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?
Is there a temperature history for the Presidential Inaugurations?
REPLY: Yes, see the link under the photo – Anthony
Yes, see the link under the photo
D’oh! That’s what I get for ignoring the the second half of the caption. Thanks. Too few points to really make a trend line — without throwing out the highest and the lowest scores from the Romanian judges, er, Reagan years.
If everyone in the United States quit breathing, driving, eating, etc. the total reduction in CO2 emissions (25%) would be much less than what Dr. Hansen requires. Europe and Asia will also euthanise themselves, in order to reach the stated goals.
Obama
“Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil.”
The speech
http://i.usatoday.net/news/TheOval/Obama-in-Baltimore-1-17-2009.pdf
M White (02:28:08) :
Why? The director and Whitley Streiber hoped the movie would inspire public debate about global warming. It didn’t, near as I could tell. I did my part, see http://wermenh.com/2016.html .
If Anthony had this blog back then perhaps I would have finished the page, but the science in the movie is so poor we’d all be laughing at it.
RICH (13:31:01) :
– Solar cycle 24 will likely be short lived. This will most certainly effect our climate.
I don’t think so, on both counts,
I’m not sure I would rate the threat of CO2 quite as high as nuclear war with the Soviet Union, WWI, WWII, Stalin, Hitler, Communism, the Great Depression, or Polio, but everyone is entitled to their own opinion …..
“In today’s Guardian, Dr. Hansen warns Mr. Obama that he only has four years to save the world from runaway global warming.”
I noticed exactly that same article and was going to say something about it.
What is so ridiculous is the scale of emissions and what the US can really do about it. For example, China has surpassed the US as the worlds largest carbon emitter. In order for the US to make any measurable difference in global CO2 emissions, we would have to make CUTS in emissions that are at least equal to the growth in emissions from China and India. And that is just to maintain emissions at the current level. Now if you want to have real reductions, you must reduce beyond that. The only way to have real reductions in energy consumption is to shrink the economy.
So what they want to do is “save the world” (Hansen’s words, not mine) on the backs of the US citizens while the rest of the world conducts business as usual. It is sheer idiocy.
Opps, forgot another point I was going to attempt to make. Most of the largest US companies will simply move offshore if US regulations become too onerous. They will not succeed in reducing emissions, they will simply succeed in moving the emissions to a different place. But that might be part of the global strategy of “wealth redistribution”.
Hi Leif,
“I don’t think so, on both counts”
Well… you are the expert. Please explain sir, in laymans terms please.
“I’m not sure I would rate the threat of CO2 quite as high as nuclear war with the Soviet Union, WWI, WWII, Stalin, Hitler, Communism, the Great Depression, or Polio,”
Unless you are James Hansen. If Obama doesn’t do anything in the next four years, Hansen’s world as he knows it may indeed be at grave risk. It all depends on perspective, I suppose.
“Unless you are James Hansen. If Obama doesn’t do anything in the next four years, Hansen’s world as he knows it may indeed be at grave risk. It all depends on perspective, I suppose.”
Hansen’s world will be at grave risk either way, so to speak.
I have a hint, but only a hint, from Chu’s responses at his confirmation hearings that he’s already moderated some of his positions in the short term. I guess a lot depends upon with what integrity he and other members of the climate and energy team re-evaluate ongoing temperatures and understanding of climate processes. Then again, maybe the hint I got was him just making convenient political speech.
I don’t trust Carol Browner any further than I could throw an Ice Bear. I think she’d be willing to bend science in the furtherance of politics, and she wants to enslave us all.
===============================
RICH (12:55:59)
I shouldn’t presume to speak for Leif, but my belief is that Cycle 24 will be weaker, in sunspot numbers, but may well be normal in length. There is presently no mechanism to link sunspots to climate, its change or its global temperature. I believe there is a link, but some people, you know, scientists, like to see a mechanism before they are convinced.
================================
Shawn Whelan (10:28:19) :
Obama
“Only a handful of times in our history has a generation been confronted with challenges so vast. An economy that is faltering. Two wars, one that needs to be ended responsibly, one that needs to be waged wisely. A planet that is warming from our unsustainable dependence on oil.”
The speech
http://i.usatoday.net/news/TheOval/Obama-in-Baltimore-1-17-2009.pdf
I think that you forgot to mention that the above statement seems to be a classic non-sequitur.
I.e. How does “a warming planet” come from an “unsustainable dependence on oil”?
Politicians being politicians are not likely to be deterred from their mission by an uncooperative reality.
I.e. How does “a warming planet” come from an “unsustainable dependence on oil”?
Only liberals can understand such things.
Graeme Rodaughan (16:25:40) :
If global warming is caused by unsustainable oil consumption, we have no problem. Anything unsustainable will soon end, by definition. As oil consumption ends, so will the purported results, global warming.
Politicians always cover their collective asses, once the economy really goes into a recession, and the unemployment queue’s get real long, western political leaders will discover suddenly that its actually cooling and turn it to a political purpose , and say reduced use of coal and oil is the reason , see Hansen Stern & co were right after all, they got the models a bit wrong! . But with the increasing cold starting to kill people on the dole or a benefit, who can no longer afford heating, wont it be intersting to see how these new climate appointees react.
They will start to quietly to take the advice of the sceptics they have so despised, at political direction of course, and AGW will quietly slide off the radar.
Interesting times ahead !!
Great to see WUWT out blogs Real Climate 7.6 million to 6.9 I just wish someone would edit the rubbish on their their RC wiki entry.
Kim,
Thanks for the info. I absolutely agree there is a link. Thinking there isn’t one… can only give way for the possibility.
“Last (year), Oleg Sorokhtin, a fellow of the Russian Academy of Natural Sciences, shrugged off manmade climate change as ‘a drop in the bucket.’ Showing that solar activity has entered an inactive phase, Prof. Sorokhtin advised people to ‘stock up on fur coats.’
He is not alone. Kenneth Tapping of our own National Research Council, who oversees a giant radio telescope focused on the sun, is convinced we are in for a long period of severely cold weather if sunspot activity does not pick up soon.”
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=332289
An inactive sun and we are setting recod cold and snow? Nope, no solar connection there 🙂
“but some people, you know, scientists, like to see a mechanism before they are convinced.”
Some scientists are so preoccupied with all the knowledge they paid for, they tend to lose focus on the big picture. Ever see a brilliant person who lacks a little common sense? I am related to a couple of phd’s who fit that mold 🙂
Have a good one.
weather report from Yahoo for tomorrow in Washington DC:
# Today: Variable clouds with snow showers. Temps nearly steady in the low to mid 30s. Winds N at 5 to 10 mph. Chance of snow 50%. Snow accumulations less than one inch.
# Tonight: Snow flurries early. Then partly cloudy overnight. Low 21F. Winds NNW at 5 to 10 mph.
# Tomorrow: Occasional snow flurries developing. High near 30F. Winds NNW at 10 to 20 mph.
Kim and Rich:
This discussion of how much the small changes in energy input from the sun affects the climate is an ongoing one.
I see two possibilities of resolving this:
1) If it can be established that the albedo is correlated with the galactic cosmic ray flux. A small change in albedo can make a large change in energy input on the surface of the earth. The toy model of Junkscience.com shows that http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/Earth_temp.html .
I used it to calculate temperatures from the albedo link somebody gave a while ago, and the trend follows reality.
2) A chaotic model, where on the repetitive and persistent large insolation changes of the seasons ( 7% or so) the small excess of .1 percent repetitively might build up in the oceans’ heat capacity influencing PDOs and ENSOs and the rest of the alphabet soup. ( like a resonance build up from small inputs)
Via link from: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/01/norm-kalmovitch-in-ccnet.html
Norm Kalmanovitch in CCNet:
“Apart from common sense, the only other aspect totally absent from the global warming debate is “global warming” itself. There is talk of emissions reductions, carbon trading, and even drowning polar bears; but there is no talk about actual current global temperature increases with the continuous increase in global CO2 emissions.
The December 2008 temperature data confirms that 2008 was the coldest year of the last decade, adding one more year to the cooling trend that started after 2002.
Common sense would dictate that after six years of cooling with only one year, 2005, being warmer than the previous year, the “global warming” debate would be over and the world would now be debating “global cooling” in earnest.
Apparently common sense was never part of this debate even when the globe was actually warming. Clouds block about 20% of the 1368 W/m2 of solar radiation. If cloud cover decreased and only blocked out 19% of the solar radiation or cloud cover increased and blocked out 21% of the solar radiation these 5% changes in cloud cover would equate to 13.68 W/m2 of either heating or cooling.
AGW is based on computer models that attribute forcing of just 3.71 W/m2 to a doubling of CO2 from the 280 ppmv, and somehow this is more likely to drive climate than a 5% change in cloud cover.
The actual physical properties of CO2 interacting with the thermal spectrum radiated by the Earth, dictate that far less than 10% of this 3.71 W/m2 is even physically possible. Remarkably, the world is committing economic suicide, starving the poor and ignoring real pollution problems, because an environmentalist lobby has convinced the world leaders that it is more likely that 0.371 W/m2 from CO2 emissions will cause catastrophic warming of the Earth, than 13.68 W/m2 from a 5% increase in cloud cover can cause serious cooling of the Earth.
The global climate models all state that we should be on a warming trend. The global temperature data sets all show that we are on a cooling trend.
The debate is now called “climate change” to avoid any reference to global temperature and the issue is somehow elevated to a level of such great importance that countries are actually debating whether to adhere to the dictates of the Kyoto Protocol for the purpose of stopping the now non-existent global warming, or save their countries economies using “Kyoto unfriendly” energy sources.
Norm Kalmanovitch P.Geoph
Calgary Canada”
The deniers know that the political decision making process can be influenced by physical circumstances.
Their advice for Obama is not to refer to any AGW/Climate Change policy standing outdoors during a snow storm!
Not so for the IPCC and WorldWatch teaming up to put the “heat” on Obama.
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/ipcc-teams-up-with-worldwatch-to-attack-obama-4888
I call this attempt “perfect timing”.
From Alan Sullivan, Fresh Bilge, http://www.seablogger.com/?p=12649
Postmodern Faith
Monday, 19 Jan 09, weather
“It’s snowing in Washington, DC as a very strong disturbance passes at upper levels. The temperature is well below freezing, and light snow should continue much of the day. A couple of days ago I mentioned that some models projected the formation of a vigorous coastal low. It appears such a development is commencing. Tomorrow the snow will be racing northeast into New England, but flurries may continue, and it will become very blustery as the departing storm tightens the pressure gradient over the mid-Atlantic region. Winds from the NNW will sweep the west-facing Capitol stairs, where the ceremony will be held. Streets and sidewalks will remain icy unless salt is used liberally.
It would not be wise for Obama to make any reference to “global warming” or the vaguer “climate crisis” on such a day. He’ll look like a damn fool. But he probably has some list of challenges in his text, and he probably won’t edit out any reference to a central tenet of his postmodern faith. Heaven help us if some break in the rushing low cloud sends a shaft of sunshine onto the stage when Obama speaks. The media will announce the Second Coming, but I’ll be thinking about the Book of Revelation”.