Here is a weather curiosity. We’ve been hearing a lot about snowfall in the northern hemisphere this year. In Oslo, they have given up on trying to pile it up so they have resorted to dumping it in the sea. If this happened in Seattle they’d probably get into a tizzy for polluting Puget Sound with fresh water snow. And it is not just Oslo, the problem seems widespread. Here are some other news stories in London, OT Geneva, Ohio Chardon, OH Wasatch, UT Chicopee, MA and Rochester, NY where they say the piles are making driving dangerous. In Wenatchee, WA they want to spray warm sewage water on the snow to melt it. I know they could use the USHCN temperature sensor at the sewage treatment plant there to check the temperature to make sure conditions are right. Yeah, that’s the ticket! – Anthony
From Reuters Environment Blog by Alister Doyle
It looks more like an Ice Age than global warming.
There is so much snow in Oslo, where I live, that the city authorities are resorting to dumping truckloads of it in the sea because the usual storage sites on land are full.
That is angering environmentalists who say the snow is far too dirty – scraped up from polluted roads — to be added to the fjord. The story even made it to the front page of the local paper (’Dumpes i sjøen’: ‘Dumped in the sea’).
In many places around the capital there’s about a metre of snow, the most since 2006 when it was last dumped in the sea. Extra snow usually gets trucked to sites on land, where most of the polluted dirt is left after the thaw. Those stores are now full — in some the snow isn’t expected to melt before September.
But are these mountains of snow a sign that global warming isn’t happening?
Unfortunately, more snow might fit projections by the U.N. Climate Panel, which says that northern Europe is likely to get wetter and the south drier as temperatures rise this century.
“By the 2070s, hydropower potential for the whole of Europe is expected to decline by 6 percent, with strong regional variations from a 20 to 50 percent decrease in the Mediterranean region to a 15 to 30 increase in northern and eastern Europe.” it said in a 2007 report (page 60 of this link).
So people in northern Europe may have to buy more snow shovels than parasols to cope with global warming?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
MattN (04:47:28) :
The massive amount of snow this winter is not only consistent with the models, but was also predicted….
But NOT by UK Met which forecast, in Sept. 2008, that this winter would be “warmer and wetter” than average, probably the warmest on recird.
[I cannot find the link to UK Met’s release. If anyone has it to hand parhaps they would be kind enough to post the link.]
JimB (06:03:29) :
“AnyMouse (05:15:06) :
JimB (03:44:06) :
But this is required by the UCCC’s Kyoto Protocol: Payments to areas affected by climate change with priority given to poverty reduction over climate projects. :-]”
What was really interesting about the article, which I should have included, was that it went on to say that the administration understands, and expects, that suppliers will pass the cost of the carbon taxes along to it’s consumers, and therefor, tax breaks will be given to the LOWEST INCOME CONSUMERS.
What an inefficient model THIS is. By their own admission, the carbon taxes/fees will be paid only by upper income, so why not just cut out all the foolishness in the middle and just increase taxes on the upper incomes. Errr…even more. Again.
Takus Maximus, Sourceus Disappearus.
JimB
As a Brit who has a house in Florida, I told my US friends last October that, if Obama was elected President, USA would soon have a European style high-tax eceonomy. Seems like I may be proved right.
Tom_R (10:40:17) :
For a message board with so many highly intelligent posters, there seems to be a serious deficiency of sarcasm detectors.
What can I say? I’m not perfect!
tc (19:06:50) :
A snow shovel is like a chocolate poker.
Post of the year IMHO.
DaveE.
E.M.Smith: Am I “math challenged”, or are you concept challenged? Who, other than the voices in your head, is concerned about the ocean-wide consequences of dumping municipal snow? Any impact, which would be environmental not climatic, is clearly very local as I explicitly noted in the comment you were theoretically responding to. You’re fabricating arguments so you can defeat them. Guess what the term that defines? (Oh, thanks for the “lesson” on storm drains.)
Pamela Gray: Congratulations on struggling all the way up to the intellectual level of Wily E. Coyote. Please, take a moment to catch your breath. We’ll wait for you.
JimB: Not my first visit here. My opinion is not formed by reading a single comment thread (the comments in virtually any post here would lead to the same conclusion). My remarks included actual points about the concepts under discussion. Sorry to momentarily rattle on your world-view.
Other responders: Enjoy your game of “no you’re stupid!”
Anthony Watts: So “what’s up with” your actual original post? As they say in carpentry; measure twice, cut once. Perhaps this one should have been left on the workbench. Someone who is skeptical about the perspective here could easily draw a couple of unflattering conclusions from it:
– It was an implicit invocation of short-term cold weather as a counter-proof of AGW without having to defend it.
– It was an off-topic cheap shot at namby-pamby tree-hugging environmentalists and pandering ineffectual governments, which is essentially a dubious and poorly articulated political statement.
Ben Lawson, (07:58:23)
While Anthony Watts does not need me or anyone else to defend him, I will say this. Mr. Watts has never met me, and has not asked me to write any of this.
Mildly responding to your above, perhaps Mr. Watts, exercising his cherished First Amendment rights, is simply using his blog — and it is after all HIS blog — to balance in some way the incessant cacophony booming from the AGW crowd that THE END IS NIGH.
We hear constantly from the AGW crowd that the globe is heating inexorably up and up and up, as CO2 also rises.
Yet, the globe’s warming, or cooling, is nothing more than the sum of many temperature measurements, accumulated over time. So, when a notable event occurs, such as is covered in this posting, it is quite appropriate for Mr. Watts to give that event column space, if he so chooses. Apparently, and judging by the number of visitors to WUWT, a fair number of people appreciate what Mr. Watts writes.
If you must bring your heckling and scoffing, then bring it. Just be nice about it, or your words will be snipped, and rightfully so. Bring your arguments and facts that clearly show that rising CO2 is the cause of an increase in measured global temperatures. While you are about that, you must refute the arguments of Dr. Pierre R. Latour. Search around in WUWT or on my blog energyguy’s musings if you are unfamiliar.
Next, refute, if you are able, Mr. Watts’ showing that the measured temperature record is on shaky ground at best, and full of errors at worst.
Those two will do for starters.
I am looking forward to your cogent arguments based on facts. And remember, he who resorts to personal attacks concedes his arguments are worthless.
Roger E. Sowell
You mean this Dr. Latour?
“In summation, Dr. Latour has shown that he does not understand the basics of climate science. He has shown a reliance on unqualified people and has attempted to divert attention from the real issues. Meanwhile, we have yet to hear of a sound alternative to credibly explain away global warming.” http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=716332&ISS=25267&GUID=0EE7B6AE-B8A8-4866-B46A-B24D7D68DECB
This thread is getting far too serious. I’m with Pamela on that, but my latin gene has a serious defect.
E.M.Smith (17:14:12) :
Pink salt ponds eh? Pink. Snow. Hmm. I know. They need VOOM. “…Why VOOM cleans up anything, as clean as can be…”
There is no time for debate
There’s no more room to store it
So into the sea
Is where we will pour it
All that deep, deep, deep snow
All that snow has to go…
…And they jumped at the snow with long rakes and shovels
They put it in trucks and they made high [pink] off-white hills
[Pink snowmen, pink snowballs and little pink pills…]
Now don’t ask me what VOOM is
I never will know
But boy let me tell you it does clean up snow.
(with apologies to Dr Seuss) Oh wait, that was only turning pink snow white 😉
(I must get to grips with italics, bold and strike though here)
Giles Winterbourne (16:56:11) :
You have the correct journal, but what you linked to was written by Dr. Latour’s critic.
That critic closed one of his letters with: “We have global warming on earth, caused by man’s activities, and we need to act now.”
Dr. Latour showed earlier why that closing statement cannot be true.
Roger Sowell: Oooh, I was THIS CLOSE to stripping Anthony of his “First Amendment Rights!” Next time, next time… Why assume I’m trying to shut Anthony up? You’re right, he’s free to say whatever he wants. But what he says will naturally be assessed, and hopefully judged, by everyone who reads it. Just like our contributions. The “snow falls! AGW must be a lie!” is a regularly recurring theme here. I will grant you that Anthony has a generally appreciative audience, although I’m not sure how large it is. Large enough to click furiously on a “Best Science Blog” web poll.
The Dr. Latour reference, a… wait for it… “letter” in Hydrocarbon Processing, a… wait for it… publication with no expertise in environmental sciences of any kind that you refer to in the WUWT post called… wait for it… “Half of the USA is covered in snow” is behind a pay wall now, but I did find some letters to the editor from another chemical engineer hotly disputing it. Latour’s response refers to hoaxes and insults, and his favorite references are discredited denialist fronts. Hey, I just found Latour’s original letter ! Apparently “When people get too warm, they take off sweaters” so there’s nothing to worry about, and capitalism is great. Well that’s settled!
You know the fundamental problem with his “letter” though, you state it yourself hoping to disarm it: “they will start by saying he knows not whereof he speaks, because refinery control systems have time responses on the order of a few seconds up to a couple of hours, but planetary climate change has a time lag measured in hundreds of years.” Well, duh. Also refineries, fantastic as they are, are very small, very simple and completely CONTROLLED environments. The exact opposite of the earth’s climate about which Latour knows so little.
But thunder away, by all means.
Oops, screwed up the html. The link to Latour’s letter is here.
No. He attempted to. But failed. Epically. Citing OISM and other uninformed sources, confusing weather with climate, misattributing rise of CO2, and in general didn’t support his contentions with evidence.
Temple responded with more detail at http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=716332&ISS=25267&GUID=0EE7B6AE-B8A8-4866-B46A-B24D7D68DECB
Given the weaknesses of his arguments and lack of expertise, I’m puzzled why he was singled out as a person who Sowell says we “…must refute the arguments…” of. Actually, I’m not even sure why Temple spent that much time in that discussion. Beyond insuring that Latour’s errors were pointed out to a non-expert audience, there really wasn’t a point in it.
Ben Lawson, Giles Winterbourne,
Interesting comments, indeed. Thank you for that.
Re stripping away First Amendment rights, no, you never came close. Complaining about it is revealing, though. It appears to me that you both miss the point made by Dr. Latour, perhaps deliberately? Let me spell it out for you.
First, under control theory, of which there is an enormous body of reputable work over many decades, certain characteristics must exist or there is no possibility of exerting control. There are many references provided by Dr. Latour on this.
And parenthetically, I do not know why you assert that Hydrocarbon Processing’s letters to editor are behind a pay-wall. I have no subscription, yet it is available to me and others.
Second parenthetical comment, it is also revealing that you disparage the magazine Hydrocarbon Processing, one of the two oldest, most respected, and widely-read industry journals in the world. While HP does not focus on climate matters, it does devote a fair amount of pages to process control matters. And on that subject, it is quite authoritative with some of the best and brightest in the world regularly authoring articles. Their peer-review system is excellent, as the editors there know whereof they speak. Further, like any good technical journal, any errors or inconsistencies are published as letters to the editor in subsequent editions, with the author having an opportunity to respond. I have the honor of being published in HP.
One last comment on control theory and practice in refineries, chemical plants, power plants, and other processes: this is deadly serious work. Control practitioners do not have the luxury of being wrong. If they are, things explode and people are killed. The control requirements as given by Dr. Latour, and explained below, are based on many decades of experience in many thousands of processes world-wide. Professional control engineers know what they are doing, and Dr. Latour is one of the best, most experienced, and most respected.
Back to the control theory: The first characteristic for controlling a system is that one must be able to measure the parameter to that is to be controlled. The measurement must provide consistent results. This requirement is not subject to debate. In the case of the earth’s surface temperature, it has been amply demonstrated that this is a serious problem. There is no agreement as to what the temperature is, or was, or how it should be measured, or how it could be measured, or where, when and how. If you don’t know at what speed your car is traveling, how can you possibly know whether to speed up or slow down to achieve a desired rate of travel? Mr. Watts has demonstrated quite satisfactorily that the temperature measurements are completely suspect.
The second characteristic for controlling a system is that a suitable manipulated variable must be found. The manipulated variable must have several characteristics of its own, in order to be effective. Dr. Latour lists these, and I give a more detailed treatment in my blog. Briefly stated, there must be a consistent, reliable, measurable, and repeatable response by the controlled variable (global temperature) when the manipulated variable (CO2 in the atmosphere) is changed. This, too, is not subject to debate.
If one asserts that global temperatures increase when CO2 in the atmosphere increases, then the global temperature must increase every time the CO2 increases. Also, the temperature must increase by the same proportion every time. Not just increase some of the time, and not decrease sometimes, and not be unchanged sometimes. Conversely, the global temperature must decrease when the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere decreases. Clearly, CO2 and global temperature, however poorly measured, do not have that relationship as required for a control system to function.
As Dr. Latour concluded, CO2 has nothing to do with the earth’s temperature.
No amount of data gathering, manipulation, data rejection, changing past data, grid-screening and interpolation, changing measurement techniques, repeated scare-mongering statements by politicians or Nobel-prize winning former future presidents, nor any other drum beating or breast beating will alter those fundamental facts.
That is why Dr. Latour’s argument is utterly devastating to the entire “CO2 is going to kill us all” position to which AGW proponents adhere.
Regarding the difference in time-responses in a refinery and climate, that has nothing to do with the problem. But, it is interesting that you seized upon that bit of what I wrote. Time lags are indeed important in control theory and practice, but once again the control response must be consistent and repeatable even after accounting for the time lag. Time lags also must be consistent, and the CO2 – temperature relationship fails that test. Dr. Lansner had something to say about this on WUWT recently. His work shows rather convincingly that at the same levels of CO2, temperatures increased at times, and decreased at times. Again, this is completely devastating to the CO2-causes-warming contention.
Just to recap, the AGW proponents hold that CO2 concentration increased rather steadily from roughly 280 ppm to 385 ppm, over the time period 1800 to 2008. Perhaps the increase is just a bit more rapid in the past 25 years. Yet, the best estimates of global temperature from the AGW proponents show cooling, then warming, then no meaningful change for nearly three decades, then warming, and finally cooling for the past several years.
Again, I invite you to refute Dr. Latour’s argument. You have the entire argument laid out here on WUWT, not behind a pay-wall, for the entire internet-world to read, copy, circulate, and refute.
Roger E. Sowell, Esq.
Climate Change Attorney
B.S. Chemical Engineering
Roger, compliments on a very well written and eloquent comment.
Ben Lawson (21:47:18) :
You are right that the atmosphere is so much more complex than a refinery. The oft-argued basis of skepticism on WUWT is that it is SO much more complex that we cannot model it accurately and that we do not measure it accurately in the first place (see Surfacestations.org, and Anthony’s many “How not to measure temperature…” posts). Additionally, many of the results inferred from comparative work and projections do not hold up under quite small changes of method (see yesterday’s post on Steig’s reconstructions).
Now you might think that worrying about whether there is asphalt or a BBQ close to a temperature sensor is a bit of a joke, but we’re dealing with small changes which are easily engulfed if there is a large margin of error, and unfortunatley most of the errors are biased towards warming. Before any government commits billions to combatting global warming (in my name as a tax payer) I’d like to be a bit more certain that the money would not be better spent on other things.
My own journey from ignorant believer to informed skeptic began in starting to question and understand the science, some time before encountering WUWT. You too are a scientist (were, I see from your blog). Science is about understanding and explaining what we observe. I have no problem with the suggestion that the observed increase in CO2 from human activity contributes to warming, but I have a real problem with being told it is the only or most important factor and that we have to do something about it – alarmism.
Do read Dr Lansner’s post on past climate here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/30/
It has a simple take-home message than temperature can fall when CO2 is high, and that is why CO2 cannot be the contolling factor in climate teperature.
Actually, Latour’s letter, while better supported with cites than the average [snip], doesn’t focus on control theory. Rather, he takes a few studies that are essentially outliers to support a contention that simply doesn’t hold up to scientific scrutiny. We can thank Temple for his time, but also we also note that Latour is only writing a letter to an editor and isn’t under the quality constraints necessary for a research paper. Again, I’m puzzled why he was singled out as a person who Sowell says we “…must refute the arguments…” of.
That is why he can get away with citing OISM, misconstruing conclusions (ala G. Will), mistaking a cherry-picked 8 year dataset for actual climate studies, and saying “There must be room for unsubstantiated informed opinion.” (http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=716332&ISS=25267&GUID=0EE7B6AE-B8A8-4866-B46A-B24D7D68DECB)
Actually, Dr. Latour’s Sept. 08 letter to the editor is behind the HPI paywall. We do have Temple’s rebuttal and Latour’s reply available to the public on the HPI site (http://www.hydrocarbonprocessing.com/index.html?Page=14&PUB=22&SID=716332&ISS=25267&GUID=0EE7B6AE-B8A8-4866-B46A-B24D7D68DECB ).
Temple has, with permission, posted the Sept letter on his site (http://www.ccd4e.org/drpierre_latour_and_jeff_temple/) along with Latour’s reply and his (Temple) further discussion that wasn’t posted in the Letters to the Editor.
Latour’s 23 points include such inanities as “When people get too warm, they take off sweaters…”, “…system disturbances are not measurable”, and in general makes several comments best described as “…unsubstantiated informed opinion”. There is also “Atmospheric CO 2 lags atmospheric and ocean temperature rather than leading it, according to data published by Al Gore”; I can’t tell if he’s citing (without attribution) Al Gore, or just not editing before hitting send. He only cites himself and Robinson (and possibly Al Gore). Two cites. Neither of which address most of his contentions.
I notice he thanks the Editors for their ‘accurate’ editorial. I can only surmise his was either the best or the only letter they received in support.
Thanks for the Control Theory review, but since Latour only mentions it a couple of times, I really don’t know why there should be so much focus on it; especially if doing so gives all those other howlers a pass.
Again, I’m puzzled why he was singled out as a person who Sowell says we “…must refute the arguments…” of.
Ellie in Belfast (07:18:31) :
“Roger, compliments on a very well written and eloquent comment.”
Thank you, Ellie in Belfast, from an Irishman in California.
You write very well and with eloquence, also!
Roger
Roger, that withering look you’re giving me over your reading glasses is creeping me out! 🙂
You’re looking for insult where there is none, and battling arguments of your own creation. I would comfortably rely on Hydrocarbon Processing for matters related to refineries. I would NOT rely on it in any other subject area.
Dr. Latour has taken his substantial professional achievements and intellectual perspective and applied it holus bolus to a completely unrelated field that has become a personal/political interest of his. The result verges on the unintentionally comical, not the “devastating” high standard that you assign to it. I would however also comfortably rely on his advice if I happened to own a refinery.
I’ll say it again: control theory is an excellent tool in controlled environments. If only the Earth was a small sealed steel cylinder…
I’ll leave the final, and undoubtably lengthy, word to you.
Ellie in Belfast: I view the skeptic’s fundamental position as one of “until we have PERFECT KNOWLEDGE any action is socialist governmental meddling.” Out in the Real World(tm) this controversy is being treated as a risk management issue with the consensus being that the AGM climate threat is likely to be real and worth attempting to mitigate.
I’d also like to offer some praise. Here’s to you Giles Winterbourne, for YOUR well-written, eloquent, on-topic and frankly quite charming comments. Waiting for my own pat on the head… waiting… waiting… (Just a little joke, I have no objection to the supportive words between Roger and Ellie.)
Ben: a few years ago, I was all for “we gotta do something now, even though we’re not sure”, but even our best efforts costing billions, are going to be a drop in the ocean.
There is a risk that if there is catastrophic warming, either CO2 (manmade that is) is not the culprit and it would happen anyway, or we are at fault with man-made CO2, but we are too late to stop the worst changes. The really big risk is that we spend the money and achieve very little, when perhaps the money would be better spent on studying and implementing adaptation strategies.
As for the fundamental skeptic’s position you lay out, I don’t like that one either. I and most skeptics I know, for very sound reasons, do not believe that warming due to CO2 will be the problem it is made out to be. That being the case, I would rather see the money used on some truely worthy cause by a socialist government, or given back to me through reduced tax to spend on a worthy cause of my choice. Unfortunately the most extreme opinions on both sides seem to be the most vocal.