Friday, May 04, 2007

PA: coldest April in 32 years

Pennsylvania and probably many other places on the Eastern Coast has seen the coldest April in 32 years and something like the 13th coldest April on record.

Canada has recorded the third coldest April since 1970 while Iowa and Ohio have witnessed the coolest April in ten years.

A proper ski season is getting started in Switzerland. ;-)

RSS AMSU have released their April data, too. Since the beginning of the year, the global temperature dropped three times more (0.21 Celsius) than the decrease that is expected to be caused by the Kyoto-like policies in the next 50 years (0.07 Celsius).

If you use the global warming believers' prices of temperature increments, nature has given us a gift of roughly 20 trillion dollars during the last three months - about $3,000 per person including Ethiopian newborns. Thanks, Mother Nature.

Meanwhile, because I use very different prices, I am happy that the temperatures in New England are now finally about 10 Celsius degrees higher than a few weeks ago. ;-)

1 comment:

  1. dear lubos,

    honestly, i didn't want to waste any more of my (and obviously your) time by reading and commenting on your blog (although the physics related content is mostly very informative). however, there was something in the back of my mind which i just wanted to ask you.

    i sincerely hope you don't just ignore me as you mostly tend to do or delete my comment, as i would really appreciate an answer. it would seriously help me understand your motivation and perspectives on climate science.

    it is clear that you see no connection between human activities and the global climate, i.e., anthropogenic pollution and climate change.

    however, i am not quite sure about your take on global warming (i.e., the increase in the average temperature of the earth's near-surface air and oceans in recent decade) and the increase of extreme weather events - whatever the cause.

    you very often like to post newspaper articles citing cold events around the globe. e.g., "Nashville, Tennessee: record cold" or "Global warming arrives to Versoix, Switzerland".

    i don't quite understand your motivation there, because - as one of your supporters once commented in reaction to someone mentioning warm weather occurrences - citing single weather events doesn't really say very much.

    do you think that the events you report constitute some kind of proof that there is no average global warming happening, or are you simply having fun in being provocative?

    indeed, what also baffled me was the link to the bbc article you give above. as the title of your posting is "PA: coldest April in 32 years", it is interesting you would quote an article, that says:

    "Climate change is forcing skiers to go ever higher to find snow [...]."

    "Overall, though, it's been a poor season as it was too warm. Some resorts had to close in January, normally the coldest part of the winter, and others had to shut lifts early because of a lack of snow."

    "The area also provides dramatic evidence of climate change as one can see where the glaciers have retreated. Many of the mountain huts were built by the side of the glacier, but now several decades on these huts are often hundreds of yards from the edge of the glacier."

    "It may have been the warmest April since records began, but where I'm standing it's April and it's still winter. But then I'm at an altitude of 3,900 meters [...]."

    so did you actually read the article beyond the first sentence saying "Standing on the Aletsch glacier above the Swiss resort of Grindelwald it's hard to believe that winter is supposed to be over."? or what was exactly your point there?

    and yes, i did see the winking smiley you placed after the link, which didn't really help me understand your incentive.

    in my opinion, your postings of cold weather events begs the question of how serious you are. if you are joking, it's a bit of a waste of time. if not, then you either don't really seem to do much research or appear to have crossed the line between being objective and ideological, in using any argument to serve your means, regardless how far-fetched.

    i really don't want to question your abilities or sincerity in assessing climate science, but this part of your reasoning is in my opinion idiosyncratic at best.

    anyway, thank you and so long,



    by the way, the bbc article fits in pretty well with what anyone living in central europe will attest to: last winter was characterized by very mild temperatures. in switzerland there has never been a warmer autumn measured. january had record temperatures as high as 24 degrees celsius (indeed, most of the time it was warmer in zurich in january 07 than it was in august 06!). although there was a very late heavy snowfall at the end of march, the whole winter was observed to be 2.5 - 4 degrees warmer than the long term average.

    the following link points to a chronology of climate events for switzerland since august 2006. most articles are from one of the largest national daily newspaper of switzerland.

    maybe you are thinking that i'm also just quoting random meteorological events. perhaps this is so. but what i find interesting is that records are broken for cold and warm events, often back-to-back.

    and from experience there are two things to say. firstly, its getting warmer here (which can also be observed in how nature is adapting) and secondly, extreme weather changes are happening quite often (as currently: on the 29th of mai it was 9 degrees celsius and 5 days before that it was 27 degrees). and this is not only my personal view. e.g., mountaineers are experience their sport as becoming ever more dangerous in summer with melting glaciers, thawing permafrost and falling rocks.

    on a slightly longer time frame, summer 03 was recordbreakingly scorching here and winter 00/01 was termed "winter of the century" as it brought amazing amounts of snow.

    one remarkable fact from the economist's article "Doing it their way - Americas attitudes to global warming are complex, and are changing" was:

    "One fifth of [Republican] voters hunt or shoot, and two thirds of hunters and anglers vote Republican. In the first poll of their views, carried out in Mai of this year [2006], 76% of these sportsmen said they had personally noticed climate change [...]."


    seeing yourself as a 'conservative physicist' i would expect you in general to agree with the views of the economist. indeed, the economist publicly supported bjorn lomborg.

    on september 7th 2006, the magazine brought out a survey on climate change ( on line, purchase, lead article from that edition).

    a nice quote from "In the loop:

    "The baffling complexity of the climate-and thus the difficulty of predicting what is going to happen to it-arises principally from its feedback loops. Scientists are finding out about ever more of them, which is why things don't seem to be getting much clearer over time."

    further articles in the survey:

    "Where the wild things are":

    "Whereas people these days are mostly able to adapt their environment to suit themselves, the world's other inhabitants still have to adapt themselves to their environment. When circumstances change, they adjust in two main ways: by changing the timing of important life events, such as hibernation, migration and breeding; or [...] by moving to find more comfortable living quarters."

    "[They] found that, of a total of 677 [species], nearly two-thirds had brought forward the important events in their calendar. The Mexican jay in the Chiricuahua Mountains in Arizona, for instance, is breeding ten days earlier than it was 30 years ago. Tree swallows' breeding season advanced by an average of nine days between 1959 and 1991. In the Rocky Mountains, the yellow-bellied marmot is emerging from hibernation 23 days earlier than it did in the 1970s."

    "Of the 434 species that had moved their range, four-fifths had moved northwards or to higher ground. The red fox, for instance, has colonised an extra 600 miles of Baffin Island. That's fine for the red fox, which, as the owner of any British dustbin knows, is in no danger of dying out, but less good for the Arctic fox at whose heels it is snapping."

    "Dismal calculations - The economics of living climate change - or mitigating it"

    "Selling hot air - Kyoto's main achievement was to create a market in carbon. It's flawed, but better than nothing"

    "Those in peril by the sea - Two of the biggest risks from climate change are a shutdown of the Gulf Stream and a rise in sea levels"

    "Reaping the whirlwind - Hurricanes used to be thought unconnected to climate change; now a link is emerging"

    "Anti-hero - Within a decade, China will emit more greenhouse gases than any other country"

    "Where to start - Technological and economic solutions to climate change are available; the problem is politics"

    but perhaps you are not too supportive of economists in the first place, and think along the lines of joseph l. mc cauley:
    "I therefore suggest that the economists revise their curriculum and require that the following topics be taught: calculus through the advanced level, ordinary differential equations (including advanced), partial differential equations (including Green functions), classical mechanics through modern nonlinear dynamics, statistical physics, stochastic processes (including solving Smoluchowski–Fokker–Planck equations), computer programming (C, Pascal, etc.) and, for complexity, cell biology. Time for such classes can be obtained in part by eliminating micro- and macro-economics classes from the curriculum."


    there are indeed people who compare creationism's attacks on evolution to attacks on climate science. taken from