Over 2000 cold and snow records set in the USA this past week

@ Ric Werme says:
December 13, 2013 at 9:46 am
I noticed the same thing about the comments. Make some popcorn and read the comments of this LA Times article on the snow in Cario:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#axzz2nMzV6vMp
Not only is it fun reading, but it highlights (IMO) that the tipping point of public sentiment has been crossed…

Climate Change is Automatic, and it’s been that way for a billion years.

“77-’78 in SW Virginia was brutal. Even worse in the Ohio Valley.”
Recall those winters fondly, late 70s in New England. Blizzard of ’78 is the “big one” we still talk about. I was young, and full of beans, and in my element. Now I say, “No thank you.”

The cold is obviously cause by heat… lol

Yeah, it was brutal in ’78 up in Michigan – I remember we had ice that we could skate on well into the spring…
@ pokerguy – always like your comments over at Climate, Etc.

What up wit dat Big Al?

More of that global warming:
http://www.latimes.com/world/worldnow/la-fg-wn-snow-israel-egypt-20131213,0,1691393.story#axzz2nMzV6vMp

Eustace Cranch says:
December 13, 2013 at 10:30 am
Thanks for confirming my suspicions. That is just what I expect. Oh, the pain.

“Matthew W says:
December 13, 2013 at 10:17 am
Since the science is settled that man made global warming causes hotcoldwetdry, theses records are expected.”
The hocus-pocus science of climate change – ‘Hocostocalwetdry’
(See – ‘abracadabra’)
(sarc)

That’s an interesting correlation between the weakest solar cycle in a century and these heavy snowfalls and record freezing temperatures occurring throughout the world, and not just in the northern hemisphere.
Interesting still, there have also been small changes in earths orbital parameters, which are ongoing as a result of a major astronomical event that occurred in 1999.
But I suppose correlation does not imply causation, and then again, sometimes it does. or does it?
Steve from Rockwood says:
December 13, 2013 at 10:10 am
“BTW a first snowfall in Cairo in over 100 years is climate, not weather.”
Well, it only took 10 years for the 1970’s ice age scare to turn into the 1980’s man made global warming scam and another 10 years or so for man made global warming to turn into man made climate change. So I think a sensible bet is to think these so-called experts are full of [self snip] and prepare for global cooling again.

http://www.israelnationalnews.com/News/News.aspx/175126
DELICIOUS! Snowing in IRAN too!
You know what happens when HECK freezes over!!!

Resourceguy says:
December 13, 2013 at 10:18 am
“”It’s snowed in Cairo for the first time in 112 years”
Yes, and there were no sun spots at about that time 112 years ago. And as I noticed in viewing a TV documentary of Beethoven he wrote that in the summer of 1794 it was oppressively hot in Vienna and there was no ice supply in the city (from the Alps). I immediately turned off the documentary to go look up sun spots around the time of 1794 and it does show a spike around then before the onset of the Dalton. These things just keep popping up at me, for something that supposedly has no correlation to global temps.”
Indeed. Solar variation, including indirect effect, is the explanation for both the Little Ice Age’s onset and recovery, the pattern in sea level rise rate variation in the past century, and much more (as illustrated in http://img176.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=81829_expanded_overview_122_424lo.jpg for example). As Dergachev et al 2004 noted, the prime indirect effect of it relates to “the main factor affecting the weather and climate during tens of thousand years” (Russian paper translated into English, online at http://rjes.wdcb.ru/v06/tje04163/tje04163.htm ).
As a solar Grand Minimum appears to approach, later this decade and beyond should see substantial cooling. This year is still a local solar cycle maximum, but, after this cycle’s maximum diminishes over the next several years, then really serious cooling can occur. People today haven’t seen anything yet compared to what is coming later, so to speak.

Interesting that the good book says: (regarding
Jerusalem) ‘pray that your flight be not in the winter.’ No, God is not speaking of a Delta 573 or an El Al trip; he is speaking of actually fleeing on foot the surrounding area.
God has this so called climate fraud under wraps, but as these winter records are falling like dominoes, He still is in control.

Sorry – here is the anomaly chart …
http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf.php?ech=0&mode=100&map=1&archive=0

Smoking frog ,
You must be the pretend agw skeptic who also uses the name bbd on other blogs.

On a separate note northern Scotland is currently experiencing freak nice weather with temperatures touching 14C and unfrozen precipitation. The extreme weather is forcing inhabitants to abandon heavy coats and remove wooly hats. If present climate trends continue heavy plaid and tweed will die out by 2050 and by 2080 people may be forced to don casual sportswear and perhaps even sandals when venturing outdoors.

While I can relish the comedic element of the Mid East awash in snow, I fear we are just seeing the “tip of the iceberg” so to speak. My house is a lot closer to the next Laurentian Ice Shield than most here. I’m keeping my eyes open to see if I find armadillos fleeing to the south. Dang, it has been COLD here in the UP.

I thought that read “the AGU fail meeting.

Global warming my a**
I am more worried about the low temps and next years grape harvest for wine.
Geez the folks in Napa Valley are hating life.

Well, here in Southern VT, it’s a balmy 6.1F and 14″ of the white stuff on the way for the weekend.
Nobody around here is surprised, the general comment being:
“It’s about time, what took ya so long?”

Someone pleas call Al Gore and tell him to EFF OFF!!!

I will believe AGW is caused by man when Al Gore and Michael Moore fall on their sword to save the planet!

What are the global warming idiots going to do now?

http://snowcore.uwaterloo.ca/snowtweets/vis/
Interesting snow pack logging via twitter

Snow in Cairo!!!
I’m sorry folks, I just CAN’T imagine this scene being played with piping hot cups of Cadbury’s cocoa.
But it certainly would be worth waiting for.

CORRECTION of Smoking Frog Dec 13 at 11:55 PM
“… is set any given number …” should be “… is to set any given number …”

No no no, I thought that the science was settled!!! This can’t be!!! Better tell AlGore…

Interesting to read the comments on the LA Times. Any attempt to make a reasoned comment (as opposed to a “fun” throw away remark) seems to be met with the response – “you are a moron/stupid/doofus etc – you are a right wing conservative who cannot understand the difference between weather and climate and certainly can’t add up or do science.” All too typical a comment from those who will not engage their brains and critically examine the evidence in front of them.
But taking the difference between weather and climate – how is this defined? I’ve seen climate defined as average weather over time but this is too woolly. We seem to have a situation where every weather event can or cannot be attributed to agw. Is there a simple metric that a doofus like me could understand?? In my ignorance I thought measuring temperature would be sensible but apparently not.

@TB
Well, in Madrid, Spain for example, yes it’s about 10 (C) degrees (50 F) at noon, but it is freezing in the early morning, around -4 (C) (24 F)… And that is below average, because freezing temperatures is not normal in Madrid. So even that it seems ‘relatively warm’ for Europe, it is even there still below average… 4 years ago we were having drinks outside at a terrace in december. In the evening you would have a stunning 20 (C) degrees plus (70 F).
And look at the middle east, that blob of cold weather near Egypt/Israel is extremely cold. So no, there is no spot, even in Europe, where the temperature at the moment is above average.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Look, I’m sorry, this is not the film “The Day after Tomorrow” (in which there is ZERO physics applied BTW)
We have basic physics to consider here – conservation of energy.
The whole NH (or SH) – cannot turn markedly either warmer than or colder than the average (for the time of year).
Hemispheric radiative balance ensures that along with the central heating system of the Oceans.
Look at this again: http://www.meteociel.fr/modeles/ecmwf.php?ech=0&mode=100&map=1&archive=0
Are you saying that there is more blue than red there? – they should be about even but may not be as this is just a 2D snapshot of a 3D domain.
Also note that these are temp anomalies at ~5000ft and so in winter there will be boundary layer inversions in places that make surface temps colder than ave.

Oh Al, fat Al – what say you? I don’t think he cares. He’s too busy preaching to the mind numb and flying around the world in his G VI.

Global warming scam, yet another violation of our rights. The gov’t constantly violates our rights.
They violate the 1st Amendment by caging protesters and banning books like “America Deceived II”.
They violate the 4th and 5th Amendment by allowing TSA to grope you.
They violate the entire Constitution by starting undeclared wars.
Impeach Obama.
Last link of “America Deceived II” before it is completely banned:
http://www.amazon.com/America-Deceived-II-Possession-interrogation/dp/1450257437

Ah smoking frog,
It is you- BBD, your style of writing gives you away my friend.

My girlfriend is an AGW (Anthropogenic Goober Warmer)

Warmer sea surface temperatures which would be a result of climate change causes an atmospheric event called blocking. Blocking is when the flow of the jet stream is disrupted by high pressure usually over the northern Atlantic and pacific in the northern hemisphere. The CONUS was impacted by two blocking events in the pacific and Atlantic placing a trough of cooler air over most of the CONUS. So, climate change is happening and it alters the whole atmosphere so some places will be warmer than others and some cooler. Also, blocking is probably what is probably the result of cold and snowy conditions in the Mid East.

Robin Hood, you have to be an unmitigated moron. You’ve got hutzpah for posting such garbage, I’ll give you that, but it’s still intellectually shallow and you’re a typical uninformed liberal.

Sorry mr watts, delete if necessary, I just have an interest in following writing patterns of certain people.
Mr frog, taking a closer watch I see you posted under the name of dumb scientist, you sure turn up in a lot of areas under different names.
Going out on a long limb did you also post under the name your kids aren’t special on youtube.

TB (December 13, 2013 at 3:19 pm) :The lesson here is that where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth.”
That is true sometimes, but not always. When the polar jet pushes cold air south it might also push some north, but it might not. The average temperature of the earth doesn’t balance. There is no equilibrium anywhere never mind everywhere. When it gets warm. somewhere there is no balancing cold and vice versa.
The lesson here is that the earth can cool off drastically and there’s not much we can do about it.
The earth is warmed only by somewhat feeble sunlight which can be bounced back into space. The alleged increase in storminess also causes an increase in the earth’s net heat loss. Those effects can produce local cold that are not balanced by warmth somewhere else.

Thanks for the replies to my question though it was intended to be rhetorical in a sense.
Seems to me that there has been fluctuations in temperature over the last 100 years (and the history has been massaged) and it is a little warmer than before, but no measurable change for somewhere between 10 and 17 years. No real change in extreme weather events. Arctic ice getting smaller, opposite at the South pole. If you accept CO2 drives climate it will get hotter soon but if you consider things more holistically – it is more likely to get cooler. Which would be actually bad news.
I expect to see more hype, more fixed numbers, more grant-driven faux science, more cries for action and little or no change in the basic situation except it will be a cooler place generally. But when the hidden heat emerges (???) – or say we have a natural warming cycle or El Nino event, the skeptics will have been proved wrong. Or maybe not.
But this is a akin to a religion so belief is everything. We can’t possibly allow the null hypothesis. That would seriously upset some very well meaning folk.

eric1skeptic says:
December 14, 2013 at 10:23 am
TB (December 14, 2013 at 2:58 am) “We have basic physics to consider here – conservation of energy.”
That is absolutely incorrect. The planet cannot conserve energy because it is not a closed system.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric I am not referring to the overall radiative balance between Sun-Earth-Space when I stated the above. The chart in the link is a snapshot of the temperature at 5000ft in the NH. That is all. It does not have anything to do with flow of energy to/from Earth – other than the fundamental truth behind Earth’s energy budget.
What we have is a balance in total energy within the atmosphere at that instant. AND it must be conserved – in that the –ves and the +ves (ANOMALIES remember) sum to zero throughout the atmosphere. In reality they may not at the 850mb level taken on its own.
AND
“TB (December 13, 2013 at 3:19 pm) :The lesson here is that where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth.”
That is true sometimes, but not always. When the polar jet pushes cold air south it might also push some north, but it might not. The average temperature of the earth doesn’t balance. There is no equilibrium anywhere never mind everywhere. When it gets warm. somewhere there is no balancing cold and vice versa.
The lesson here is that the earth can cool off drastically and there’s not much we can do about it.
The earth is warmed only by somewhat feeble sunlight, which can be bounced back into space. The alleged increase in storminess also causes an increase in the earth’s net heat loss. Those effects can produce local cold that are not balanced by warmth somewhere else.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Eric, when the polar jet pushes cold air south, warm air MUST push north. If you do not understand the Meteorology then think of it as a draught through your living room. If cold air comes in from outside, ergo warm air inside will flow out. There is only some much energy and mass to be accommodated.
The Earth can only “cool off drastically” if the Sun suddenly loses power. If the Earth suddenly moved (further away) in orbit, or favoured the SH more for its winter sunshine – ie the NH got less in its summer. (Greater land-mass means more sensible heating). Or (God-forbid) there is a nuclear winter/massive volcanic aerosol concentrations emitted high into the Strat.
There is no extra heat loss via “alleged increased storminess” that is internal to the system and is just a vigorous mixing of air-masses in restoring (internal) thermodynamic equilibrium. The net Solar absorbed minus IR emitted will remain the same so long as the above external drivers do not change.

Regarding weather modification that has been bringing “snow” into unusual areas in the States, including Texas recently, it makes you wonder what kind of chemical agents [rest is trimmed per site policy. Mod]

_Jim (December 14, 2013 at 5:37 pm) “I’m having a little difficulty with this concept; is it your assertion that ‘jets’ are responsible for the movement of cold, polar air masses southward by ‘pushing’ them (the fronts)? I’ve yet to see them depicted that way on meteo charts or synopsis maps, in fact, they seem to run parallel to cold/warm fronts shown on meteo maps.”
_Jim, you are correct that the jet runs parallel to the isobars or in between the warm and cold air masses. That is due to the Coriolis force, otherwise the air motion at the altitude of the jet (aloft) would be from the high pressure over low latitudes to low pressure at high latitudes. The jet follows the polar front at the surface because that is the area of the highest horizontal temperature contrast and also the highest vertical contrast.
Thus there is control from the surface temperature contrast to the jet. But there is also control from the jet to the surface. As the jet develops waves, those waves push cold air south. A surface storm can do the same thing, but a surface storm is more typically a result of the upper wave itself.
There is often a Rossby wave over the North American continent due to the mountains along the west coast of the continent. However that wave, like all waves, eventually propagates east. But before it does it pushes cold air south into the US, so essentially it can be said that the Rockies can push cold air south.
However my main point is not that cold air is pushed south (and thus warm air north) but that cold air can develop spontaneously from weather. When it does, there is no counterbalancing warm air somewhere else. Thus TB’s claim that “where there is unusual cold – there are also areas of unusual warmth” is not necessarily true and there are absolutely no constraints on global weather by the instantaneous conservation of energy in the earth’s atmosphere. The basic reason is that the net ocean and space fluxes can vary greatly over just a single day thanks to the coincidence of cooling or warming weather across the planet. That weather can average out but it does not have to.

We should send some nucular bombs into the sun to get it stated again. And Obuma should fire up those coal burning power plants before this absence of heat turns into ALgore’s next crusade
REPLY: The sum total of the nuclear arsenal on Earth wouldn’t even make a blip in the sun’s energy processes – Anthony

Mario Lento December 14, 2013 at 1:57 pm
The post says ironic, but you feel like even though the word used was irony, that it was meant to imply “important”. You say you frequent WUWT, however if you did, you would know clearly that skeptics believe weather is not climate. The irony is that the basic theme of warmists is that weather is in fact climate if it can be used as proof of AGW. If you do not understand irony, and if you do not understand the warmists beliefs because you feel rather than comprehend, then perhaps you should take your own advice and not make a peep.
I missed the word “irony” in the post. I apologize for this. Still, when numbers of cold-temperature records within a brief period are announced, I think this should be accompanied by some analysis discussion of how likely or unlikely this is, and what its significance, if any, for the global warming question. One reason I think so is that the analysis might show that it was significant in some way. To excuse the lack of analysis by saying that the announcement is mere irony is either to assume that a spate of records is not significant, or to encourage some people to assume that it is significant.
Furthermore, it’s an interesting question. Czech physicist and AGW skeptic Lubos Motl (motls.blogspot.com), in the past, has posted at least twice on the question, and, not only this, but there are a priori determinations which anyone with a decent math background who bothered to think about the question could make, but I’ve never seen anyone bother, except that now I’ve seen a couple of WUWT posts which someone here pointed out for me in this thread, for which I thank him.
As I said, I missed the word “irony,” and I apologize for this, but I think your message is about as bigoted as some others. I notice that you had to pick out one point in order to be sarcastic, ignoring all the others.

TB (December 15, 2013 at 2:14 pm) “However you neglect other effects on the air-mass. When cold advection takes place there is often a descent in the upper air it now being on the confluent region of the jet (Anticyclonic building area) and due descent it warms. There can also be advection over the top of the cold air by warm – making the average air-mass temp higher. Similarly, elsewhere in the hemisphere, warmer air moves north and moisture within it will condense into cloud preventing radiational cooling, especially if over a snow-field.”
All those things are possible but they are all irrelevant. You admit it yourself, there is a possibility of radiational cooling (or in your example, a lack of radiational cooling). When there is radiational cooling where does the energy go?

Not a lot of bright sparks in this thread. AGW causes greater extremes – more intense rainfall, more intense droughts, more intense hurricanes, and heaven forbid, more intense snow storms. And no, a once in 112 year event is still weather, and not proof that climate change isn’t occurring. As a simple example, though not necessarily correct in explaining the snow in the Middle East: AGW melts the Arctic, the melted ice becomes cold water, that cold water travels south and interferes with weather patterns producing freak snow storms.
Taking this further, one great risk of global warming is that the cold waters flowing south will interrupt the Gulf Stream, and do you know what you get from that? You get the relatively temperate UK and Europe dropping 10s of degrees to have similar climate to the coldest places in Canada. The world may have warmed, but those places will have dropped in temperature.
I wish people would read and think more. The planet needs it.

eric1skeptic says:
December 16, 2013 at 3:46 pm
TB (December 16, 2013 at 11:29 am): “There are changes in thermodynamic balance in spatial terms but the net energy in the climate system remains in balance (actually not quite unfortunately) with Solar absorbs and IR emitted.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“Sounds like you’ve decided to include the surface ocean, and IR to space fluctuates greatly in the short, medium and long term, so the “balance” means nothing.”
No it doesn’t, in quantitative terms at the required time-scale it’s a constant – IR photons don’t “stop” leaving to space on any meaningful times-scale (the 24 hour rotation being the greatest reduction in photon flow). We do not need to look at changes below that scale (surely obviously!) As we are working out changes over ~Century. You seem unable to appreciate the Solar in Vs IR out fundamental. The heat does NOT get trapped and refuse to leave, other than being stored in the Oceans (which IS where some of it is going). It’s radiation, and the Earth has an AVERAGE temp which requires it to emit IR to maintain it. If it can’t then it will heat. I’m sorry but you deny the basics of radiative theory, and that is a body MUST radiate constantly or ELSE heat up. The effect with GHG’s is small but very meaningful especially as it is building.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“TB: “Look at that link I gave – you will never find a situation where the reds/blues will be anything other than closely matched.”
“Absolutely not justified by any physical principles, nor demonstrated by empirical data. There are plenty of predominantly red or predominantly blue frames from short term coincidental warming or cooling.”
Eric, you are LOOKING at empirical data – if you don’t like that, look for it elsewhere, it will show the same. There is NO significant change on a seasonal basis for a hemisphere to fluctuate from the norm. Regions do but the fluctuations add up to near zero. I’m sorry if that destroys your world-view but the “empirical data” says so. As well as basic meteorology. If you think it’s “absolutely not justified by any physical principles” then the only answer is you are not knowledgeable of the physical principles.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “He (Spencer) then shows a chart for 14000ft….measure just a thin slice of the water in the pan”
“Wrong, channel 5 measures a deep layer from the surface to about 500 mb, see the bell curve depiction here: http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/01/how-the-uah-global-temperatures-are-produced/”
No I’m right, sorry – AMSU’s sample data over depth but use weightings so that the sounding (ch 5) picks up the lower Trop at 550- 600mb – hence the 14000ft level (says clearly at the top of the graph) The graph shows temps around –21C (to be expected at 600mb). It is NOT a thickness average. So it is not showing the energy across the whole system and there will be variations.
http://www.remss.com/measurements/upper-air-temperature
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “…when deep cold air moves south (necessarily lead by a jet ) – that physically causes the jet to turn back north and push a warm front northward.”
“True. But that is complicated by surface feedback. For example the mountains on the N. American west coast cause a predominant trough over the continent in winter. That trough inevitably migrates to the east coast and the northerly component is enhanced by surface feedback from the warm waters in the Atlantic. We can have a mostly zonal flow across the US and still have a northerly turn in the jet due to feedback from east coast surface lows.”
Mountain ranges do often start the train of events in the Rossby wave wavelength – especially the Canadian Rockies (the whip of the washing line) but it matters not to the meteorology as the jet is still be under the same physical constrains and will turn north again as it losses absolute vorticity. In short it’s the movement relative the Earths rotating surface that governs the jets movement. A trough will NOT inevitably “move to the E coast” at all – it depends on the wavelength of the Rossby wave-train. It often can retrogress – though this is most likely where the ridge does not have a mountain and on it’s western side. This process is common in Europe where a high either forming over Scandinavia , or even migrating there from Siberian will retrogress towards Greenland in response to a downstream wavelength change. Yes, there is often a “back-wash” behind Lows that will turn the surface flow to N or NE – but these are short-wave features that pass through quickly and are not driven by long-wave troughs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “For the whole hemisphere the anomaly from average is slight. Regionally of course variations can be very large.”
“Regional differences are larger than the world-wide average (or hemisphere if you like that better) but both have large swings in the short, medium and long term. These result in some simple facts such as the ability of the planet to cool or warm as much in two weeks as the global warming from a decade of CO2 increases. It is these swings that matter, not the long term benign warming from CO2. Only thermal inertia prevents short ice ages from being very common.”
Regional climate does have large swings, yes, as we all observe, but hemispherically there is not, as I have shown you, but you bizarrely refuse to accept as “empirical data”.
No, the planet does not cool/warm as much in 2 weeks as a decade of CO2 increases. That is NOT happening because you are neglecting the full climate system – the temporary sinks or storage – ie the oceans ( which store >90% of climates heat). You are neglecting the main recipient of solar energy! Which will take every much longer to shed it. When we see these (atmospheric fluctuations) it is because either the heat is being stored or it is being reflected (given we KNOW it’s the Sun – we just do). The –ve PDO/ENSO cycle since ~2005 has taken much of the absorbed solar (as has the Arctic). Just because the atmospheric temp fluctuates does NOT mean that the absorbed energy does. It doesn’t and Temperature is not entirely a function of radiation which is what governs the balance (specific heat/mass oceans and LH uptake). It is that that is stable (radiative flux) – though out of balance at TOA. Look, things happening within ocean/atmosphere only moves temperature around the system it does NOT change Solar in V IR out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB “There is a delicate balance being changed by GHG’s. Because of the GHE (which Roy does not deny) nor anyone else who is credible. Of course the Planet is delicately balanced. It has to be, as the laws of thermodynamics make it so.”
“Your fig leaf of scientific credibility on GHE does not cover your wild claim that conservation of energy causes a “delicate” planetary balance. There is no such thing on this planet.”
The “fig leaf” of scientific credibility lies in your and your ilk’s minds my friend, and not in established science. The GHE is not new or controversial, it has been known of both empirically and mathematically for ~150 years. You don’t get to invent the wheel by waving your hands about. My car will still have round ones on it when I get in it tomorrow.
Why is it not obvious to you that nature balances cause/effect? – It’s present everywhere you look. Predators/prey in an ecosystem balance out – introduce the cane toad FI in Ozz and the Crocks kill themselves. Etc. The whole universe is balanced. Try looking at it from “holistic” scientific perspective instead of looking into details and not understanding the fundamentals.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “The Milankovitch cycles prove that small variations in radiative balance in the NH change the balance to/from cold/warmth.”
“The onset and ending of the ice age comes from regional causes not global energy changes.”
You are part correct, in that the changes are for insolation at 65 Deg N where there if greatest land mass. Usually these changes are balanced by the opposite change in the SH. They are universally accepted as setting in train feed-backs that alter climate, through albedo. Snow field build/depletion that in turn drive GHG content further stengthening the cycle. Try and educate your self. Why on Earth wouldn’t the power of the Sun govern climate?
The cycles cause a maximum variation in insolation of ~100W/m^2. Yes, obviously that wont cause changes in spring summer ice melt/resistance to melt. See Fig 1 to see both that and the correlation with ice volume (lock-tied but at a lower application on this scale).
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2006GL027817-Milankovitch.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “CO2 does create a new equilibrium – has to do – just as new orbital characteristics does. Because it alters the radiation balance of IN vs OUT. Which ultimately is what the climate responds too.”
Backwards. The climate is caused by fluctuations in weather and CO2 warming has a very slight effect on some weather, e.g. hotter temperatures in heat waves. But for the most part weather is unaffected by CO2 warming.
Look, weather does not come about of thin air. It is the planets response to the energy transient twixt solar absorption and IR emittance. Full stop. Weather does not control anything save when some feed-backs occur ( snowfields/ice build up ). This no more than when a pan of water boils the movement of the alter dictates when it will reach boiling – Backwards – It ONLY depends on the energy INPUT to the pan (climate system). You’re hand waving my friend and it goes against established physics. Publish a paper and await a Nobel.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “Radiational fluxes will change regionally but we have a system that acts in precise ways, evens out these changes – and quickly. It just does. Has too or we’d be living on a very strange and chaotic “alternative Universe” kind of Earth.”
“The main physical mechanism that diminishes regional changes and prevents “strangeness” is thermal inertia. Pressure winds and weather reduce changes in and among regions. The jet has its smaller scale fluid dynamics to swing it in cold and warm directions but only roughly But there is no conservation of energy involved, nor a de facto conservation nor a balance.”
You are referring to weather – the internal chaos in the system that responds to the energy received from the Sun. What is it about the “boiling pan of water analogy that you cannot understand.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “Unfortunately there are few –ve feed-backs – they are overwhelmingly +ve (Abs WV content. Decreasing Albedo etc).”
“Most widespread or global feedbacks are negative: blackbody radiation, convection and the water cycle. Positive feed-backs like albedo are not widespread especially in an interglacial. WV is widespread but is a wild card as you know since weather primarily controls the amount of WV (rather than warmth).”
Rubbish my friend, they are NOT feed-backs you quote – just natural meteorological mechanisms to redistribute heat ( between absorption and emittance – irrelevant to that as it’s the TOA exchange where that is achieved. Feed-backs are things that do not “sum to zero” convection does (only transports heat in the system –as do winds and ocean currents). Hydrological cycle uses the take up of LH of evap and again transport it where the LH of cond returns it (result zero). A feedback is ONLY one which alters the radiation balance (reflection of SW or absorption of IR).
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You never answered where the energy goes during radiational cooling. To followup please explain the cause of the compensating warming dictated by your mythical conservation of energy. Also explain how the “radiative balance” limits the radiational cooling.”
It goes to space of course. The conservation of energy is not mythical it is a fundamental law – 1st Law of Thermodynamics. What it means is that what comes in will go out …. Eventually. It has NOTHING to do with weather. That is obviously NOT in thermodynamic equilibrium because it makes weather. (it is the equaling out follows temp differentials to density differentials to pressure differentials aided by Coriolis – that is weather It is a symptom of Climate not the cause of it. Without that imbalance in the climate system there would be NO weather. But it’s JUST NOT what you are thinking of as climate radiative balance. That … for the nth time is the Solar absorbed vs IR out equation which cannot … get that, again CANNOT be altered by “weather”.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “Any talk of “weather” righting temperature completely misses the basic science. It just does.
“You have missed the point. Weather has effects in all directions: global warming, global cooling or nothing at all. Weather causes huge short term shifts in temperature globally as measured with the widest possible measurement (unlike surface thermometers). Weather does not balance in any way although pressure winds and jet dynamics may sometimes have that effect. Mostly weather is countered by thermal inertia and offset by strong local negative feedbacks (that are globally applicable).”
This is the nth time this has gone around the cycle Scott. I have shown you real-world data that hemispherically (and therefore globally) there’s is NO significant variation from the mean temp on a seasonal, and therefore an annual cycle. If you don’t accept that – we can go nowhere. Research it please – from the science and not filtered through someone else. It is really not a surprise who understand science.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB: “Solar variation over human history has varied ~0.2%. it no doubt has contributed to some warming but not all. This: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Temp-sunspot-co2.svg
Shows solar decreasing and CO2 rising.”
“The high solar activity of the 20th century caused some warming as you are aware, but solar going from high to less high causes warming, not cooling. Solar activity has nonlinear effects especially when viewed as a smoothed quantity. The very highest activity causes global cooling as sunspots reduce irradiance and overwhelms the magnetic effects. The magnetic effects mostly kick in during low solar activity which have barely started. Finally, thermal inertia in the form of ocean convection causes a decade or so lag in those effects, so that lame wikipedia graphic is misleading (along with being an insult to the intelligence of this site’s readers)”
What?????????????? Increased solar activity causes cooling! Wow you really are rewriting physics. This time you deny the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. When you point something hot at something cooler – it can ONLY heat, my friend.
Just because sunspots are darker than the main solar surface does not mean the whole output of the Sun is less. Please Google basic Solar physics. Sunspots are a symptom of increased irradiance as all Googling will reveal. Lower solar irradiance (less sunspots) can affect the polar Stat vortex in winter (not Antarctica due O3 hole) by warming it out and down-welling into the Trop vortex, yes, to cause a –AO and allow greater southward movement of polar air. But the Arctic then will become warmer (it has divergence and so the cold will be exported and new air arriving from aloft will need to be radiationally cooled) – so again it’s weather and the hemispheric and radiative energy balance (in/out ) does not change.
Look Eric I am terminating this discussion. It is frankly mind-numbing to converse with someone who “denies” – sorry it just is – not just established climate/radiative physics but seems unable to see the wood for the trees. No offence otherwise but we really have to “appeal to authority” for a reason. That reason is because it “almost universally” knows more than someone who “may” have come to some preconceived conclusion and bolstered it buy a bit of selective Googling and Blog reading.
Finally if what you assert that what you say is true then even NWP weather forecast suites and charts that you see shown by you local TV Weatherman would be bollocks as the physics I discuss go into them
Like I said, an alternative Universe my friend.