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.
hotrod (11:05:55) : You may be able to measure the temperature of a bucket of water to a precision of .1 deg C but you cannot measure the temperature of a million buckets of water to a precision of .1deg c ,
Nice analogy. I’d only add that some of the buckets have heaters on one side and ice cubes on the other and each bucket is a different size with the amount of water changing while you measure with some leaking out and new water of a different temperature raining in… Oh, and some of the thermometers are near BBQs 😉
Then, once you take the temperature in whole degrees F, you magically gain precision to tenths of a degree C despite that being a mathematical impossibility…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/03/05/mr-mcguire-would-not-approve/
While we might be able to calculate some global average temperature, it’s precision can at most be whole degrees F and it’s accuracy less than that.
If that number has any more meaning than the global average phone number, well, who knows…
E.M.Smith 19:24:24
The ‘permanent’ in carbon sequestration is an awfully big word, but still, the mere presence of hydrocarbon deposits suggests virtually ‘permanent’ sequestration. And we haven’t even gotten into carbonates, granted none guaranteed to be ‘permanently’ sequestered. The history of the world, though, is carbon entrance into the carbon cycle via vulcanism, and virtually permanent sequestration of it through the action of the sun on the biosphere.
=======================================
E. M. Smith,
“The AREA is fractal. Since AVERAGE height is a product of AREA at a height the AVERAGE height is also fractal.”
No. The length of a perimeter can be fractal and non-convergent while an area remains convergent. Hence a fractal island will have an infinitely long coastline and a finite area. Please look up Koch snowflake to correct your misunderstanding here.
kim,
Look at this again:
http://img520.imageshack.us/img520/5601/co2tempext.png
You say the agreement (in the long-term trend, not every squiggle) between temperature and CO2 is coincident. Your argument is that the warming effect, in temperature per CO2 concentration doubling, is too low. Therefore do you agree that IF the CO2 warming effect were large enough (and much larger than you think is possible) CO2 would be a major contributor to the long-term warming?
If you accept this we can discuss the strength of this warming effect. If you don’t think any value is sufficient, you’re really out on a limb.
Tom P (05:54:05) :
Tom,
We’ve reached a peak in temperatures, as your graph points out, but since then trend is down. An analogy: you’ve climbed to the top of a pass. Every step going up has been higher than the last. At the the top, you have reached a maximum. Going down the other side, each step is lower than the previous step. The trend going up, was up. The trend going down, is down. To argue while you are going down that the first step down is the ‘second highest’ step on record, to be followed by the ‘fourth highest” step on record, and so forth; does hide the simple fact the trend has changed. You are in fact, going downhill. Yes, you were going up, but now are going down.
How far will you go down? Depends on the topography.
How far will the current temperature trend continue to go down? Depends on the real climate drivers. I don’t pretend to know what all the drivers are or what their individual contributions amount to, but carbon seems to be out of the running as even a major contributor to our planet’s climate.
Take a look at this series of charts:
http://www.climate4you.com/ClimateReflections.htm#20080927:%20Reflections%20on%20the%20correlation%20between%20global%20temperature%20and%20atmospheric%20CO2
The gentleman running that site keeps all the charts up to date. This one was last updated March of this year. He also has the charts of all the major data sets, HADCRUT, GISS, RSS, etc. He also shows how all these data sets are in general agreement on the trends.
He also shows the entire record of the Mauna Loa CO2 measurements and places this on a graph with the HADCRUT data, hardly a hotbed of denier sentiment.
What is interesting about this graph, the one starting in 1939 and ending in April of 2009, is the detailed look at temperature trends since the start of the Mauna Loa measurements. The current downward trend in temperatures is not the first time temperature trends have gone down while carbon dioxide was going up. Notice the downward trend from 1958, the start of the Mauna Loa measurements, to the early seventies.
If the CO2 hypothesis is correct, at no time should the temperature trends be anything but up. These trends fluctuate. Based on the actual measurements, it would seem safe to conclude trends will continue to fluctuate, but with very little regard for the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The little series of extremely well documented graphs found at Climate4You allows a person to exam the actual and full record of temperatures with a reasoned discussion of what these might mean. There is no possibility of cherry picking as the author shows the whole record, in the case of HADCRUT, back to 1850.
I like the site because it is consistent and well maintained.
I can look at the data and draw my own conclusions. We don’t have to engage in the “my scientific daddy is bigger than your scientific daddy”. Just look at the data and draw your own conclusions.
Many on this board don’t care for the Mauna Loa data and for a lot of good reasons. To keep life simple, I just assume it is accurate or at least reasonably so. Doing so allows me to test the hypothesis tying CO2 levels to the planet’s temperature. The hypothesis has failed.
People who believe in the AGW hypothesis are having a really difficult time right now. Last year, when I pointed out the fact the globe was cooling (this was at Earth.dot) it triggered a lot of denials about the cooling. I was accused of being on the hire of Exxon (wish I was. I could use the cash), misleading the ignorant. Now there seems to be a reluctant acceptance of the general trend of cooling. Some are avoiding the cooling by stretching back the starting point of temperature measures, as you have done, and maintaining the trend is still up.
But my friend, the trend is down for now. For how long? I’ve no idea. But whatever it does, it will do so independently of CO2.
From beautiful Colorado, I wish you the very best.
Tom P 23:35:02
I say again, even though it is tiresome, the only time those curves match is during the last quarter of the last century. And that is what the models are based upon. The curves don’t match before, nor after. On your scale, present temps, and temps earlier than you show are both lower than the CO2 curve. So what you think you are seeing there is a chimera. The models saw it, too, and that’s why they are failing now.
Note the squiggles, due presumably to natural variations. The squiggle during the last quarter of the last century is also due to a natural variation. Your curve fails for the last few years, and it fails extended into the past earlier than your graph, too. So please, enough of it already.
As for your first sentence, I’ve said it over and over again, the curve for CO2 level and for temperature are NOT coincident. Your graph shows it, too. So why do you claim that I do say it, or that your graph shows it? And I’ve said repeatedly that we do not know the temperature effect of doubling CO2. So why do you say that my argument is that that warming effect is too low?
Why is it that you misquote me repeatedly, fail to acknowledge the points that I do make, and then insist that I accept your points before having further discussion? “If you accept this then we can discuss.” Well, I do not accept this. You are not being disingenuous or even dense. You are being obstreperous, and not the least bit persuasive. I suggest you observe the thermometer, in a corner. You can take off the cap, and come out of your corner when the temperature comes back up to your CO2 curve. Meanwhile, read Anthony’s latest about what this horribly mistaken policy based on CO2=AGW will do to the world’s poor. You’ve got a problem coming down the track at you unless you can adjust a little better than you have so far.
===============================================
Oh, and I do think that CO2 has a temperature effect. As I’ve said, I think it is so small we can’t find it in the temperature record. And surely too small to be basing expensive and deadly policy upon.
===========================================
kim,
“Oh, and I do think that CO2 has a temperature effect. As I’ve said, I think it is so small we can’t find it in the temperature record.”
Yours is a circular argument. If you “think” the effect is small enough, then you will see no effect in the temperature record, even if there were perfect correlation between CO2 and temperature. That does not offer any scientific proof it is small, or how small exactly is “small.”
But this can be investigated. Here is the full HadCRUT temperature record together with the temperature derived just from the CO2 concentration at three different levels of effect as expressed by the concentration-doubling temperatures, 1.2K, 2K and 3K (http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.4600v1):
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/1844/hadcrutco2.png
I’d say anything at 1 K or below and CO2 is certainly not the most important cause of global warming – it’s effect is small, though certainly not zero. At a concentration-doubling temperature of 2K CO2 very well explains the background trends. Of course there needs to be an explanation as to why a figure of 2K is a scientifically justified choice.
But before that if you have evidence that the effect is 1 K or less, please present it. It’s not a scientific justification just to “think” that it is small.
Jack,
“If the CO2 hypothesis is correct, at no time should the temperature trends be anything but up.”
Not at all. That an increase in the concentration of CO2 produces a background of warming does not preclude other natural and unnatural effects from causing cooling that can temporarily (a decade or more) be even greater. Climate models include both anthropogenic and natural effects, and show temperature drops in the time series.
Tom P 06:26:36
You are hopeless. Your misunderstanding of my point does not make it a circular argument. If there were a perfect correlation of CO2 and temperature then that would be evidence that there is an important CO2 effect on climate. I am making exactly the opposite point, that since we can’t see a correlation, then it is likely that CO2 has a negligible effect on climate.
And Arrhenius’s own calculations show a small effect from CO2. It is the mistaken addition of a large positive feedback of water vapor that has misled you and the models.
And I’ll counter with this challenge. Show that the effect on temperature that the models and the IPCC have promoted has been scientifically demonstrated. You can’t; it hasn’t been done.
=========================================
You willfully misunderstand me in order to attempt to make your point. I’m back to you being just dense. Then again, why the willfullness; that seems disingenuous. Why do still insist that there is a correlation between CO2 levels and temperature? And who do you think you are convincing besides yourself?
===================================
REPLY: Tom P is exceptionally stubborn, and this thread has gone so far OT now that it is mostly all about this argument. I’m getting a bit weary of Tom P. hijacking threads. Perhaps it is just best to ignore him. – Anthony
Omigod, the Arthur Smith graph you link is essentially the same cherry-picked one you’ve tried to fob off on us before. If you look at the very recent past, and for times before those shown on the graph, then the 1.2C line is a better fit than the 2.0C line. And it still errs, suggesting that the effect is even less than 1.2C. Do you not understand that cherry-picking is an error that can lead to misunderstanding?
===========================================
I’ll say it again, though repetition does not seem to have any effect on you. The most recent temperatures do not fit your graph, nor do temperatures before your graph. Before, CO2 remained flat, presumably, and temperatures were lower. You’ve cherry picked and curve fitted. So do the models. They, you, and Arthur Smith are wrong, some of you deceitfully so.
If the deceit leads to expensive and dangerous policy, those being deceitful will be exposed and held responsible. Carbon encumbering is likely to become deadly. Think about it.
=======================================
OK, Anthony. My arm is getting tired from wielding the 2X4 anyway.
==========================================
Anthony,
Climate sensitivity is obviously a key aspect of the science of global warming. Kim doesn’t want to further discuss it in any quantitative way, and as there’s apparently no appetite from anyone else I agree it’s time to move on.
Tom P 07:56:02
Naw, the quantification is only there during the last quarter of the last century. Not before, and not since. Once again, you misconstrue my point.
You are right, climate sensitivity to CO2 is the key point. You’ve not supported your belief in its high sensitivity with either quantitative arguments or with underlying scientific theory. And every day the earth cools further diminishes your hypothetical high sensitivity. When empiric facts dispute predictions from hypotheses the scientific method requires re-evaluation of the assumptions underlying your hypotheses. Get busy.
===========================================
kim,
Just two quick responses:
“Arrhenius’s own calculations show a small effect from CO2”
You’re wrong: he calculated an alarming 5 to 6K doubling temperature.
Arrhenius, Svante (1896). “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air Upon the Temperature of the Ground.” Philosophical Magazine 41: 237-76.
Various observations favour a climate sensitivity value of about 3 K, with a likely range of about 2 – 4.5 K:
http://www.iac.ethz.ch/people/knuttir/papers/knutti08natgeo.pdf
Tom P 10:04:23
You’re out of date, about a century. Check out what his calculations were after he used Navier-Stokes equations after the turn of the century. You’ve been propagandized, honey.
=======================================
REPLY: Kim and Tom please give it a rest. – Anthony
Tom P (10:04:23),
No, Tom, you are wrong.
You are either ignorant, or you are deliberately misrepresenting the facts.
For your sake, I will assume it’s the former, and enlighten you:
Despite your link [which was clearly written to obtain grant money — just read the summary, and look at the alarming graphs based on rank speculation], there are no “observations” for climate sensitivity. Climate sensitivity has not been observed, because it is so small. Climate sensitivity is simply a model output, and the warmist contingent is still desperately, and impotently, hoping for temperatures to rise in order to prove its existence.
The estimates and models of climate sensitivity vary all over the map. And there is no consensus for any particular climate sensitivity number. As your summary link states, there is wide uncertainty, ranging from 1.5° C to 6° C and more. But empirical, real world climate sensitivity appears to be not much above zero.
Now that your “alarming” argument has been corrected, this is a good opportunity for an ad-hoc ethics test:
By admitting your post was factually wrong, and that you are left only with facts that support natural climate variability, will you now become a skeptic of the CO2=AGW hypothesis, which depends entirely on a large climate sensitivity number?
Or will you just move the goal posts, as usual?
I predict the latter. Prove me wrong. Please.
Sorry Anthony, I didn’t see your REPLY when I posted.
[snip – what part of “give it a rest” do you not understand? All further posts deleted, unless the subject is about Boulder, snow, etc on the topic of original article.]
Woof, don’t you want us repeatedly rolling that ‘Boulder’ up the hill to have Tom P shove it back down again? Heh!
=======================================
Tom P (06:54:24) :
Listen to yourself:
does not preclude other natural and unnatural effects from causing cooling that can temporarily (a decade or more) be even greater.
Yes, natural and unnatural effects can override CO2 for decades. Which is why there is no point in controlling CO2 emissions. There are other forces at work, rendering mankind’s effort trivial.
I’ve lived in Breckenridge, CO since Autumn 2005. For each of the last four seasons in a row, we’ve started skiing in October and ended in May. Eight months of skiing per year. We could keep skiing on the permanent snow fields in the high country but we also like to mountain bike, raft, hike and camp.. It’s a nice warm day, but snow is in the forecast from this Friday through next week. Last May (2008) we got several large snowstorms and I skied waist-deep powder in the backcountry a month after the lifts had closed. Nothing alarming going on up here.