TCS Daily


Let It Snow, Let It Snow, Let It Snow...

By Joseph D'Aleo - June 2, 2006 12:00 AM

Much attention has been paid to the disappearance of ice and snow in the Polar Regions and mid-latitudes in the Northern hemisphere in recent years attributed to global greenhouse gas warming.

Of course in the summer, the snow and ice cover retreats to the highest latitudes. Satellite (NOAA CPC) data suggest that the summer levels of polar ice have been at unusually low levels in recent years, perhaps the lowest since the 1930s and 1940s (Polyakov, 2004).

Regardless of the changes in the summer season, the snow and ice have come roaring back each year in the early fall, and winter levels of ice and snow across many parts of the hemisphere are higher than they have been in many years and in some places in over a century.

Memorable snow years in parts of the US

Here in the U.S., it all started in March of 1993, when the "Storm of the Century" brought heavy snowfall (up to 4 feet) from Alabama to New York and New England with losses that totaled $7.6 billion and approximately 270 deaths. Then the "Blizzard of '96" in January deposited 1 to 4 feet of snow over the Appalachians, Mid-Atlantic, and Northeast; followed by severe flooding in parts of same area due to rain and snowmelt inflicting approximately $3.5 billion damage and 187 deaths.

That winter, the snows started early and never stopped coming. All-time seasonal snowfall records were set in dozens of cities in the east and central states including Boston (107.6" or 286% of normal), New York City (75.6 inches of 276% of normal), Philadelphia (63.1 inches or 303% or normal) and Baltimore, MD (63.5 inches or 303% of normal)

In the last few years, all time single storm records were shattered in the northeast cities. Just this last winter, on February 11-12th 2006 a blizzard set new all-time snowstorm record for Central Park in New York City with 26.9 inches. On February 17-18, 2003 a snowstorm set new all-time snowfall record for Boston with 27.5 inches. Another blizzard on January 24-25 2005 brought 22.5" at Boston's Logan Airport, along with high winds, 6 foot drifts and bitterly cold temperatures. Many measurements near Logan were 27-28" and the storm was compared by many to the blizzard of '78.

Boston since 1992/93 had had 5 years that rank among the top 10% snowiest winters in over 130 years of record, including numbers 1, 3, 5, and 7. If you do a 12-year running mean of average snowfall, the period from 1993/94 through 2004/05 for Boston, the average is the highest in the entire record dating back to the 1880s.


New York City (with annual snowfall data back to 1869), for the first time ever, had four successive years with over 40 inches of snow the last four winters. Its four-year running mean is the highest its entire 137 year record.

A few years ago you might recall, the Mt. Baker Ski Area in northwestern Washington State reported 1,140 inches of snowfall for the 1998-'99 snowfall season ending June 30, 1999. This was a new world record for seasonal snowfall.

Not just a local phenomenon

When you look at the Northern Hemispheric winter snow data (recorded back to 1967) you see a recent similar heavy snowfall trend. The average snowfall during the October to March period of 2002/03 exceeded the previous records set in the infamous cold and snowy period of the late 1970s.


The 5 year average snow across the hemisphere has increased each year for the last 7 years. Eurasia especially has experienced large snowfall increases. In fact this past January and the five year January average snowfall were both the greatest on record (since 1967).

What's behind the winter snow-blitz?

Snowfall here in the Northeast and across much of the Hemisphere relate to decadal scale cycles in the Atlantic and Arctic. Two atmospheric oscillations which generally operate in tandem -- the North Atlantic and Arctic Oscillations -- have significant control over the weather pattern including storm tracks and temperatures in both Europe and the eastern United States.


Since the middle 1990s, these oscillations have tended to be often in the phase that favored cold and snow (the negative or 'cold' phases) in both Europe and the eastern United States. The NAO and AO tend to be predominantly in one mode or the other for decades at a time. This relates to ocean temperatures in the Atlantic which exhibit decadal behavior.

Over the last decade the behavior of the NAO/AO has been similar to the 1930s and 1940s (Taylor, 2005) when the NAO moved from a positive to increasingly negative state. Interestingly, that was the last time the Polar Regions were this warm and the summer polar ice this thin and reduced in coverage (Polyakov et al, 2004). Unlike Antarctica where the ice sits on land, in the arctic it is floating on water and the water from one ocean (the Atlantic) can readily flow beneath the ice and if unusually warm, melt more of the ice from beneath.

As George Taylor summarized on this site in his story "Arctic Sea Ice -- Is It Disappearing?"

"A number of researchers have suggested that inflows of Atlantic water into the Arctic profoundly affect temperatures and sea ice trends in the latter ocean. Polyakov, et al (2004) are among these. The first sentence of their paper states 'Exchanges between the Arctic and North Atlantic Ocean have a profound influence on the circulation and thermodynamics of each basin.' The authors attributed most of the variability to multidecadal variations on time scales of 50-80 years, with warm periods in the 1930s-40s and in recent decades, and cool periods in the 1960s-70s and early in the twentieth century. These are associated with changes in ice extent and thickness (as well as air and sea temperature and ocean salinity). The most likely causative factor involves changes in atmospheric circulation, including but not limited to the Arctic Oscillation"



By the way, this latest mode of the North Atlantic Oscillation is the one that Dr .William Gray talks about that favored the sudden increase in Atlantic hurricane activity since the middle 1990s. Last year, Atlantic temperatures were the warmest on record, helping contribute to the record 28 named storms.

Snowfall has been on the increase in parts of the United States and the world to record proportions in recent years even as summer snow and ice levels reach multi-decadal lows. The changes relate to natural cyclical changes in the Atlantic Ocean and atmosphere that favor both more tropical activity in summer and more snowfall in winters.

Climatologists believe the current phase of the Atlantic cycle may last another decade or two. If this outlook is correct, we might expect both more big snows and hurricanes for years to come.

REFERENCES

Gray, William, "Global Warming and Hurricanes", Presentation to Florida Governor's Hurricane Conference, May 12, 2006 and podcast on TCS Daily.

Polyakov, I., Alekseev, G.V., Timokhov, L.A., Bhatt, U.S., Colony, R.L., Simmons, H.L., Walsh, D., Walsh, J.E. and Zakharov, V.F., 2004. Variability of the Intermediate Atlantic Water of the Arctic Ocean over the Last 100 Years. Journal of Climate 17: 4485-4497.

Taylor, George, "Arctic Sea Ice, Is It Disappearing?", TCS Daily March 2005,

Taylor, George, "Hurricanes and Global Warming. Is There a Link?", TCS Daily September 2004

Global Snow Cover Data: http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/ and http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/data/snow/.

Categories:

70 Comments

Great Information and Illustrations
Thanks for all of this great information and illustrations for it.

I wonder if roy and stephen
are going to continue with their claims that what is happening right now in the artic is both unusual, and proof that we are all going to die?

Either Or? Not!
Of course their are natural cycles of warming and cooling, but ON TOP OF THAT, we have man-made warming due to the highest levels of CO2 in the last 650,000 years. Furthermore, we know from CO2 absorption in the oceans that 50% of the CO2 comes from us (via ratios of Carbon 12, 13, and 14)

Corporate America warms to fight against global warming
USA Today, May 31, 2006

Paul Anderson, the chairman of Charlotte-based Duke Energy, is no closet left-winger. He's a REGISTERED REPUBLICAN, BUSH BACKER, AND MEMBER OF THE PRESIDENT'S COUNCIL OF ADVISORS ON SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY. That such a Big Business stalwart is demanding federal action on climate change illustrates an unmistakable evolution in corporate thinking, motivated both by evidence that global warming already is affecting the economy and by the prospect of fat profits from new environment-friendly products.

"IF WE APPROACH THIS RATIONALLY, it will not be disruptive to the economy and will not turn the world upside down and will, at the same time, address the problem," says Anderson.

Corporate America, which once regarded cries of "global warming" about as favorably as The Communist Manifesto, increasingly is embracing the need for reducing human contributions to the planet's rising temperatures. Forty companies -- including BOEING, IBM, JOHN HANCOCK AND WHIRLPOOL -- have publicly endorsed the notion that climate change is real by joining a business council organized by the Pew Center on Global Climate Change...

http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/
2006-05-31-business-globalwarming_x.htm

A Green Treasury Secretary
Paulson splits with Bush climate policy
AP, June 2, 2006

Henry Paulson, nominated Tuesday by Bush to succeed John Snow at Treasury, took an early interest in nature. He was RAISED AS A CHRISTIAN SCIENTIST on an Illinois farm, where he still keeps five acres and has let raccoons have the run of the house. Before college he wanted to become a forest or park ranger. Instead he opted for a business career, getting an MBA from Harvard ... "Environment is my passion," Paulson told Charlie Rose in a 2004 interview...

"It isn't every day that the SIERRA CLUB FINDS ITSELF WELCOMING A NOMINATION TO GEORGE W, BUSH'S CABINET while ultraconservatives decry the move," said Carl Pope, the Sierra Club's executive director. "But on issues like global warming, Hank Paulson appears to favor managing risk rather than cooking the books," Pope said.

Last year, under Paulson's direction, Goldman Sachs issued an eight-page position paper on environmental policy, saying it ACCEPTS A SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS, led by United Nations climate experts, THAT GLOBAL WARMING POSES ONE OF THE GREATEST THREATS THIS CENTURY...

http://www.delawareonline.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/
20060602/BUSINESS/606020331/1003

Who cares?
First, provide the evidence, the study name if you please, of the "highest levels of CO2 in the last 650,000 years".

Second, the fact that corporations are throwing money at a major PR offensive to make them look as though they are worried about climate change is brilliant. Read the part about "the prospect of fat profits from new environment-friendly products". Technology is already moving forward, why get the AGW idiots to pay for it? Like I said brilliant.

At what point do you believe this proves AGW?

A word on consensus...
It has been noted that consensus is the refuge of scoundrels and the best way to avoid meaningful and scientific debate by claiming that the matter is already settled.

Science has nothing to do with consensus. Consensus is politics. Science only requires one investigator who is right. By right I mean they have results that are verifiable to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. Great scientists are great because they broke with consensus.

There is no such thing as consensus science. Period.

Consensus is only invoked in situations where the science is not solid enough. Do you need to say it about E=mc2? How about the consensus that agrees that the Sun is 93 million miles away?

So keep it up Rhampton. Keep posting all of your little articles that show... what exactly? That a collection of non-scientific business men and politicians jumping on a bandwagon created by a shaky consensus whose platform consists of inaccurate and unscientific models believe that the sky is falling.

Ususally one should post scientific evidence that supports and/or proves your theory. What does this do?

What the plots show
Is that the data on snowfall has so much noise in it that any attempt to extract a meaningful signal is meaningless.

of course, I do vaguely remember how much snow there was in 1956 in Chicago. Hmm, maybe my conception of "a lot of snow" is because I was only 11 years old at the time.

I Care--So Do Others
New evidence extends greenhouse gas record from ice cores by 50%, adding 210,000 years
American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), November 24, 2005

...EPICA is the European Project for Ice Coring in Antarctica. The new ice core, initially described in 2004, is from a site in East Antarctica known as EPICA Dome C. This work represents a long-term European research collaboration and appears in two studies and an accompanying "Perspective" article in the 25 November 2005 issue of the journal Science, published by AAAS the nonprofit science society.

...The analysis highlights the fact that today's rising atmospheric carbon dioxide concentration, at 380 parts per million by volume, is ALREADY 27% HIGHER THAN ITS HIGHEST RECORDED LEVEL DURING THE LAST 650,000 YEARS, said Science author Thomas Stocker of the Physics Institute of the University of Bern, in Bern, Switzerland, who serves as the corresponding author for both papers.

...The new work CONFIRMS THE STABLE RELATIONSHIP between Antarctic climate and the greenhouse gasses carbon dioxide and methane DURING THE LAST FOUR GLACIAL CYCLES. The new ice core analysis also extends this relationship back another two glacial cycles, to a time when the warm "interglacial" periods were milder and longer than more recent warm periods, according to the European researchers.

The fact that carbon dioxide and methane levels were lower during the relatively mild warm periods of the two additional cycles, compared to the warmer warm periods of the last 400,000 years, is especially interesting for the study of climate sensitivity, which is a measure of how the climate system reacts when atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations double, explained Science author Dominique Raynaud from LGGE in Grenoble, France...

http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2005-11/aaft-nee111805.php

Where is global warming when you need it?
You never hear global warming advocates in the winter when record low temperatures are being set.

Data without a connection... AGAIN!
Here is what I found out about the ice cores that you seem to believe provide some connection to carbon and GW:

When the Vostok data is analyzed for much shorter time periods (decades at a time rather than centuries), something different emerged.

H. Fischer and coauthors reported in Science (283: 1712-1714, 1999) that the time lag of the rise in CO2 concentrations with respect to temperature change is on the order of 400 to 1000 years. In other words, CO2 changes are caused by temperature changes!

Many other recent studies have shown similar results. Studies by Indermuhle et al (2000), Monnin et al (2001), and Mudelsee et al (2001) indicated a lag of 800-1500 years between temperature and CO2.

Two counter-arguments stand out: it is unlikely that the rather low human populations of ancient times would have had the means to produce such high CO2 levels, aside from massive forest fires; and the high spikes in CO2 were more likely responses to the abrupt warm periods which are known to have existed. Warm periods would have triggered increases in plant life, which eventually would have died or been burned and released to the atmosphere as CO2. Warmer ocean temperatures would have released CO2 to the atmosphere (more CO2 is absorbed when water is cooler).

I find it interesting that you omitted such conclusions from your posts. I am starting to look into your sources and find that you omit a great deal. You are dishonest and unscrupulous and you are exposed.

This information is scientific data to be sure but it in no way supports your alarmist AGW theories and models.

Zero Point
"Consensus is only invoked in situations where the science is not solid enough. Do you need to say it about E=mc2?"

Actually, yes we do need to say there is consensus about E=mc2. Why? Because current understanding of Physics can not reconcile Relativity with Quantum Mechanics, and so we have theoretical "bridges" like String Thoery, Dark Matter, and Dark Energy.

--------------

ZPV Background/Jordan Maclay/Quantum Fields LLC
Quantum Fields LLC, January 23, 2001

In general relativity, any form of energy has an equivalent mass, given by E = mc2, and is therefore coupled to gravity. This enormous zero-point energy density is equivalent to a mass density of about 1092 kg/cc, and would be expected to cause an enormous gravitational field. THIS LARGE FIELD LEADS TO SOME MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH GENERAL RELATIVITY, such as the collapse of the universe into a region of space that is about 1 Planck length across. Thus we have an inconsistency in two very important and well-verified theories, QED and General Relativity.

http://www.quantumfields.com/ZPV.htm

--------------

Dark energy
Physics Web, May 2004

...The existence of gravitationally repulsive dark energy would have dramatic consequences for fundamental physics. The most conservative suggestions are that the universe is filled with a uniform sea of quantum zero-point energy, or a condensate of new particles that have a mass that is 10-39 times smaller than that of the electron. SOME RESEARCHERS HAVE ALSO SUGGESTED CHANGES TO EINSTEIN'S GENERAL THEORY OF RELATIVITY, such as a new long-range force that moderates the strength of gravity. But there are shortcomings with even the leading conservative proposals. For instance, the ZERO-POINT ENERGY DENSITY would have to be precisely tuned to a value that is an unbelievable factor of 10120 below the theoretical prediction. In view of these extreme solutions, perhaps it is more reasonable to expect a conventional explanation for the accelerating expansion of the universe based on astrophysics (e.g. the effects of dust, or differences between young and old supernovae). This possibility has surely kept more than a few cosmologists awake at night...

http://physicsweb.org/article/world/17/5/7

Keep posting...
because it clearly shows that you have no understanding of science at all.

E=mc2 has never been disproven. It is a scientific fact that has been proven over and over again in physical experiments performed over decades by scientists of every race, color, and political bent.

The fact that all mechanics of reality have not been worked out in no way invalidates the theory of relativity nor Quantum theory. Both have been refined by the scientific method that has been mercifully free (almost) by the dogma and witch-hunting that plagues climate research.

No one in physics ever speaks of their theories as a consensus. You can either prove it or you can't. If you ever do hear of a physicist supporting a theory in physics on the weight of consensus over fact then you know that physicist is lying or can't prove jack.

Stating the obvious
"indicated a lag of 800-1500 years between temperature and CO2."

We have a circumstance in which CO2 has risen within 200 years and temperatures have followed. Why? Because they are INTERCONNECTED -- the one effects the other.

And please, do read everything I link to, that's why I include them.

Cosmologically Constant Posting
Einstein's New Clothes
by Jochen Weller
Quantum Diaries, October 2, 2005

...We are in a situation now, that if we believe Einstein's Equation of Gravity, 95% of the Universe are unknown to us. This reminds me of the fairy tale by Hans Christian Anderson, "The Emperor's New Clothes", where everybody admires the new suit of the emperor, which according to the crooked tailors is only visible to smart people. Until a little kid shouts: "But he [the emperor] has nothing on at all".

This is setting the scene for a new approach to gravity. The earliest published approaches to an alternative description of General Relativity were done by Pasqual Jordan in 1945. The earliest published approaches to an alternative description of General Relativity were done by Pasqual Jordan in 1945. In 1961 Brans and Dicke studied a similar theory, which effectively resulted in a theory of General Relativity with a varying gravitational constant. Since Brans and Dicke wrote their paper about an extension of Einstein gravity with higher order curvature terms, theorists in the back of their minds are aware that Einstein's theory of gravity might not be the final answer. However Einstein's general relativity is an incredible successful theory, which so far has stood all direct, albeit local tests, like the perihel precession of mercury. Hence any valid extension of gravity has to pass these tests as well...

http://qd.typepad.com/8/2005/10/index.html

----------------------

Is Cosmic Speed-Up Due to New Gravitational Physics?
Phys.Rev. D70 (2004) 043528

We show that cosmic acceleration can arise due to very tiny corrections to the usual gravitational action of General Relativity of the form R^n, with n 0, can lead to early-time inflation, our proposal provides a unified and purely gravitational origin for the early and late time accelerating phases of the Universe.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0306/0306438.pdf

Oh Dear
"In other words, CO2 changes are caused by temperature changes!" - Wrong the two are coupled, neither are a driver, or a trigger.

Wow - did you you just solve the mystery of the ice ages? ummm No There are lots of theories/and models about CO2 changes in glacial cycles but none quite so stupid as the one you made up. Plants fix CO2, they don't produce it. If all your extra plant growth was then released back to the atmosphere then CO2 levels would just rebound to that at the start of the warming...not 100ppm more than that as observed. The solubility pump is a factor but doesn't even go close to explaining the whole CO2 change. Go read some science. Hint: look under biological pump, iron limitation in the southern ocean, carbonate compensation depth, and peat permafrosts for starters

highest, or not
Interesting.

Despite this "highest CO2 levels in 650,000 years", we still have temperatures that are cooler than they were 1000 years ago, before CO2 levels rose.

Kinda proves that CO2 don't matter much, doesn't it.

all this CO2, yet the science tells us that at least half of the warming is due to the sun
and probably way more than half when the UHI is subtracted.

connections
every other time CO2 lagged warming.
this time it preceded. Why is this time different?

Since CO2 played no role in climate for the last 650,000 years, why is it so important now?

where did that come from
he did not claim to have solved anything. Just pointed to data that blows holes in your theory.

just yesterday
stephen, the world's greatest scientist, told us that science has nothing to do with agreement.

Science and the Scientific Method
In one respect -- the Scientific Method -- science has nothing to do with agreement. But to teach science, even to simply discuss ideas, there needs to be some agreement on accepted knowledge, including theories and hypotheses.

Often there can be competing explanations, but a consensus will build as evidence accumulates. That's why there's strong acceptance of General Relativity, despite limitations, and weak acceptance of String theory.

Cycles
"Every other time CO2 lagged warming. this time it preceded. Why is this time different?"

What is different is that we have used billions of tons of cement and oil within the last two centuries -- layering anthropogenic CO2 and the resulting heat on top of natural rythms.

"Since CO2 played no role in climate for the last 650,000 years, why is it so important now?"

CO2 absolutely played a part in the climate in the past and will continue to do so in the future -- the greater the amount, the greater the effect.

The Carbon Cycle
NASA - Earth Observatory

On Earth, carbon cycles through the land, ocean, atmosphere, and the Earth's interior in a major biogeochemical cycle (the circulation of chemical components through the biosphere from or to the lithosphere, atmosphere, and hydrosphere). The global carbon cycle can be divided into two categories: the geological, which operates over large time scales (millions of years), and the biological/physical, which operates at shorter time scales (days to thousands of years)...

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/CarbonCycle/

Record low temperatures?
When and where have there been record lows set recently? We had a few cold winters in the seventies, but nothing historically unusual.

And then we've had some inversions. The winter of 1978-79 saw Siberian lows in Moscow-- around 35-40 below, which for Moscow is REALLY unusual. But at the same time, Siberia itself was experiencing relatively balmy Moscow-like highs of five and ten above.

If you're familiar with degree-days, why don't you find some data and calculate degree-days for American cities during recent winters. See if any glaring lows stand out, relative to previous decades.

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/cdus/degree_days/mctycddy.txt

The author's premise is beside the point
This author mischaracterises the argument when he says "Much attention has been paid to the disappearance of ice and snow in the Polar Regions and mid-latitudes in the Northern hemisphere in recent years attributed to global greenhouse gas warming." The ice and snow are not "disappearing" in the sense that it is snowing less. In fact warmer polar temperatures are always accompanied by greater precipitation. He's never heard of it being "too cold to snow"?

What is happening is that there is always a dynamic between accumulation and melting. When snowfall outpaces melting you get deeper snow packs. And if a snow pack doesn't melt by fall, when it starts snowing again, you have the inception of a continental glaciation.

When melting outpaces accumulation you have a net loss of mass in existing glaciers. This is the case today with maybe 90% of all glaciers worldwide.

This is also the case with Antarctica, taken as a whole and Greenland, taken as a whole. Seek verification and you will find it.

27% Higher Today
Not at all, because there are many factors, so there were (are) different causes for different warming and cooling periods. I hope you don't think that the Earth's climate opeates with the repetitive precision of a swiss watch.

And it's not just that co2 is higher than at any time in the psat 650,000 years, it's 27% HIGHER AND CLIMBING.

Al Gore is in town!!!...by northernguy
Al Gore is in town today promoting his new movie while disclaiming any interests at all in the presidency.



The local t.v. stations were in turn promoting him! It was covered as a major news event with much talk about his dedication to the _cause_ and his outstanding principled character as reflected in his movie. There was mention of his unrelenting _courage_ in exposing unpleasant truths that were sure to inconvienience some people. While narrating this material which must have come from Gore's p.r. people they showed clips from the movie. Two of the longest, presumably because of their emotional appeal, were shots of polar bears and satellite shots of hurricanes.


Since neither the polar bear or hurricane scare scenarios have any basis in fact as evidence of anything other than decadal variation you will have to count me as a Gore sceptic. As long as this is the kind of stuff used to advance human caused global warming belief systems then count me as an a.g.w. sceptic as well.

If Gore actually believes he invented the internet or any of the stuff in his movie then he is an idiot. If members of the general public believe such they are idiots too.


It is true that the Churchill polar bear population is falling but I am old enough to remember the agonising about what was causing the massive increase in the Churchill bear numbers. While contemporary numbers in Churchill area have fallen they still have not reached what was a stable level for generations. Of the twenty or so other population groups of polar bears one other shows some decline. The rest are thriving. There are more reports of polar bears drowning because there are more people in the area with video cameras observing such events who seem to be completely unaware that polar bears have always drowned. Having worked in the high arctic I can tell you it's a tough life for everything up there including polar bears.



I am also old enough to remember when hurricanes were much more common than they have been up until the last very few years. They were more frequent, more powerful and covered a greater range. I remember the irony of buying Florida real estate being explained to me as a kid. Just like someone buying the Brooklyn Bridge it was stupid to buy Florida land because it was underwater. When I asked why anyone would buy land that was underwater it was explained to me that it was underwater only during the hurricane season that occured every year but looked good the rest of the year.



Well, of course for the last forty years hurricanes have become relatively rare and weak. In the interlude billions of dollars in assets and millions of people have been located there. Thus contemporary hurricanes produce record amounts of damage but are nowhere record in terms of size, intensity, frequency or duration.
Katrina was _not_ as in not (that's _not_) the most powerful or the biggest or the strongest or the anything hurricane ever. Of course it, and it's aftermath, did take out refineries, oil platforms, pipelines, chemical plants and the poorly maintained dikes surrounding New Orleans but that's no indication of record anything but damage. Fifty years ago buying Florida real estate was a joke. Now it's becoming a govt. subsidised joke again.


But I'm not laughing this time!


SO?
"And it's not just that co2 is higher than at any time in the psat 650,000 years, it's 27% HIGHER AND CLIMBING."

Theory supports a logrithmic affect and even your precious models today can't get it right.

Proof
Acceptance of a theory requires proof. Lots of proof based upon repeatable, experimental results.
Even today, experiments are still conducted to prove Eistein or quantum theory.
What is also noted is the theory is incomplete.
Newton will take you so far. Einstein can take you so far. But they did not get the whole picture. That doesn't make them wrong, only incomplete.
And until a theory can be proven experimentally, it will remain theory.
String theory may provide an elegant mathematical solution, but until an experiment can be devised to prove the theory it will remain a matter of faith, like AGW.

Record Low Temp in Russian 2006
"Russia experienced its most severe cold wave in 100 years in January 2006, and there was an unexpectedly severe winter in Japan. A temperature of -58°C was recorded in the Evenki Autonomous District and in the Krasnoyarsk area in central Siberia on January 12. This was 22°C lower than the normal temperature of -36°C for that locale in January."
http://www.eorc.jaxa.jp/en/imgdata/topics/2006/tp060224.html

Corporate America's silly song and dance
"Facts," as Scottish novelist Tobias Smollett said back in 1750, "are stubborn things."


When a controversial issue in science is politicized and becomes a fad, does an ordinary person have the tools to judge whether it is likely to be good science or junk science carried along by scare headlines and politically-correct institutional dog-wagging?

Well, the ordinary person has some advantages that academic scientists often lack — such as common sense, a disinterested objectivity, and freedom from peer pressure or political agenda. He does not need to worry about rejection of his doctoral thesis or denial of tenure if he says something heretical to establishment science. The ordinary person is not trained in acceptance of the currently prevailing paradigms of institutional science, and he is able to see things that the intensely specialized graduate studies and tightly focused paradigms of the academic world tend to filter out.

Our atmosphere consists mainly of nitrogen, oxygen, carbon dioxide, water vapor, and dust. All these elements are directly or indirectly necessary for plant and animal life on earth. Each of these six elemental substances is taken from the air and replenished to the air in a regular cycle.

Although neither nitrogen or oxygen has an influence on the greenhouse effect, for some reason CO2 is assumed by environmentalists to influence the greenhouse effect so as to cause global warming. We are all waiting for an explanation of how CO2 differs from nitrogen and oxygen in its influence on the greenhouse effect. Until such explanation is forthcoming, it seems reasonable to suspect that the theorists are failing to differentiate between wholesome CO2 and poisonous CO1 (carbon monoxide) and other toxic gases that accompany CO2 in industrial pollution. Why are the global warming theorists singling out a wholesome gas that is necessary for life on earth as the culprit of the impending disasters they are predicting?

There are no carbon dioxide clouds above the earth, because liquid CO2 evaporates at 71 degrees below zero Fahrenheit. Dry ice, or frozen CO2 is interesting and useful stuff, commonly used to cool perishables during shipping. Dry ice "sublimes" at 109 degrees below zero F, which means it turns directly from a frozen solid to gas vapor. In the upper stratosphere, miles above the clouds, temperatures are low enough to condense CO2. However, there are no CO2 clouds at that altitude, because as dry ice crystals fall to earth and reach slightly warmer altitudes, they quickly sublime into CO2 fumes and dissolve into the atmospheric cocktail of gases. Unlike water mist in clouds but like water vapor in the air, CO2 gas does not refract light and has no greenhouse effect. Pilots use dry ice to seed clouds and induce rain. If this phenomenon can occur in nature without the help of pilots —which may be remotely possible during extremely cold weather conditions in polar regions — it would work against global warming. The seeding of clouds reduces atmospheric water vapor and thus reduces cloud cover, which in turn works against global warming.

The burden of proof lies with those who claim that CO2 gas has a greenhouse effect, because they have presented NO understandable mechanism or process that explains how CO2 gas in the atmosphere increases heat on earth. The greenhouse metaphor that is successful for water droplets in clouds appears to be a failure when applied to CO2 gas.



Quite a change from 2005
Thanks for the news item. I looked it up on the Jamestown Foundation site

http://www.jamestown.org/publications_details.php?volume_id=24&issue_id=1935&article_id=17923

and found in fact that this past January was bitter cold up there.

Then I looked for a point of comparison and found 2005 to have been fairly balmy across Russia.

http://www.meteo.ru/isklim/cl2005e.htm

In fact you'll want to check out Figure 1. Most people consider the 1930's to have been a warm period across the globe-- and in fact the GW deniers all think it was warmer then than it is now. So imagine my surprise to find out that during the period 1936-2005 there has been a distinct warming trend.

Amazing what one can uncover when they look at the data. Thanks for pointing this one out for me.

Data
Data is great.
Especially when it is accurate, when all uncertainties in its collection are known, when it is analyzed properly and when all is made public for review.

Stop the silly fear mongering
"I hope you don't think that the Earth's climate operates with the repetitive precision of a swiss watch."

Actually, it does.

Perspective
Also perspective and context are important.
In spite of all the modern media and access to history, people still seem to believe they are the first to have exprienced life.
As for climate and hurricanes for example, there have been huricane seasons in recorded history that have been worse that last year. It is just those people did not have FEMA to pick up the pieces, and they did not have air conditioning to put up with the summers.

"Given the significance of societal change in trends of hurricane damage,
one way to present a more accurate perspective on such trends is to
consider how past storms would affect present society. Pielke and Landsea
(1998) presented a methodology for ‘‘normalizing’’ past hurricane damage
to present day values (using wealth, population and inflation). Fig. 5
shows the historical losses of Figure 1 normalized to 2001 values. The
normalized record shows that the impacts of Hurricane Andrew, at close to
$40 billion (2001 values), would have been far surpassed by the Great
Miami Hurricane of 1926, which would cause an estimated $93 billion
damage had it occurred in 2001."

http://cspo.org/ourlibrary/documents/bringsociety.pdf

Also, a consistent trend from 1936-2005 in North America has been the paving of America. How many acres were covered in asphalt and concrete during that time.
How many square feet of roof and wall have been added since that time?
So while I can agree that human activity can affect local climates, it is irresponsible to ONLY consinder CO2 and the fact that local temperature data may be affected by local heat islands in urban areas.
I know the 70s in the upper midwest was quite varied with blizzards in 75 and droughts and cold (-30F) weather. Lately it has moderated, but wait, it will change.

Dead horses beaten mercilessly
I really don't know what you believe you showing here.

>"However Einstein's general relativity is an incredible successful theory, which so far has stood all direct, albeit local tests"

Whereas AGW has not had a single direct test or proven physical manifestation.

Never did I say that E=mc2 was the end of the investigation into the universe. It is but one aspect but it is one that all scientists can physically test, confirm, and compare to other scientists tests. Even if consensus was against the theory of relativity one would have to recognize that is works.

Where further experimentation goes is up in air but for the time being E=mc2 bears very harsh scrutiny. It requires no consensus to be considered valid. It works and is proven to work. It does not revolve around situations found only inside computer models.

Let it go Rhampton. To really win this argument, supply an experiment that absolutely, and in no uncertain terms, predicts the effects of a particular cause to a particular effect of AGW. Then show me the repeatable nature of that study.

If you can't, shut up.

Unlike others...
I don't make wild statements based on such minimal evidence. I merely pointed out that Rhampton's source data cannot be used to pointout AGW because it would seem to be converse of what he says it represents.

It is a familiar tactic of AGW alarmists to selectively pick through a study for those things they like and omit those pesky facts that don't support there "inconvenient truths".

Science is not a salad bar.

sources vs causes
Since CO2 has never caused a rise in temperature in the past, why do you believe that it is a major forcer now?

the past
At no time in our planets history, has rising CO2 been associated with rising temperatures.

You insist on believing that this time is different. Apparently because this time the CO2 is being caused by man, not anything natural.

Do you really believe that where the CO2 comes from makes a difference to the atmosphere?

Marjon beat me to it ;)
-r,

CO2 is logarithmic in effect, even the venerable Mikey admits to this.

This means (for the umpteenth time) that you must DOUBLE the amount to get even HALF THE EFFECT.

This is a pattern of diminishing returns, vis a vis CO2's attributable effect on atmospheric radiation absorbtion.

It's frustrating to see so many people waste their lives and their energy on being hysterical.

-r, I am reminded of that scene in AIRPLANE!, where the woman is hysterical, and a nun slaps her in the face to calm her down, but it doesn't work, so Leslei Neilsen slaps her, THAT doesn't work, so another guy slaps her, and then we see there is a whole long line of people waiting for their turn to slap her.

All of you global warming alarmist nuts are hysterical, and need a whole long line of people to slap you in the face and calm you down.

I suppose it's natural, in a way, that such hysteria would exist. While Man has been around for millenia, it has only been recently, within the last hundred years or so, that Man has begun to think of himself as at anything other than the mercy of the planet. For millenia, the planet did whatever it bloody well wanted, and the natural state of Man was a respect and awe for the occasional harshness and cruelty of 'Mother Nature'. Now, however, we have learnd *science*, and have convinced ourselves we have *control*, and that we, Man, are the ultimate *cause* of everything which happens on the planet. And therefore, anythinig bad which happens, or even anything which some people assume must be bad, that We, Mankind, are responsible, and that we must now somehow *Do Something* to stop it.

The Earth is just doing what it has always done. Yes, it is possible, and even likely, that the contribution of Man to this constant cycle has *some* effect.

Technically speaking, if you spit in the ocean, it also has an effect on sea level, *JUST NOT A BIG EFFECT*, and certainly not worth agonizing over the devastation which will surely follow if more people continue to spit in the ocean, so all spitting in the ocean must be taxed and outlawed.

Because, frankly, the Earth is warming up some, it was always GOING to warm up some now, and not only are we not causing it to happen, we are having a miniscule effect on this warming, and there is nothing we can do to stop it, nor is there even any compelling evidence that it would in any way be beneficial to even try.

Maybe we need to open up 'Slapping Stations', so all you hysterical global warming nuts can come and have a line of sensible people repeatedly slap some sense into you.

consensus and agreement
relativity is widely accepted for one reason only.
It has survived multitudes of tests.

AGW hasn't survived a single test. The only, I repeat, only, support for AGW comes from computer models. Models which have been shown to fail miserably when they attempt to model current and past climates. Models which hve to be heavily tuned in order to get as close as they have gotten to the real world. (But still far short.)

just goes to show you how variable to climate is`
yet AGW alarmists want us to believe that every deviation from some mythical mean, is evidence that mankind is killing the planet.

weather stations
Did you know that there are only about 8000 weather stations covering the entire planet?
Did you know that only the eastern US and western Europe are adequately covered with sensors?

In the April 2005 Bulletin of the American Meteorological society, they printed a paper by a couple of scientists who investigated every weather station in eastern Colorado. According to their results, less than half of the stations met minumum standards for site quality. Most of the flaws found in the survey would cause stations to read hot. I remember a picture of one station that was about 3 feet from the side of a house, and about 6 feet away from an airconditioner unit.

If 50% of the stations are being adequately maintained in a rich country like the US. What shape are these stations in the rest of the world.

roy vs. reality
The antarctic and greenland glaciers are growing.
We've covered this issue many times.
But as usual, roy is impervious to reality.

hurricanes
Prior to the launching of weather satellites, any hurricane that didn't hit land, had a good chance of being missed altogether.

I read it all, I got hit by Emily and Katrina here in Cancun
The article was very precise, I also have been familar with this, and I wrote an article in 2004, for www.bodybuilding.com/fun/knopfler.htm skroll down to the article, "Don't let the Sun catch you crying", be patient, don't get annoyed by the pictures its not a science site so I had to simplify for audience reading, but because this site is all over the world, I got very positive reponses, from everywhere. I also wrote two articles for http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/viewByAuthor.asp?authorID=777, Don't worry I'm not shy about my ignorance, so feel free(which I know you all do), my ego is not that fragile, thick skin, fire away. thankyou

Resend,
The articles in american chronicle are called Solar sacrifices, I failed to put iy in my last transmission, a moment ago, thankyou for understanding.

The Permian Mass Extinction
Actually, there is some evidence to suggest that increased CO2 levels led to catastrophic climate change:

Global warming may have triggered worst mass extinction
NCAR, August 29, 2005

...Kiehl and coauthor Christine Shields focused on the dramatic events at the end of the Permian Era, when an estimated 90 to 95% of all marine species, as well as about 70% of all terrestrial species, became extinct. At the time of the event, higher-latitude temperatures were 18 to 54 degrees Fahrenheit (10 to 30 degrees Celsius) higher than today, and extensive volcanic activity had released large amounts of carbon dioxide and sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere over a 700,000-year period.

...The CCSM indicated that ocean waters warmed significantly at higher latitudes because of rising atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide (CO2), a greenhouse gas. The warming reached a depth of about 10,000 feet (4,000 meters), interfering with the normal circulation process in which colder surface water descends, taking oxygen and nutrients deep into the ocean.

As a result, ocean waters became stratified with little oxygen, a condition that proved deadly to marine life. This in turn accelerated the warming, since marine organisms were no longer removing carbon dioxide from the atmosphere.

http://news.mongabay.com/2005/0829-permian_triassic.html

---------------------

No Safe Ground for Life to Stand On During World's Largest
Mass Extinction
Imperial College, London, December 1, 2005

The world's largest mass extinction was probably caused by poisonous volcanic gas, according to research published today in the journal Geology.

...analysis of a unique set of molecules found in rocks taken from the Dolomites in Italy has enabled scientists to build up a picture of what actually happened. The molecules are the remains of polysaccharides, large sugar-based structures common in plants and soil, and they tell the story of the extinction.

The molecules date from the same time as a major volcanic eruption that caused the greatest ever outpouring of basalt lava over vast swathes of land in present day Siberia.

The researchers believe that the volcanic gases from the eruption, which would have depleted earth's protective ozone layer and acidified the land and sea, killed rooted vegetation. This meant that soil was no longer retained and it washed into the surrounding oceans.

http://www.imperial.ac.uk/P7101.htm

So what...
does this have to do with AGW?

You cling to the CO2 but fail to see the huge amounts of sulfur dioxide and other volcanic gases that was involved in the Permian extinction.

Do you now believe that CO2 causes volcanoes? Perhaps you just saw the words "greenhouse gases" and decided to paste it willy-nilly?

Walker Circulation & Dead Horses
I have done so many times in the past, but I will do so again for your edification.

Global Warming Weakens Trade Winds
LiveScience, May 3, 2006

...Using a combination of real-world observations and computer modeling, researchers conclude that a vast loop of circulating wind over the Pacific Ocean, known as the Walker circulation, has weakened by about 3.5% since the mid-1800s. The trade winds are the portion of the Walker circulation that blow across the ocean surface. The researchers predict another 10% decrease by the end of the 21st century.

The effect, attributed at least in part to human-induced climate change, could disrupt food chains and reduce the biological productivity of the Pacific Ocean, scientists said. The study was led by Gabriel Vecchi of the University Corporation for Atmospheric Research and is detailed in the May 4 issue of the journal Nature.

...The researchers used records of sea-level atmospheric pressure readings from as far back as the mid-1800s to reconstruct the wind intensity of the Walker circulation over the past 150 years. A computer climate model replicated the effect seen in the historical record.

Some of the computer simulations included the effects of human greenhouse gas emissions; others included only natural factors known to affect climate such as volcanic eruptions and solar variations.

"We were able to ask 'What if humans hadn't done anything? Or what if volcanoes erupted? Or if the sun hadn't varied?'" Vecchi said. "Our only way to account for the observed changes is through the impact of human activity, and principally from greenhouse gases from fossil fuel burning."

http://www.livescience.com/environment/060503_walker_circ.html

Mammoth Mountain CO2
Invisible CO2 Gas Killing Trees at Mammoth Mountain, California
USGS,

Since 1980, scientists have monitored geologic unrest in Long Valley Caldera and at adjacent Mammoth Mountain, California. After a persistent swarm of earthquakes beneath Mammoth Mountain in 1989, earth scientists discovered that LARGE VOLUMES OF CARBON DIOXIDE (CO2) gas were seeping from beneath this volcano. This gas is killing trees on the mountain and also can be a danger to people. The USGS continues to study the CO2 emissions to help protect the public from this invisible potential hazard.

...Although leaves of plants produce oxygen (O2) from CO2 during photosynthesis, their roots need to absorb O2 directly. The high CO2 concentrations in the soil on Mammoth Mountain are killing trees by denying their roots O2 and by interfering with nutrient uptake. In the areas of tree kill, CO2 makes up about 20 to 95% of the gas content of the soil; soil gas normally contains 1% or less CO2.

Geologists have detected CO2 emissions, like those at Mammoth Mountain, on the flanks of other volcanoes, including KILAUEA IN HAWAII and MOUNT ETNA IN SICILY. Measuring the rate of such gas emissions on the flanks of volcanoes or within calderas is difficult and labor intensive. Readings must be made at many locations using small gas-collection instruments placed on the soil.

http://quake.wr.usgs.gov/prepare/factsheets/CO2/

TCS Daily Archives