Guest post by Steven Goddard
“April comes in like a lion, and stays that way.”
The University Of Colorado in Boulder and nearby Colorado State University are hotbeds of climate science activity. Famous climate names from both sides of the AGW aisle like NCAR, NSIDC, the Pielkes, Bill Gray and Chris Landsea are associated with these universities. Earlier this extended winter WUWT reported on one forecast by a CU geography professor :
University of Colorado-Boulder geography professor Mark Williams said Monday that the resorts should be in fairly good shape the next 25 years, but after that there will be less snowpack – or no snow at all – at the base areas
No doubt that a geography professor would have the correct skill set to be making ski forecasts 25 years in the future, and that 25 years from now the climate will make a radical switch. It appears that Dr. Williams forecast is correct so far, as Colorado is getting lots of snow.
Wolf Creek Ski Area has received more than 11 metres of snow this winter, and has 118 inches of snow on the ground. (That would be 2.9972 metres deep, using the Catlin tape measure.) Unfortunately, people may be unable to get to most of the ski areas because Interstate 70 is shut down – due to too much snow.
Ahead of the current storm, all of the snowtel sites in Colorado were reporting normal snowpack.
| RIVER BASIN | PERCENT OF AVERAGE | ||
| Snow Water | Accum | ||
| GUNNISON RIVER BASIN | 109 | 108 | |
| UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN | 112 | 109 | |
| SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN | 98 | 97 | |
| LARAMIE AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER BASINS | 103 | 105 | |
| YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS | 113 | 109 | |
| ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN | 107 | 99 | |
| UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN | 104 | 107 | |
| SAN MIGUEL, DOLORES, ANIMAS & SAN JUAN | 95 | 10 | |
One popular AGW theory of convenience is that warming temperatures bring more snow. As can be seen below, this might not be an adequate explanation.
http://www.hprcc.unl.edu/products/maps/acis/hprcc/MonthTDeptHPRCC.png
Of course, weather is not climate and the earth has a 50/50 chance of “tipping” in the future – due to reaching some mythical CO2 threshold.
On a more urgent note, a US Navy researcher from told the Beeb that projections of an ice free Arctic by 2013 may be “too conservative.”
“Our projection of 2013 for the removal of ice in summer is not accounting for the last two minima, in 2005 and 2007,” the researcher from the Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California, explained to the BBC. “So given that fact, you can argue that may be our projection of 2013 is already too conservative.”
(This California based researcher did not accompany the Catlin expedition on their -40C Arctic camping trip this spring.)
Polar Bear pondering how cap-and-trade may brighten it’s future?
If you want to save the ski industry and the polar bears, you might want to consider sending Al Gore some money – and please quit producing so much of that dangerous pollutant CO2. However, absolutely do not try to apologize to the bears in person. Skiing is much more fun and generally safer than swimming with polar bears, as this woman visiting the Berlin Zoo found out.
PHOTO: WWW.TELEGRAPH.CO.UK
I just don’t know how to get to any ski areas without making lots of CO2.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
kim,
“Can you explain why the graph linked in that comment has TAR projections starting in 1990 and TAR didn’t come out until years afterward?”
Rahmstorf et al. 2007, Science, 316, 709:
“Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent from the observed climate data since 1990.”
Tom P 01:26:53
It’s moments like this I think you’re just being deliberately trollish. First, have we seen the sort of warming event that has the 800 year delay? Secondly, there is little doubt that some of this CO2 rise is anthropogenic, and the previous delayed rises were not.
As I said on another thread, the ice core data for the last hundreds of thousands of years shows a rough correlation between temperature and CO2 with an approximately 800 year lag. The data for the last hundreds of millions of years shows no correlation. I don’t know whether or not the most recent data shows any correlation, but the recent data is on time scales too short, perhaps, to show the correlation.
And 23:58:40 This comment doesn’t make a lot of sense to me, but if anna v has understood it I’ll take her response. Of course, the Little Ice Age isn’t the underlying cause of the long term temperature trend. We don’t know the cause of the long term temperature trend, but it does not follow the curve of the CO2 concentration.
======================================
hotrod 20:56:30
That is an excellent review and critique. Don’t forget Octave Chanute and Augustus Herring.
==========================================
“Although published in 2001, these model projections are essentially independent from the observed climate data since 1990.”
Actually, Tom P, the computer model projections are essentially independent from reality.
Notice that even the very best GCMs are right about one in six times: click.
That’s being right about 18% of the time — and wrong about 78% of the time. And of course the worst computer models are never right.
They would do a lot better just flipping a coin.
When the IPCC’s always-inaccurate computer models are left out of the discussion, climate alarmists really have nothing left to hang their hat on. All we see is natural climate variability within normal historical parameters. No “tipping point.” No melting of the Greenland ice cap. No declining sea ice outside of natural short term fluctuations. No “runaway global warming.” And certainly no “climate catastrophe” — much as the alarmist contingent wishes it would happen.
Finally, I would once again remind Tom P that the burden is on the climate alarmists to show that the CO2=AGW hypothesis explains reality better than the theory of natural climate variability. So far they have failed.
anna v,
“Someody on this board speculated that since the MWP was 800 years ago the rise in CO2 we are observing is partially due to the mechanism seen in the icecores !”
Well we went through the entire Holocene maximum without seeing CO2 concentrations kick up by more than 10 ppm according to the ice cores. In the last 200 years concentrations have by increased by 100 ppm. I can’t see the basis for their speculation.
Any other suggestions?
Hey, people here should read Peter Huber’s ‘Bound to Burn’ in the City Journal. It turns out that it is an awfully good thing that CO2 does not have a huge climate impact, because we are not going to stop using hydrocarbons for energy soon.
================================
Tom P 05:32:03
C’mon, pay attention. Much of the recent rise of CO2 is anthropogenic, and we don’t see its signature in the temperature record. That’s probably because it is too small. And hey, read Peter Huber, and get over your carbon use guilt.
=============================================
kim,
“Of course, the Little Ice Age isn’t the underlying cause of the long term temperature trend.”
I’m not sure why you therefore referred to Smokey’s plot that tries to claim that it is:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
“We don’t know the cause of the long term temperature trend, but it does not follow the curve of the CO2 concentration.”
Here’s the overlay of Mauna Loa CO2 and HadCRUT temperatures. I’d say they follow reasonably closely.
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9734/co2temp.png
Kim,
“Much of the recent rise of CO2 is anthropogenic, and we don’t see its signature in the temperature record.”
Here’s the rise in CO2 concentration (Mauna Loa) plotted against the rise in temperature (HadCRUT):
http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/9734/co2temp.png
Isn’t it interesting that every climate alarmist falls back on that scary 45° rise in CO2 emissions to support their propaganda?
If they were being honest, they would show the zero axis, which would result in this graph: click.
Not nearly so alarming, is it? But it’s got the advantage of being an honest graph. And keep in mind the fact that most of the rise in CO2 is natural; human emissions of this beneficial trace gas are only a small part of the total.
People sure do like to talk about the weather.
Retired Engineer (08:21:46) :
“Typical Colorado spring. As for weather data from the People’s Republic of Boulder (even they call it that) I wouldn’t count on any reliable information. They would repeal the law of gravity if someone said they were overweight.”
I can’t believe we let one of our kids go to college there. The kids at CSU still have their brains. It’s the ag school, ranchers’ kids. Boulder is filled with east coast kids of CEOS.
I think I’ll go up the Grand Mesa today and measure the snow. We didn’t get anything here in the river valley surrounded by the mountains, except a little more mud rain. Plenty fell on the Western Slope mountains though. Lake Powell is probably still low because Lake Mead is at almost emergency levels.
We were planning to drive over I70 Friday, but were not willing to spend the night in our car. Planted corn instead for the WUWT barbeque in July.
We know better than to take the studded tires off our vehicles before the end of April, having lived here for 25 years.
Tom P 06:12:31
Do you note, in your link, the same rate of rise of temperature from 1910 to 1940 when CO2 wasn’t rising that fast? The association of rising CO2 and rising temperature in the last quarter of the last century is coincidence. That the temperature rise is ascribed to the CO2 rise is the greatest example ever of the Post Hoc, Ergo Propter Hoc fallacy. And what has happened to temperature since the end of your plot, and what has happened to CO2 concentration? Are you willfully not seeing the point, or are you unable to see it?
and 06:07:33
We are quibbling over the meaning of ’cause’. I’ve merely stated that a period of low temperature is not the ’cause’ of a subsequent period of higher temperature. The point I’ve made over and over again is that we do not know the cause of the rise of temperature since the end of the Little Ice Age. We can with pretty good assurance rule out the cause being CO2, though, because the curve of temperature rise does not correlate well with the curve of CO2. The only, and I emphasize only, time that the two curves correlated well was in the last quarter of the 20th Century, and that has been the source of your confusion, and that of many others, too.
You need not be confused. Go read Plimer’s book, ‘Heaven and Earth; Global Warming, the Missing Science’ or a recent review of it in the Australian News, found through icecap.us
=================================
Take another look, Tom, at the CO2 vs temperature plot in your last two comments. Do you see the temperature drop as the CO2 continues to rise? There is a disconnect, which strongly suggests that CO2 is not a powerful determinant of temperature.
I go back and forth between thinking you are truly seeking truth or not. Some of your questions are excellent, and some seem obviously disingenuous. I’m a little disturbed by your unresponsiveness to some of the points being made, and by your reaching for thin bits of data to attempt to make your point.
For instance, overlay the CO2 levels in those last two links you’ve made for the whole time period they cover, not just for the last quarter of last century. The plots would tell a different tale, then. Now, did you make that cherry-picked plot, or did you harvest it from an orchard?
Ignorant or disingenuous. Keep talking and I’ll figure out.
=================================
[snip – pointless to the discussion, condescending, and insulting to the host’s profession- Anthony]
Tom
Feedbacks are part of what is meant that the climate is described by the solution of coupled non linear differential equations.
Now on the 800 year delay, if it comes from changes in the ocean currents the changes will be large for large temperature variations, and small for small ones, as are the temperature variations on the holocene optimum.
I can easily create a model where that 100ppm between 280 ppm and 380ppm is partially bubbling oceans, partially long term ocean movements bringing up CO2 rich waters from the depth, in two components , previous ice age and LIA, partially the extra biological growth due to the temperature increase and a bit from burning forests and fuels. With so many parameters I could fit an elephant.
And I have not entered into errors of CO2 measurements and cherry picking locations where there are no CO2 sources. Might as well measure temperatures at night in the deserts, or on top of high mountains in the shadow.
All I am saying is that despite the efforts and the money spent the science is not settled and will not be for the near future. It is ok to have research projects, it is absolutely not OK to try and stamped the world in suicidal economic policies that will bring a lot of harm and death in the third world
Kim,
“Do you note, in your link, the same rate of rise of temperature from 1910 to 1940 when CO2 wasn’t rising that fast…”
Of course there is variability about the rising trend, as I thought we had already agreed when discussing Tsonis. With the increase in CO2 concentrations lower in the first half of the century it was more difficult to see any effect from them at that time. Natural variability hasn’t gone away, it’s just a smaller proportion of the change we’re seeing.
“And what has happened to temperature since the end of your plot, and what has happened to CO2 concentration?”
I’m afraid that plot brings us bang up to date, and shows good agreement over fifty, not twenty five years.
So you are not able to offer an explanation for this trend over the last fifty years, but reject CO2 as a cause, despite the good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. What are your scientific reasons for such a rejection?
REPLY: Correlation is not always equal to causation. And if you try to dispute that premise there is no hope for you except to live in troll world – Anthony
Tom P 07:36:02
Oh, c’mon, your own plot shows the disconnect between CO2 rise and temperatures very recently. And what about the identical rates of temperature rise from 1910 to 1940 and 1970 to 2000? Since the CO2 rise differed in those two time periods, that is evidence that the rise was natural and not anthropogenic.
I’m beginning to think that rather than ignorant or disingenuous I should have proposed dense or disingenuous. And I’m more and more thinking disingenuous. But if that were the case, why are you promoting such unpersuasive arguments? Back to dense.
Anthony, there isn’t even any correlation except in the last quarter of the last century. So causation is out, despite Tom’s persistent inability to confront the data.
=====================================
REPLY: It is becoming more apparent that Tom’s mission here is to waste time. After seeing another comment where he characterizes weather forecasters with dishonesty in a snarky sort of way, I have decided that he fits the description of troll. He’s not winning any points here and is generally so tedious that I’m considering tossing him in the troll bin permanently. – Anthony
Tom P 07:13:37
Dang, looks like I missed a good one. Too busy rereading Peter Huber, ‘Bound to Burn’. Linked through Powerline by its title and through RealClearPolitics as ‘The Economics of Carbon Capping’. Don’t miss it. Huber pulls no punches on the foolishness of carbon use guilt, the precious conceit of a Western elite.
=========================================
Tom,
So you are not able to offer an explanation for this trend over the last fifty years, but reject CO2 as a cause, despite the good correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature. What are your scientific reasons for such a rejection?
But Tom, you have been offered several times an alternative explanation. CO2 bubbles out of the oceans and lands driven by higher temperatures. That is the problem. There exist alternative explanations, including bad measurements as Beck has been arguing for some time: CO2 was higher from chemical measurements than the orthodoxy 280ppm. Ice cores are from regions where there are few CO2 sources and the methodology is also criticized in the litereture.
Actually saying that Mauna Loa CO2 values are representative of the world values is like saying that Mauna Loa Temperatures are representative of the world temperatures. The same problems that plague world temperature concepts plague world CO2 concepts. But all this is another story.
OT. KIM:Too busy rereading Peter Huber
Really extraordinary. An excerpt Kyoto has hurt the anti-carbon mission far more than carbon zealots seem to grasp. It has proved only that with carbon, governments will say and sign anything—and then do less than nothing. The United States should steer well clear of such treaties because they are unenforceable, routinely ignored, and therefore worthless.
Old cultures, as old people, just watch and laugh at their grand kids naivetes
About Colorado: Wouldn’t it be possible that what we are watching it is another example of the “Goric effect”, nature punishing, hitting, the “source” of all evil against it? If this is the case then Boulder will be under enemy “ice”(contrary to “fire”) for long. 🙂
Kim,
I’ve not cherry picking at all, That is the complete CO2 instrumental data record for Mauna Loa. If you want a comparison with the CO2 ice-core data, here it is:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5601/co2tempext.png
The match to the long-term trend continues to be good, though of course there are excursions around the line as we discussed before.
Anna,
There are many potential models, but they have to be consistent with the historical record and our current knowledge – there are some severe constraints. What has caused the CO2 to start to bubble out? Has such a behaviour been seen before under similar circumstances? Is there any work in the literature on this?
Changes in CO2 concentrations are considerably easier to measure than temperature as it only varies by about 3% with the growing season, as the cycles in the data show and gas diffusion gives a much more uniform distribution.
Tom P.:“What has caused the CO2 to start to bubble out? Has such a behaviour been seen before under similar circumstances? Is there any work in the literature on this?”
Just open a coke up and find the reason for yourself 🙂
CO2 does not preced temperature. It bubbles up when water warms up, or, as in the coke case, when pressure is released (PV=nRT, remember?).
What has caused the CO2 to start to bubble out?
That would be heat…
Water holds more gas at low temperatures, which is why champagne stays fizzy longer when it’s well chilled, and goes flat when you leave it somewhere warm (which serves you right for not drinking it sooner).
Tom P 09:08:44
I guess it’s dense. Why else would you keep posting stuff that disproves your point? Do you see in that link what I’ve been saying all along, that the only time the CO2 curve coincided with the temperature curve is during the last quarter of the 20th Century?
=================================