Inauguration day 2005: 35 °F Mostly cloudy with some sunny breaks. Northwest wind 14 mph. Around 1″ of snow lay on the ground. More inauguration day weather history is available here
By Anthony Watts and Steven Goddard
There is much speculation about the weather on Tuesday, January 20th, which is the inauguration day of president Obama. Particularly it is being conjectured widely on the blogosphere that a colder than normal day might have some chilling effect on climate change thinking in Washington. After all, it is not unlike politicians to grasp onto ancillary topics and use them as the focal point for forming opinions.
For example, as reported here, The last time Dr. Roy Spencer testified before Congress, committee chair Barbara Boxer appeared more interested in discussing Rush Limbaugh than she did in discussing science. That is not necessarily a sensible way to weigh trillion dollar policy decisions.
Here is another example. When Dr. James Hansen testified before Congress in June, 1988, on the topic of global warming, Senator Timothy Wirth took several deliberate steps to make sure that the room was oppressively hot. This excerpt below is from a PBS Frontline interview:
TIMOTHY WIRTH: We called the Weather Bureau and found out what historically was the hottest day of the summer. Well, it was June 6th or June 9th or whatever it was. So we scheduled the hearing that day, and bingo, it was the hottest day on record in Washington, or close to it.DEBORAH AMOS: [on camera] Did you also alter the temperature in the hearing room that day? TIMOTHY WIRTH: What we did is that we went in the night before and opened all the windows, I will admit, right, so that the air conditioning wasn’t working inside the room. And so when the- when the hearing occurred, there was not only bliss, which is television cameras and double figures, but it was really hot.
That is going to be a lot tougher now, after two more decades of unprecedented global warming.
As of Saturday morning, NCEP is forecasting severe cold along the East Coast for the end of the month, and well below normal temperatures for the inauguration of president Obama. Perhaps the chill will freeze out some the early political rhetoric in Washington? Some prominent members of Congress now claim that they can legislate the climate, which requires that they also are able to control volcanoes, ocean circulation patterns, and solar activity.
Here is the NCEP CONUS temperature forecast for now to election day:
Click for a larger image
One wonders though, it the weather patterns were shifted west to east in the anomaly graph below, and we had a warmer than normal inauguration day in Washington, would it provide lawmakers with a personal confirmation bias much like that day in June, 1988?
Lake Erie freezes over almost entirely every winter because how shallow it is. Currently it is not 100% frozen over but it is close.
Lake Ontario on the other hand usually does not freeze over entirely because of its depth. Some shallow areas and bays will freeze over.
Here is a link displaying the current ice cover from GLCFS (Great Lakes Coastal Forecasting System) http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/res/glcfs/glcfs.php?lake=l&ext=ice&type=N&hr=00
Its not about science, and it hasn’t been about science for a long time.
Its about concentration of power and control. Its about the right to arm-twist just about any behavior by any group or industry that pops up on the political radar.
The ability to legislate whatever you please against whomever is in your way, based on “regulation” of a naturally occurring molecule, is a prize so valuable that it will have to be pried from their grasp with a crowbar.
The worst blizzard in history could bury the inauguration in snow and it wouldn’t change a thing. Its not about the science, and it is certainly not about the weather.
Ed Scott:
“Another cause for alarm is the fact that all the proposed solutions to this faux crisis just happen to coincide with every issue dear to liberals: i.e.: more government, more regulation, wealth distribution, population control, and global governance.”
A serious problem today is the misuse of a most important political and philosophical concept, “liberal”. So-called “conservatives” hurl the word as an epithet — and an epitaph for those so labelled. They are ignorant and are creating great difficulties for thinking Americans about our traditions what liberalism means.
A “climate change” analogy is to call computer models, dictating global warming, that cannot predict much of anything, “science”, and hurling the epithet “denier of proven, accepted science” at scientists.
In fact, liberalism represents hard-won freedom from authoritarianism (especially of the religious kind, historically speaking) born of the Enlightenment. Those who are about to take over the Executive Branch tend to be from the left-authoritarian-progressive branch of the Democratic Party; liberals have been excluded. Liberals are in favor of freedom, transparency, accountability, limited government, the rule of law, capitalism, personal responsibility, educated citizens — AND SCIENCE.
Many who profess to be conservatives today, but eschew religious authoritarianism, actually are carrying the mantle for classical liberalism.
I thank Anthony for this blog so that conservative-liberal commitment to accurate data, transparent data bases, open discussion/debate regarding the variety of strongly held views, and respectful dialog can thrive. Anthony, you have created a phenomenaon here; your blog — the entire community — seems to be at the cutting edge of a science being born.
It doesn’t matter how many years of global cooling we’ve had or might have, or that it’s plainly obvious that the sun and oceans control our climate. This new Socialist regime is hell-bent on destroying our fossil-fuel based economy and controlling the lives of the American people. It must know CO2 is harmless. It must know that despite continually rising CO2 emissions none of the catastrophes touted by the fraudulent IPCC, Gore, Hansen or Schmidt will transpire. We’re witnessing pure corruption and evil. How far will this new regime go? A new ice age might be the only thing to stop this madness.
Hi Anthony,
Could I get some back ground on Steven Goddard?
What is his education?
I don’t place a lot of weight on PhD, MS, or BS, but some people do.
Thanks for the information. I really like his guest posts.
Preaching to the choir Rich.
Why is does it appear that everything is skewed to the warm side? I live near Cedar Rapids, IA and by the map above we should be up to 4F warmer than average. I just checked the NWS forecast and compared it to climate data and we should average about .8F cooler over the period.
It just seems that anytime you read about a forecast, record setting event, or a myriad of weather or climate issues, everything is skewed either to emphasize the warmer temps, or pretend as if the colder temps do not exist. I know this is anecdotal and maybe I am having selection bias as well. But, when you look at individual forecast and data sets most everything I have encountered has showed a positive bias. Unless there is a systematic error this should not be the case.
You can only fudge the figures only so long until reality sets in and cannot be explained away. Maybe this will be the start of that intrusion. I do not wish for it to be so cold that people will be injured. There will be many in attendance with little experience in cold weather. NWS is predicting a high of 32F 10F lower than normal. It should make for an interesting event.
Hey guys
Dont worry everyone. For sure the ‘fourth-estate’ will apply scrutiny and reason to politics proposed and pursued and prevent even the US subcoming to agenda driven and feel-good politics as we have it in Europe.
[/sarcasm]
On the ‘nicer’ side at least Obamas plan for windenergy involves tax-deductions rather than direct government spending and 10-year subsidies as we see it in Denmark and Europe in general. Quite different effects on economics and if it must be certainly the lesser of two evils.
Also congrats to Anthony and guestwriters for the best science blog award. Also to commentators for an in genreal positive tone without to many ad-homs and ‘loud’ language. Part of what makes this blog enjoyable to read.
I’d like to see a blizzard chill the Obaministration rhetoric on “climate change” on inauguration day. Unfortunately, Weather.com is forecasting a partly cloudy high of 30 deg F.
Check out the ice in the Hudson, from the first picture in this article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/nyregion/18plane.html?ref=nyregion
Jeff Whita,
I’m glad you like my ideas.
Answering your question, I have undergraduate and graduate degrees in science and engineering. I have no formal training in climate science and am not a climate scientist. I have no affiliations with any energy industry, and receive no compensation for my writing, other than a couple of articles I wrote for The Register last year. I have been interested in greenhouse gas warming since I first heard about it nearly 40 years ago. This is mainly a fun hobby for me, and my interest is to make sure that the public hears the “other side of the story.”
I consider that any good scientist is naturally a skeptic, and as the late, great Michael Crichton said “Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.”
Thanks Steven 😉
@ur momisugly Dan Lee (13:48:02) :
The worst blizzard in history could bury the inauguration in snow and it wouldn’t change a thing. Its not about the science, and it is certainly not about the weather.
Exactly. AGW proponents have had years of conditioning where every weather event would prove AGW. Even David Archibald’s prediction for May 2009 {the largest May anomaly in roughly 25 years} won’t change the course set by the Obama administration. See:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/oftheMay2009UAHMSUGlobalTemperatureResult12thJanuary2009.pdf
You can’t fight a belief system with facts or proofs; they will proceed with their belief system and impose it as they see fit.
pyromancer76:
A serious problem today is the misuse of a most important political and philosophical concept, “liberal”. So-called “conservatives” hurl the word as an epithet — and an epitaph for those so labelled.
Fwiw, I feel your pain, but have gotten over it by simply distinguishing between “Faux Liberals” and “Classical Liberals”, which I think covers what’s going on currently in propagandistic politics, as you have perhaps also intimated in your post above.
The word game involved in keeping the term “liberal” in broad use while actually changing what it entails politically and functionally to what is not “liberal”, so as to confuse people who still want to be called and vote for “Liberals”, is an old and well-known propagandistic trick.
I can’t describe myself as an “environmentalist” anymore, either, as a result of the same tactic being employed by controllist propagandizers, who know exactly what they’re doing and think that confusing word meanings aids them in achieving control.
Or consider the attempt of the AGW “Climate Scientists” to redefine what “science” is while still trading on what it used to mean and still is, while not actually practicing science themselves.
It’s reprehensible and irritating, but understanding what is being done to words by such propagandists does help us see what we Classical Liberals are up against.
Richard Sharpe
You have to understand that politicians must pander to their constituencies. That does not mean they are going to do anything specific, simply connecting with those who put them into power.
I find it kind of humorous that this President elect who fashions himself after Lincoln would consider the warming Earth one of the 3 greatest threats to our existince. Lincoln was facing a Civil War not worried about some imaginary event that is not even occuring. Somebody should tell Obama that if you don’t fudge the data the Earth is in a cooling trend despite the huge increase in Manmade CO2.
According to this map Lake Erie has “open water” in the center but not necessarily ice free.
“Global Warming” caused plane to land in Hudson according to Time Magazine.
Just goes to show how ridiculous the issue has become as a political agenda item.
“This new Socialist regime is hell-bent on … controlling the lives of the American people.”
It’s Global Marming!
(From “schoolmarm.”)
In today’s Guardian, Dr. Hansen warns Mr. Obama that he only has four years to save the world from runaway global warming.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2009/jan/18/jim-hansen-obama
Barack Obama has only four years to save the world. That is the stark assessment of Nasa scientist and leading climate expert Jim Hansen who last week warned only urgent action by the new president could halt the devastating climate change that now threatens Earth. Crucially, that action will have to be taken within Obama’s first administration, he added.
Interesting that climate cycles now coincide so closely with election cycles.
Mike,
You said “We should not confuse weather with climate.”
Convincing the Congress to confuse weather with climate was the primary purpose of the Wirth/Hansen hot weather stunt in 1988. That is the point of this article.
“The worst blizzard in history could bury the inauguration in snow and it wouldn’t change a thing. Its not about the science, and it is certainly not about the weather.”
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0319262/
Remember “The Day After Tomorrow”
Maybe the reduction of CO2 emissions is not so bad. Maybe it wan’t help anything for bringing the climate back to little ice age conditions. But C02 emissions are always accompagnied with some other, really dangerous co-emissions (e.g. benzene, soot, fine dust,…..)
If a CO2 emission reduction also reduces these dangerous substances in the air we need to breath, then we are taking large steps forwards !
More Hansen alarmism. Quick, somebody get the hook: click
Willem de Rode:
Maybe the reduction of CO2 emissions is not so bad. Maybe it wan’t help anything for bringing the climate back to little ice age conditions. But C02 emissions are always accompagnied with some other, really dangerous co-emissions (e.g. benzene, soot, fine dust,…..)
If a CO2 emission reduction also reduces these dangerous substances in the air we need to breath, then we are taking large steps forwards !
This type of thinking is fallacious, and is an argument AGWers frequently use. We have made great strides in this country in reducing air pollution. Of course, more could be done, and will be. But, there are a number of problems with focusing on C02, which isn’t pollution, instead of actual pollution, which make the air unhealthy to breathe. Many of the things being considered, such as CCS, and geoengineering, in addition to being costly will have no environmental benefit whatsoever, and could even be harmful. While we should continue to investigate, and where possible, implement alternative energies such as wind, solar, geothermal, etc., it should be done carefully, and with full consideration of the economics involved. Nuclear power should definitely be on the table, though the alarmists don’t seem to like nuclear, which is hypocritical. Energy independence is one other positive outcome of this. The alarmists want to frighten us into this, though, saying we need to do it immediately, because of the “climate crisis”. That would be a huge mistake. Nothing positive can ever come from acting out of fear, especially a misplaced and completely unfounded one. Finally, and perhaps the biggest reason many of us fight against AGW is Science and Truth, which have become victims of the AGW behemoth.
Hansen needs to update his “schtick”. The US is no longer the globe’s largest CO2 emitter; China now holds that distinction. Also, 1998 is no longer the warmest year on record.
However, his concept that the US must play the “Pied Piper”, and that the rest of the world’s nations would cheerfully follow our lead, is farce. Many of the rest of the world’s nations would cheerfully watch us attempt to change the climate and comment on the grandeur of our efforts, though likely also commenting on their inadequacy and ineffectiveness.
I am still waiting for a definitive statement on the level of CO2 emissions reductions required to halt the increase in atmospheric CO2 concentrations; and, for a plan to achieve those reductions globally. However, I am not holding my breath, even though that would reduce CO2 emissions.