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.
In 1976 the UK appointed a ‘Minister for Drought.’
Within weeks the drought was over and has not recurred.
In 2009 the USA declared CO2 to be a pollutant.
?
The lesson is that by the time a political establishment responds to a situation the real world has moved on.
“If the normal course of nature laid bare by an individual of questionable intelligence offends you, to that I say: “tough noogies””. – Anthony
Personally I want to thank you for that picture. The “Bambi” view of nature is at fault not you. Personally I am getting very sick of rescuing children from “Darwin Awards”parents and then having their parents scream at me for not allowing the kids to get themselves killed.
The idiot photographing a bear cub from six feet away with his back to Mama bear is my favorite. No the kid who ran under the belly of a carriage horse and sat down leaned against the horses legs to tie his shoes just before a cannon was fired…
Anyway thank you for a very good website. I come here when I need to see “there is some intelligent life down here.”
Squidly (09:34:38) : They are plugged and adjusted to fit past climate in an attempt to “predict” future climate, and therefore cannot “hindcast”. Further, GCM’s have been tweaked and plugged to fit as closely to past climate as possible, and because of the extreme divergence from model to observation, it can be said that their “predictive” skills are very much lacking.
This same behaviour is rampant in stock market computer prediction attempts, with disastrous results. I’ve heard it called “data modeling” and it is roundly given the Big Raspberry whenever someone proposes Yet Another Data Modeling Stock Predictor. If fails so regularly, and so spectacularly, and for the same reasons… Prices (and, I would assert, temperatures) are FRACTAL. Data modeling works for a short time, leading to false confidence, then you hit a turn in the fractal on a different size (time) scale and you are toast.
ALL the AGW computer models are going to be toast because they can not predict the MWP or the LIA or Bond Events. Those are the turns of the larger fractal that are going to happen again at some point. All the endless least squares fits of lines over periods of time are just a waste of bits. Temperatures don’t move in straight line trends. They don’t move in sin waves. They move in a much more complicated way. And like all fractals, it doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes…
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/04/06/bond-event-zero/
“The picture you reference is not the JWs impression of life here on earth now, but rather an image of an Eden on earth that didn’t happen because of man’s fall”
IIRC, the JW literature bangs on about the world after the second coming/end of days/whatever that will occur Real Soon Now (despite having failed to make several previous appointments), and the bucolic scenes depict the world afterwards, when it will only be peopled by true believers and the animal kingdom will live in harmony and, presumably, subsist on a diet of hay. I foresee difficulties, however, with crocodiles, whose jaws are constructed in such a way that they can’t chew, and all the parasites whose life-cycles rely on the expendability of others – in fact, I’m not sure I want a Creator warped enough to design all that stuff in the first place…
timetochooseagain
“…however, you seem to miss the point of what I was say which was that, at present, the changes we are “measuring” are petty small compared with normal weather behavior.”
No point missed – why didn’t you say it in the first place, rather than “huh, so annual cycles are still HUGE compared to ‘climate change’”?
So, again, how large a temperature change do we need to measure before you feel any concern? Is it now 10 rather than 20F? I’m clearly not implying that either will occur, but just trying to understand your position.
By the way, you missed the point of the GISS article. Read the last question:
“Q. What do I do if I need absolute SATs, not anomalies?
A. In 99.9% of the cases you’ll find that anomalies are exactly what you need, not absolute temperatures.”
It’s the anomalies that tell us the warming or cooling trends.
Just Want Truth…
“The earth is cooling. Believe the temperature data…”
I’d rather see the data basis for your trend rather than an uncorroborated assertion.
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.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7286507/
RW 09:59:33
Where do you get ‘attempted suicide attempt’? Have you watched video of her trying to scramble back out? Look, you had a weak point. Do you think making stuff up supports it?
Empathize with this. The wider the distribution of this photo, and video of the event, the less likely anyone else will try such a stupid stunt. Have a little empathy for those diverted from dangerous behaviour.
==================================
I once tried out an equities regression program which backfitted existing data incredibly well. Unfortunately it was worse than a random number generator at forecasting future behaviour.
Tom P 10:15:03
Three of four atmospheric temperature series show cooling for the last few years, UAH, RSS, and HadCru. Even more importantly, because of the huge heat content of the oceans, Josh Willis’s Argos buoy oceanic temperature series shows slight cooling since 2005. And indirect though it is, the increase of sea ice extent, at both poles, is not meaningless.
============================================
JamesP,
You’re right, AGW is a better belief system… hands down.
You win,
Mike
RW (08:29:38) :
“Tom P, the average temperature of the surface of the earth can’t be measured.”
Of course it can.
Yup. It can be measured, just as accurately as the length of a coastline:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coastline_paradox
I can measure anything, it’s the accuracy that’s a bitch … especially with fractals.
The earths temperature is 42. I’ve measured it with my thermometer.
The standard attack technique of the left is to take a quote out of context and gradually expand it into the big lie. Nothing new about this idea, despots have been doing it throughout human history. If you have to lie to yourself and others to keep your core belief system alive, then your essence as a human being is already deceased.
Every school child in the world should see that picture after being forcibly subjected to Al Gore’s animated Polar Bears.
Regarding the use of polar bears for purposes of promoting climate change misinformation, I give you (courtesy of my electric company) – Floe:
http://www.nationalgridfloe.com/
Please note the “Befriend a Bear” link next to the cute baby polar bear. I wonder (given recent events) if the AGW crowd is OK with this…
We must invite some volcanoes to the CO2 july´s barbacue party!
“Steven Goddard (09:57:33) : I suggest that you watch the amazing BBC series “Planet Earth” if you want to see what cruelty in nature is all about. Just the scenes of violence in the lives of corals and starfish alone are absolutely astonishing.”
When I see shows like this, and others that show how the earth has had huge variations of cold and heat throughout it’s history, I don’t get the impression that the earth and nature are fragile. I get a clear impression that both are brutally resilient.
“RW (05:31:33) :”Using a picture of a human being suffering grievous injuries in the way you have done is spectacularly nasty. Do you know what empathy is?”
I have empathy for the bears.
Seriously, showing that photo is a public service.
REPLY: OK let’s give this discussion on the photo a rest everybody. – Anthony
Mark_0454,
Tempting though it might be to eyeball the data, there is no physical basis for fitting the the last thirty years of the temperature record to a series of straight-line segments. As the improvement in the fit over a simple linear trend is marginal, it has no mathematical basis either.
kim,
First you say that Tsonis’ work “proves” there is no connection between climate and CO2, but now “his predictions about its effect can only be conjectural.” It is always wise to read a paper before assuming it supports your case.
Tom P (10:15:03) : uncorroborated assertion?
Wow, it’s obvious you don’t know what you’re doing.
You absolutely need anomalies because Absolute Global Mean temperatures are absolutely NOT scary enough.
http://junkscience.com/GMT/NCDC_absolute.gif
See what I mean?
“Steven Goddard (10:30:56) : “Polar Bears have suffered grievous and irreparable mental anguish because of the way Mr. Gore has portrayed them…” ”
This is funny!
Here is one from RW’s top 10 search –
So, what about the record or equal-to-record maximum temperatures in California just rightnow? Los Angeles, San francisco, San Diego, … ?
Weather or climate?
REPLY: The answer to that is simple. if the media stories cite the record high’s with words like “global warming”, “carbon dioxide” or “climate change”, then it’s climate.
If they simply cite the record high temperatures on their own, without making such connections, then it is weather. Let’s watch and see what is said. – Anthony
Further, GCM’s create a false confidence as they are “plugged”, “fit”, “parametrized” and “tweaked” to mimic the modelers’ ideas of past climate. That is, since there is no absolute climate record trend (all proxy methods vary to a degree), GCM’s are flawed right out of the starting gate. They are manipulated to try to “fit” a past climate “assumption”, then continued to trend into the future based upon that base “assumption”. To further exacerbate the problems, they use many more “assumptions” as to the drivers of those trends. And as you put it, climate is not a linear model but an extremely complex and chaotic fractal model. I believe it is currently completely outside of the capacity for humans to logically describe, explain or model such a system. I have been designing and building computer software (and models) for almost 30 years, and I do not have any level of confidence that humans can use computers to accurately model most any complex natural process such as climate. Any tiny variable (ie: CO2 concentration) even off by a minute fraction, cascades into hugely variable results. An accurate GCM would have to account for literally millions of these variables, each one of which would have to be “balls on” accurate to have any predictive relevance. Further, the interrelationships and forcings of each of these variables would in turn have to be “ball on” accurate. This becomes an exponentially complex problem, with any flaw in the system cascading throughout. This kind of modeling is just not possible, at least presently (and I suspect well into the future). I am astonished by the level of confidence some people have expressed towards these models. Just shows to me the naivety of most people concerning today’s technologies. Heck, we can’t even manufacture a profitable automobile, what makes one think we can accurately model climate?
Mike Bryant
I like girls with tatoos. That way I know that they are very capable of making bad decisions…
Mike, that’s going on my Facebook page, with accreditation, of course.
“Tom P (10:42:53) : mathematical basis”
Tom, if you want to have a better data set to work with mathematically let’s go back 1000’s of years to the Holocene Optimum. Let’s see what temperatures have done since then. Let’s see how quickly temps have risen and fallen through those 1000’s of years. Let’s see if recent warming, which ended some years ago, is “unprecedented”. Let’s see if the earth is in a cooling or warming trend since then. Let’s not look at just the last 30 years, or 100 years.
Good idea, isn’t it?