Behave yourselves.
I’ll be checking in from time to time and making reports from the road. Just remember that some comments with links might end up in the spam filter and may take some time before I notice them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Between 2 to 3 SC23 sunspots are developing on the solar equator. I am running blink comparator analysis of Continuum and Mannetogram images and two sunspots are definite but I am not 100% sure about the third just yet. Solar Cycle 24 is reporting 1 sunspot and nothing from SWPC or NASS as yet. I don’t want to post links as that get this message blocked. If you click of the Sunspots ICON on this page you download near real-time SOHO Continuum and Mannetogram 1024×1024 images. Solar Cycle 23 rules! We are still not at solar minimum.
Mike
No one here has mentioned Earth Day activities this year. There doesn’t seem to be much going on in New Hampshire related to climate change, are there other events that people are going to make sure all sides of the story get heard?
I was at Carnegie-Mellon Univ for the first Earth Day. people drove cars and trucks on to the grassy area between a couple buildings and erected tents, inflatable structures, etc. I still have the Whole Earth Catalog I bought there. The highlight of the day was a cold front passage that soaked everything bought a windstorm that blew down everything else. The exiting vehicles on the wet ground left quite a mess.
So I’ve always figured that the Earth wasn’t very impressed with the gesture of concern and it sent a reminder that it’s stronger than we are.
Interesting addition to Roy Spenser’s http://www.weatherquestions.com/Roy-Spencer-on-global-warming.htm :
April 19, 2008 RESEARCH UPDATES:
(1) – Our latest article, “Potential Biases in Feedback Diagnosis from Observational Data: A Simple Model Description”, has been accepted for publication in Journal of Climate. It uses a simple climate model to show how daily noise in the Earth’s cloud cover amount can cause feedback estimates from observational data to be biased in the positive direction, making the climate system look more sensitive to manmade greenhouse gas emissions than it really is.
(2) – I have asked the editor of the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society to consider publishing a paper I have written entitled, “Evidence for Internal Radiative Forcing of Climate Change”. I believe that this paper addresses the single most important issue neglected by the U.N.’s Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change (IPCC): Natural climate variability generated within the climate system in the form of INTERNAL radiative forcing.
This paper is a generalization of our paper that has just been accepted for publication in Journal of Climate, and describes how mixing up of cause and effect when observing natural climate variability can lead to the mistaken conclusion that the climate system is more sensitive to greenhouse gas emissions than it really is. It also shows that a small change in cloud cover hypothesized to occur with the El Nino/La Nina and Pacific Decadal Oscillation modes of natural climate variability can explain most of the major features of global average temperature change in the last century, including 70% of the warming trend. While this does not prove that global warming is mostly natural, it provides a quantitative mechanism for the (minority) view that global warming is mostly a manifestation of natural internal climate variability. (This paper is sure to be controversial, and it will be interesting to see how difficult it will be to get published.)
Raven says
‘Even though it sounds implausible, 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for at least 10% of the greenhouse effect.”
Is the 10% from the math or computer models or observed data from the atmosphere? I understand that CO2’s sensitivity has yet to be measured in the atmosphere. (no playststion allowed)
old construction says:
“Is the 10% from the math or computer models or observed data from the atmosphere? I understand that CO2’s sensitivity has yet to be measured in the atmosphere.”
This number is estimated using basic physics which even skeptical scientists agree with (e.g. Richard Linzden, Pat Micheals). The source of 10% figure is explained on the junkscience.com page I linked to. I believe junkscience.com coined the term ‘playstation science’ in first place.
The computer models only become an issue when alarmists argue that a small increases in CO2 will by amplified by water vapour feedback. Saying CO2 accounts for 10% of the greenhouse effect does not include any of these feedbacks.
GW science is complex and not everything claimed by the alarmists is wrong.
I’m sorry for this non-scientific post, but it’s pained me to see the way my beloved Seattle has fallen for the AGW scam. Seattle was a wholly different place during the Boeing era. Now in the Microsoft era, Seattle is very bizarre. That said…
Hey you Seattle and NW folks, drive carefully. Having grown up there and with the infrequent snow falls, I know how poorly they drive in snow. We’ve been getting snow every other week here in Colorado (highest snowpack in the mountains in a long time). Trying to find a decent day for soccer practices has been a trick. At least I can usually count on folks driving sensibly in the snow here.
Alan S. Blue:
[[I’m in Seattle under an unseasonal blanket of snow also. This is wildly atypical for the area – two mild snows spread from December through February is much more common.
“It last snowed in April in 1972″ is good information, but is there any way to quantify this? Because it would seem like is should be very closely correlated with each local region’s temperature – and have the advantage of ignoring all the microsite issues.”]]
Doesn’t a negative PDO produce a cold current along the western US? The last negative PDO period, which ended in the late 1970s, might be worth wading through.
I don’t think you’ll have much luck looking at the range of snow events like that. My latest snow at Penacook NH in the last 10 years was on 2002 May 26. This was the day after I found the granite monument in Ashland NH commemorating 1816, the year without a summer. It was also the last snow for the lamest snow season I’ve had. The seasons before and after were the snowiest until the 07/08 season. The next snowfall I had was on 2003 Oct 23, the earliest I’ve recorded. That gave me a snowfree period of 157 days. The second shortest was 221 days.
So, in that three year period has interesting data, but it’s completely useless in terms of saying much about climate, at least not without including studies of the NAO and other controls. Over my 10 year record here the record is equally dirty, though this past _season_ is so off the charts it demands attention.
Ultimately, events like earliest/latest snowfall wind up being anecdotal information. About the best that can be gleaned is if similar reports come in from a wide area, as has happened this year, then there is something worth studying.
My best of laugh of the day so far comes from a poster named lunaticcringeradio on another blog:
yep that’s what snow is called now, denial. a record breaking 7.5 inches of denial fell on juneau alaska thursday apr 17th, breaking the previous record of denial that was set in 1948 of 1.1 inches of denial. apparently denial is so overwhelming these days people are making denial men, and denial angles, some people are getting their cars stuck in denial, and in some cases denial has been so bad it has shut down major metropolitan cities. there have even been reports, mostly by bitter global warmists, who were attacked by kids throwing denial balls at them all over the nation this deniable winter.
Well, it is April 20th…and it is snowing yet again in Northwest Seattle. We have about one half inch on the ground..Its in the upper 30’s so it will be gone soon…but my goodness!
Raven
In your replay to Old Gasser you said that CO2 accounts for AT “LEAST” 10 % of the green house effect. The link uses the trem “ABOUT” 10% and it is still an estimation. It could be higher or lower depending on MANY veriables. But the fact is no one knows for sure now much warming is do to CO2 at any level concenstration.
First, I want to thank Anthony and the posters at this site for the enlightening information, research, and reasonable discussion of the facts. It’s really gone a long way in helping me understand the issues without the extreme bias that seems to invade the topic from both sides.
One thing I do want to ask about is this: Does anyone have any references to good companies making vertical wind turbines? Most websites I’ve found so far look pretty sketchy and the only one that looks like a great design won’t respond to inquires and may run into the $10’s thousand for their device. 🙁
I know Anthony has put up solar at his house, but my house in Reno is very windy and I’m wondering if I can put up enough vertical turbines to eliminate my electrical bill completely. I figure we’re going to keep having energy crises no matter the weather trend, so might as well fix it myself!
The CO2 effect, in a direct sense, is not even the issue. The IPCC could be 100% right about the warming effect of CO2 and STILL be 100% wrong.
What the IPCC models rely on are the positive feedback issues. If there is no positive feedback, if there is instead, negative feedback leading to homeostasis, then the entire AGW hypothesis is in the dumper.
That’s what’s the big news about the AquaSat. No positive feedback. The water vapor that is supposed to be increasing the GH effect is instead going into cloud cover and increasing albedo/precipitation, which leads to an increase increase ice cover, which in turn leads to even more albedo.
well, longtime lurker here — and at CA with “Leif in the fast lane” — first-time commenter
Jeff Alberts – do you have a cousin named Bryan? If so, he and I might be in a couple of the same annual gradeschool pictures.
Alan S. Blue …
I created the following tables from data at the link below and sent this out as a new years gift to family members, putting them on notice for local climate the cool PDO winters just a cycle ago. The italicized values are for the last PDO cool phase which ended after ~1975. Also, SeaTac Airport (at 427ft) was not reporting prior to 1949-50, prior to that reporting was done from the federal building in downtown Seattle, maybe rooftop?
History of daily temperature records by month at SeaTac Airport
Temperature in Fahrenheit
Min = Lowest Daily Minimum, Max = Highest Daily Maximum
Min Year Month Max Year
0 1950 January 64 1981
1 1950 February 70 1968
11 1955 March 75 1987
29 1975 April 85 1976
28 1954 May 93 1963
38 1952 June 96 1995
43 1954 July 100 1994
44 1955 August 99 1981
35 1972 September 98 1988
28 1949 October 89 1987
6 1955 November 74 1949
6 1968 December 64 1993
History of daily and monthly total snowfall records by month at SeaTac Airport
Measured in inches, T = Trace amount e.g., skiff or dusting
Daily Year Month Total Year
21.4 1950 January 57.2 1950
9.8 1990 February 13.1 1949
7.4 1989 March 18.2 1951
2.3 1972 April 2.3 1972
T 1993 May T 1993
0.0 n/a June 0.0 n/a
T 1980 July T 1980
0.0 n/a August 0.0 n/a
T 1972 September T 1972
2.0 1971 October 2.0 1971
9.4 1946 November 9.4 1985
13.0 1968 December 13.0 1993
http://www.weatherexplained.com/Vol-6/2001-Seattle-Washington-Seattle-Tacoma-Airport-SEA.html
Evan: Agreed; feedback is the key now. Everything else is interesting, but basically rather irrelevant unless it helps eludicate the sign of the feedback term. Unless you rely on some rather dubious post-hoc fix like aerosol dimming, the current data seems to be pointing towards negative, for which we should all breathe a sigh of relief.
What I don’t understand is why my (now somewhat feet-of-clay) hero Lovelock (who I have met, and still have a lot of respect for) stopped believing in his beautiful, stable, homeostatic [Earth|Gaia] which inspired a generation of greenies like me, and started assuming the worst possible positive feedbacks for which there doesn’t seem to be any historical (or current) evidence. If the Earth were that unstable, we wouldn’t be here to worry about it…
There is a strange discrepancy in the GISS for March that thought I would bring to light:
There are two different values present for the March Anomaly, 0.35 and 0.67 depending on where you look.
This page:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
clearly shows both values in the 4 figure presentation.
What gives? Im willing to give them the benefit of the doubt, but if they are tweaking their dataset to get this kind of variation I have to wonder…
“Sunspot 991 is is almost invisibly tiny, but it is there. Credit: SOHO/MDI”
I can’t see it.
“Sunspot 991 is is almost invisibly tiny, but it is there. Credit: SOHO/MDI”
I can’t see it.
Tamino the Cherry picker:
http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=253
PC: Agreed.
Rev: Open Thread suggestion: Would it be possible to show the ten most recent comments rather than the five most recent?
Nope, sorry.
I was out on a raft just upstream of Seattle during this weekends intermittent blizzard. There is something just wrong about mixing snowball fights with water sports. There is still very low runoff.
I’d have say that was weather, not climate, but there have been enough of these stories globally that is looking rather climatic. (Normally only heat waves are considered climate change, cold spells simply weather).
Allow me to hang myself by the open thread. Playstation models and I pee see see notwithstanding, global warming seems to me to be a GOOD thing. I wish it were happening. How much better would my garden grow!
I’m not a skier. I don’t like snow. Tundra is worthless in my estimation. I prefer it warm. As far as I can tell, warmer is better in every respect. For the last 300 million years or so, it has mostly been warmer than now. Warmer is the normative condition.
Apparently another glaciation is coming. That’s the only conclusion one can draw from the regular Milankovich cycle evidence of the last 3 million years, which nobody disagrees with, as far as I can tell. Glacial epochs are a bummer. If we humanoids are going to mess with the climate, I vote we warm it up, and soon.
Raven
Your reference does not appear to agree with your statement that CO2 accounts for at least 10% of the grenhouse effect on the earth?
IPCC on the run-at last…
http://www.sciencealert.com.au/opinions/20082204-17218.html
Wondering Aloud says:
“Your reference does not appear to agree with your statement that CO2 accounts for at least 10% of the grenhouse effect on the earth?”
junkscience is a site that errs on the side of skepticism. If it says CO2 is ‘about’ 10% then you can be certain that there is little no science that supports a smaller figure. OTOH, there is scientific literature that places the value as high 30% – hence, my use of the term ‘at least’.
I don’t think it is worth getting into a debate about the exact number, however, I do think skeptics need to make sure they don’t use facile arguments that sound good to the uninformed but have zero scientific basis. Claiming that 0.03 of atmosphere cannot possibly have a signficant effect on the planet’s temperature is one of those facile but false arguments.