conspiracy theory on that.
Some lie will come to them . They are in panic mode now.
Just learn some science. Then you won't make any failed predictions about what realists will say.
