world

Melting Arctic is causing snowier winters, say researchers

41 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© 2012 AFP

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

41 Comments
Login to comment

The climate is a part of nature's global system, a system which humans affect greatly by cutting down trees and overutalization of soils etc etc. Not saying that humans cause the climate change, but can't say the opposite either since all human activity is a part of the same chain of cause an consequence as the rest of nature. It's all connected. And moreover, humans are the only species that have the capability (and the will) to actually change the whole system. So far we've only changed it for the worse, destroying nature. Things like global heating and cooling and natural catastrophes simply let us become aware of this fact - that we're a part of the system not only in that we can affect it but in that we are affected by it too a muh greater extent than what we affect it. If we would affect it in a good way we would probably be affected by it in a good way. What else could be the benefit from reading these articles? I'm not asking to be told what is happening with the climate, I just read the newspaper. What do I care about climate problems; what do I care if I'm the cause of it? Becoming aware of that I'm a part of the system? Why would I want that?

4 ( +5 / -1 )

It's saying that the warming trend is causing more snow precipitation, not necessarily cooler temperatures. Precipitation =! temperature.

3 ( +3 / -1 )

It's entirely coincidental, but the world has a built-in mechanism to counterbalance changes in climate - and that is lucky for us. Phenomena leading to atmospheric chemical changes in the past were ephemeral - a spate of volcano eruptions here, a meteor strike there - so the equilibrium could be at some point restored. A reversal of human-caused global warming, though, requires a change in human behavior. With no such change, global warming may well accelerate beyond the point of its natural counterbalancing ability; indeed, reinforcing feedbacks, such as the release of methane stored in permafrost, are at the edge of being initiated.

Global warming skeptics are whistling past the graveyard. Mother Nature has her own pace and cares naught for the human race at all. It is in our own hands.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

Wow, you guys need to brush up on your basic reading skills. It doesn't say anything about colder temperatures in this article, just more snow because of increased moisture.

@thundercat. Article says "Instead, more cold air is descending into the middle and lower latitudes, “leading to ........................."

I read this as colder air moving further south than usual meaning lower temperatures in those areas. How do you read it? What do you think it means?

2 ( +4 / -2 )

One thing is for sure, it has never been any colder for such long periods up here in Hokkaido. Since the beginning of January, we have had over -20C temperatures every day compared to about 4-5 days in other years.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Global warming disrupts existing weather patterns. It can make some areas colder, at least in the short run.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

I'm STILL waiting for that link. Apparently there is a whole side of this debate that is lacking. C'mon guys. Like I said. I''ve smcaked you in the face with a glove. Put up or go away.

Show me 0ne (1) scientific link stating global warming is not occurring and is not man made from a scientific source. Not an oil company, but a university, or NOAA.

It's been since Feb. 29th and not one of you have produced a thing. Because you can't.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Wow, you guys need to brush up on your basic reading skills. It doesn't say anything about colder temperatures in this article, just more snow because of increased moisture.

1 ( +5 / -3 )

I think I saw this movie. It was pretty awful.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

MolenirFeb. 28, 2012 - 03:24PM JST

Although to be fair, its not that global warming/cooling doesn't exist. What people have a hard time accepting, is the anthropomorphic global warming theory. IE man caused. So, which is more likely? Human Greed pushing the hysteria? Or the idea that the 2% of yearly CO2 production each year that is actually created by man, is causing this enormous disruption to the environment, that will doom us all?

The thing is, that 2% addition to CO2 production is beyond the capacity of the Earth to balance. Look at it this way - you can balance a see-saw by placing two equal weights at an equal, and opposite distance from the pivot. Add an extra weight to one side and the see-saw is out of balance and moves. It does not matter that the extra weight is 10%, 5%, 1% or even 0.1 % of the weights at the end - it moves.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

While I would support the theory of climate change there as many scientists against it as there are for it, just as they are with the use of nuclear energy.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

NeverSubmit: Hence scientists, who need to eat and live well like every one else, tend to try to tout climate change in order to fatten their own research budgets and wallets.

What rubbish. You don't think the oil companies and the like fork out mega-bucks on research to try and disprove climate change? If we follow your line of argument, we can't trust doctors not to deliberately injure us because they get paid to work, or teachers to deliberately keep us ignorant, or train drivers not to go around sabotaging cars so we have to use the train, or lawyers to deliberately lose cases and so on and so on. So earning a wage = corrupt? So how can you trust your alarm clock in the morning when you wake up? It was made by someone who got paid to do it. How can you living under a roof because someone was paid to build it.

So tell me, the scientists that openly question climate change, do they get paid? Of course they do. But somehow they're miraculously clean of any supposed corruption because they say the things that you want to believe. This whole argument is a strawman and can be applied so broadly that it is in essence meaningless. Let's stick to the science, folks.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Luckily, the amount of scientists openly questioning the theory is growing by the day

That is 180 degrees wrong. The amount of REAL debate among REAL scientists isn't about whether it's happening, it's about how fast and if we can stop it.

If you can provide me with a link to one (1) reputable university study or scientific study, I'll be shocked. I'm betting you can't.

However, it took me less than 5 seconds to come up with the following link from Texas A&M, which is considered to be one of the best weather schools in the world.

http://www.kbtx.com/state/headlines/Texas_AM_Study_Shows_Ocean_Warming_Has_Accelerated_The_Past_100_Years_139236348.html?storySection=story

SO...I'll be waiting. ONE (1) link from somebody not full of shit, showing real science that it is not happening. Consider yourself smacked across the face with a glove. The challenge has be thrown down.

I'll meet you at high noon on main street, you bring your B.S. and I'll bring my 14 years of weather forecasting and we'll throw down on the subject and see who comes out on top.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Heh, so whats happening is, that global warming is causing global cooling. So funny.

0 ( +4 / -5 )

brrrr....

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What people don't understand is that THE GLOBAL WARMING scare is NOT true in the sense that we are causing it. The earth goes through cycles and this is just one of the cycles we are experiencing now. The reason why we cannot understand the patterns is that weather patterns have been recorded, at its best, since 1850. That is not enough data to see the real cause, just speculation. Yes, according to the recorded warming of the planet has been happening but it has been happening since before the recording of this collected data. So what has been causing it? In the 1850s people did not have automobiles running around 24 hours a day and the same warming of the planet was taking place in the same pace as it is now. The next stage is the cooling of the planet. And the cycle goes on and on because mother nature controls it all......not us. All we do is ruin everything.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Actually, it has been an above normal winter in the USA. Not as much snow recorded. So much so, the oil companies seeing a decrease in heating oil profits started sending more oil to China, thus we have higher than normal gas prices in the US. Wait until mid spring, and you will see not as many floods along the Mississippi river and other areas that normally flood as a result from the spring thaws from the winter snow fall.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Is this global cooling?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I read this as colder air moving further south than usual meaning lower temperatures in those areas. How do you read it? What do you think it means?

"more cold air" does not mean colder air. It means the cold air is being displaced. The "global part" of "global climate change" means that something is happening on a global scale. Cold air being displaced from one area to another does not cause the average global temperature to fall... it stays exactly the same.

I guess I shouldn't be surprised that people who deny global warming also have problems with basic reading comprehension skills....

0 ( +2 / -2 )

b) the people who don't believe that global warming exists

You forgot c. The suckers who actually believe in it.

Although to be fair, its not that global warming/cooling doesn't exist. What people have a hard time accepting, is the anthropomorphic global warming theory. IE man caused. So, which is more likely? Human Greed pushing the hysteria? Or the idea that the 2% of yearly CO2 production each year that is actually created by man, is causing this enormous disruption to the environment, that will doom us all? Yeah, thanks, I'll keep my tax dollars rather then handing them over to the Al Gores of the world.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

NeverSubmitFeb. 28, 2012 - 02:59PM JST

Global warming is a farce.

"Melting sea ice in the Arctic may be causing the snowier winters the northern hemisphere has experienced in the last two seasons, U.S. and Chinese researchers reported on Monday."

Yes, as we know, things melt when they are cooled in climate change skepticland.

The only people still touting it are the UN and European elites because they're salivating over the idea of a global carbon tax to fill their coffers.

Don't forget the scientists - we're touting it too, because it makes scientific sense.

I'm glad that the nonsense theory is crumbling before our eyes.

More like "in your eyes" - and the universe does not care about your opinion, it will not change the fact that greenhouse gasses trap heat.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

There's no shortage of funding for scientists who want to "investigate" climate change, all courtesy of the Rockefeller, Carnagie and Gates foundations. Hence scientists, who need to eat and live well like every one else, tend to try to tout climate change in order to fatten their own research budgets and wallets.

Science has crooked people just like every other profession. Luckily, the amount of scientists openly questioning the theory is growing by the day

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I HATE when JT does a story about climate change because every time I have to come here and walk back stupid poeople's comments. Global warming is occurring. This is true. It is a fact. There is no more denying it unless you want to be considered stupid. The debate ended years ago within the weather community. They US Navy, Air Force and Marines teach it to their weather forecasters. The only people debating it now are the oil companies and the NASCAR circuit. The adults in the room have come to a conclusion that it is, indeed happening.

Heh, so whats happening is, that global warming is causing global cooling. So funny.

Well, if you want to take a 2nd graders (or a republican) point of view on this and break it down to the most simplistic of terms, I guess you are right.

What is happening however, is that the polar ice caps are melting. The melting ice adds water vapor to the air, creating more clouds.

That water vapor is somewhat close to the earth at the poles. 300, 500, 700, 850, 1000 millibars are at a much different altitude at the poles than they are in the mid-latitudes.

So yes, the cold air is moving southward, at about 18,500 feet in the air. They aren't talking surface temperatures. You really thought you were on to something, didn't you? Man, you don't weather. Give it up.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Wait for the extra snow tax to kick in soon from the govts who use the global warming scare tactics to gather revenue.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

The Truth MattersFeb. 29, 2012 - 12:30AM JST

If you can provide me with a link to one (1) reputable university study or scientific study, I'll be shocked. I'm betting you can't.

We'll be waiting a long time on that I think!

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I HATE when JT does a story about climate change because every time I have to come here and walk back stupid poeople's comments. Global warming is occurring. This is true. It is a fact. There is no more denying it unless you want to be considered stupid. The debate ended years ago within the weather community.

I feel the same though for different reasons. So many clueless and gullible people come here to try to defend global warming theory. As to the debate within the weather community, there is minimal support amongst those who actually understand the weather. Perhaps you remember about 8 years ago, back when the hysterics first started claiming that hurricanes are caused by global warming, the howls of laughter by those who actually study hurricanes.

The thing is, that 2% addition to CO2 production is beyond the capacity of the Earth to balance.

See its these kind of comments, that drive me crazy. You claim to believe in science, but you put out these totally unsupported statements. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Science requires such. For that matter, real science requires skepticism, something that is less and less permitted by the true believers.

That is 180 degrees wrong. The amount of REAL debate among REAL scientists isn't about whether it's happening, it's about how fast and if we can stop it.

Heh, so, you know nothing about any reputable scientists questioning anthropomorphic global warming? Out of curiosity, is it hard to breath, keeping your head buried in the sand? About all I hear these days, are how more scientists are admitting they question the dogma. That and the hysterics trying to make it illegal to question their beliefs. I was reading recently how they are trying to make belief in global warming part of litmus test for employment, if you are going to be a weather broadcaster. Fortunately though, despite those determined to force us to believe, there are those voices unable to be silenced. Heh, it doesn't hurt that between the emails where they try to hide and cover up the facts, and the stories where they are forced to admit their own unethical behavior, fewer and fewer people are actually buying into the global warming hysteria.

We'll be waiting a long time on that I think!

Heh, go to junkscience.com Not hard to find plenty of links to both sides. Heh, yeah, had to wait a long time for that.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Molenir Feb. 29, 2012 - 02:20PM JST

I feel the same though for different reasons. So many clueless and gullible people come here to try to defend global warming theory. As to the debate within the weather community, there is minimal support amongst those who actually understand the weather. Perhaps you remember about 8 years ago, back when the hysterics first started claiming that hurricanes are caused by global warming, the howls of laughter by those who actually study hurricanes.

Really? http://www.usgcrp.gov/usgcrp/links/hurricanes.htm

"There is observational evidence for an increase of intense tropical cyclone activity in the North Atlantic since about 1970, correlated with increases of tropical sea surface temperatures."

See its these kind of comments, that drive me crazy. You claim to believe in science, but you put out these totally unsupported statements. Where is the proof? Where is the evidence? Science requires such. For that matter, real science requires skepticism, something that is less and less permitted by the true believers.

Evidence? There are hosts of peer-reviewed scientific papers on the subject. Here's one for example:

"Trends in the sources and sinks of carbon dioxide", C Le Quéré et al, Nature Geoscience 2, 831 - 836 (2009)

That's what scientists do - look at the research.

Heh, so, you know nothing about any reputable scientists questioning anthropomorphic global warming? Out of curiosity, is it hard to breath, keeping your head buried in the sand? About all I hear these days, are how more scientists are admitting they question the dogma.

The scientists who question global warming are the same old set that have always done so: Fred Singer, Roger Pielke Sr., John Christy and a few others. Who are the "more scientists" you talk of? Surely not Lord Monckton?

"We'll be waiting a long time on that I think!"

Heh, go to junkscience.com Not hard to find plenty of links to both sides. Heh, yeah, had to wait a long time for that.

Molenir, just to jog your memory, The Truth Matters wrote:

"If you can provide me with a link to one (1) reputable university study or scientific study, I'll be shocked. I'm betting you can't."

junkscience.com appears to be a blog with political commentary on climate change issues - but there are no scientific studies in evidence, and to be honest - not a lot of activity.

It's interesting to compare and contrast it to http://www.skepticalscience.com/ - lots of scientific discourse, lots of comments, and a host of scientific papers referenced.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

I'm sorry buy any website calling themselves "skepticalscience.com" is gong to come without an agenda. Do try again.

Somebody in the weather community please. NOAA....The U.S. Navy, The Air Force, Texas A&M, NAVOCEANO, the JMA (their computer models are considered to be the second most accurate in the world, as of 2002). I'll take evidence from any of those perfectly credible organizations. None of them have an agenda other than to accurately predict the weather and the climate changes that are occurring on this planet.

Again, this is probably a thread ender.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Star-viking,

Either way, what Molenir did was a cop out. He said, there is a site, go find the evidence yourself. if you can't find it, it's there, you aren't looking hard enough.

My challenge was for someone to come up with a link to a scientific study, not a wild goose chase.

Also I went to skeptical science and spent about 10 minutes scrolling through articles. All were in favor of climate change (I was looking for skeptics). I finally found a skeptical research "study."

A big premise in the study was that earth experienced an extended La Nina. The study showed certain graphs to support it but failed to show the most important measure in finding a El Nino or La Nina, Sea Surface Temperature off the coast of Peru.

SST WASN'T EVEN MENTIONED IN THE "STUDY!" That's beyond laughable. Obviously they are trying to massage the data if they aren't using the most accurate and easily obtained data (drop a bucket over the side and throw a thermometer in there, it's what we did in the Navy).

So, I spent 10 minutes on the site, could only find one actual study against the idea and the study was done by a middle schooler.

Another round of slaps to the face for everybody! BRING IT ON!

If that's science I'm a healthy Stephen Freaking Hawkins!

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Oh Molenir...

Read em' and weep, pal.

http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus.htm

Here's the gist of it:

Several subsequent studies confirm that “...the debate on the authenticity of global warming and the role played by human activity is largely nonexistent among those who understand the nuances and scientific basis of long-term climate processes”. (Doran 2009). In other words, more than 95% of scientists working in the disciplines contributing to studies of our climate, accept that climate change is almost certainly being caused by human activities.

You got slapped with a challenge and then beat down hard my friend. I don't know why you insist on debating me about weather. I forecasted weather for the Navy for 14 1/2 years. Look up OTSRDO. One of the most important jobs in the Navy. I was the only E=6 to ever, in the 250+ year history of the US Navy, to qualify and stand the watch as OTSRDO at the weather center in Yokosuka. Hundreds of E-6s went through there, only one dared. Why do you think you can debate weather on an even keel with me? I don't know what you do for a living but I guarantee you know more about it than I do. I admit that freely. Isn't hard.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

Readers, that's enough of this nonsense.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

I'm having a hard time deciding who the bigger idiots are:

a) the people who read this article and immediately assume that global warming is causing the temperatures to go down

or

b) the people who don't believe that global warming exists

-1 ( +4 / -4 )

zichiFeb. 28, 2012 - 03:51PM JST

While I would support the theory of climate change there as many scientists against it as there are for it, just as they are with the use of nuclear energy.

Not correct, around 98% of scientists involved in climate science are for it, the perception that it is an even field is pushed by advocacy groups paid by big oil and coal. For example, Wall Street Journal published a recent op-ed which featured 16 'prominent scientists' against the theory of man-made climate change. The scientists included in their number aerospace engineer Burn Rutan, who I respect greatly - but not as a climate scientist. You have to wonder why they have the need to bolster their ranks with non-scientists.

Funnily enough, the WSJ rejected this op-ed by 255 members of the US National Academy of Sciences: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/328/5979/689.full.pdf

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Not quite a thread ender,

skepticalscience.com is on the science side of the debate, and is run by the physicist John Cook.

I understand your reaction though - the word "Skepticism" has been appropriated by the denialist side without thought for what it actually means - i.e. "looking at the evidence"

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

On the bright side, the Northwest Passage is now somewhat more navigable all year round.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

@thundercat. Article says "Instead, more cold air is descending into the middle and lower latitudes, “leading to ........................."

I read this as colder air moving further south than usual meaning lower temperatures in those areas. How do you read it? What do you think it means?

his elementary teacher is crying right now

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Global warming cause the temperatures to get colder. Interesting.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Global Warming....blah blah blah. Are they still trying to make people believe this?

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Global warming is a farce.

The only people still touting it are the UN and European elites because they're salivating over the idea of a global carbon tax to fill their coffers.

I'm glad that the nonsense theory is crumbling before our eyes.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Globaing warming? Rubbish.

-8 ( +5 / -13 )

ha - shocking typing. Global Warning. Complete poppycock.

-9 ( +3 / -12 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites