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.
Saying that the Holocene Optimum was cooler than now could be called history revision.
Tom P 12:11:47
That long term rising temperature trend does not have a known cause. It does not correlate with the CO2 curve, and has been going on since the end of the little ice age. The variations on that curve do match the upper curve of Tsonis’s work.
So, where is CO2 in that mix?
=========================================
anna v,
“The stasis and cooling trend after 2000 is a bonus, because it allows us to decouple any possibility that the merrily rising CO2 anthropogenic contribution can affect the temperatures drastically.”
Let’s agree on the data first, especially as you’re drawing such strong conclusions. I’ve tried to fit just such a trend before – earlier it was suggested that 2001, not 2000 should be the starting point – and I had problems:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1866/trends.png
Maybe you have a plot which better illustrates this? Ron hasn’t got back to me while Steven Goddard has remained conspicuously silent on whether he agrees we see a current cooling trend.
E.M. Smith,
I’m afraid you still don’t understand fractals. That island had a well-defined volume above sea level even though it might have a coastline whose length depended on the ruler used. An average temperature is the area under a time series curve for the period of interest and similarly has a well-defined mathematical value.
As for global temperatures, do you have a problem with Roy Spencer’s satellite UAH temperature series? It’s his temperature anomalies that I’m using for my plots.
Or is your position that as there is no way anyone can determine a global average temperature, we can’t even say whether we’re warming or cooling?
Just Want Truth…
The cooling trend from the Holocene maximum has been about 0.006 degC per century (0.5 degC over 8000 years). What exactly are you disputing here? – although I can understand why you’re disappointed it’s not larger.
timetochooseagain
My plots are based on satellite anomalies, not absolute surface air temperatures so your link to the GISS page concerning the latter is irrelevant.
But I agree, 3 to 5 degF or 2 to 3 degC is a reasonable ballpark figure for concern. I think it’s reasonable to try to measure at sufficient accuracy to see if that’s where we heading, as for instance the UAH satellite team are doing, whatever the cause might be.
Mark_0454
We have a physical system with a number of inputs, none of which I assume. A linear response is therefore the simplest reasonable fit as it reproduces a number of possible power laws over a time-limited dataset.
A scientist will only resort to a more complex fit if the data warrants it, specifically if the correlation is sufficiently improved (it will always be slightly improved as more fitting parameters allow for a better match).
In the case of the UAH dataset, the correlation coefficient for a linear fit is 0.51, rising only marginally to 0.58 even for a fourth-order fit. There needs to be at least a 50% improvement in the correlation to justify adding in another fitting parameter, so the linear fit is the only long-term trend the data warrants.
Tom P (13:08:38) :
If I ignore the data before 2000, no way could I make a claim of rising, it is at best a stasis and at worst a cooling as Lucia has shown time and again. CO2 is rising at its standard pace.
What is there to discuss about the data?
Tom P (11:03:21) : Although indeed the length of a coastline around an island depends very strongly on the length of the yardstick used
So first you say I don’t get it then you say that my statement was spot on.
Reminds me of trying to hold warm jello in your hand …
both its area and average height do not.
Well, first off, I was talking about the USA, not an island, but going on:
Just what in tarnation does wandering off into a different dimension or two have to do with the fact that coastlines are fractal(!)? But running with it…
Since the mountains themselves are fractal, figuring out their surface area is going to be fun. That is why you must specify when buying hilly terrain if the property acreage will be measured by perimeter or otherwise, since the two areas are different precisely because of this fractals issue. So no, the area of an island with vertical terrain is quite strongly dependent on the ruler used as I learned from my Dad (a realtor) when watching him sell farm and mountain land. The “price per acre” had to be accompanied by a definition of how the acreage was determined for large parcels with hills or you did not know the total price. (One of the standard ways to make money was to buy a section of mountains by perimeter, then break out 5 acre plots, and sell many more acres than you bought… “Yes sir, that vertical cliff face is your 5 acres!” )
We’ll leave as an exercise for the student figuring out how to calculate an accurate and precise average height when you don’t know the area nor what is the ‘right’ spacing for your grid points due to no definite perimeter …
The simple thought experiment of bringing in bulldozers to level the whole island to a constant height should show why this is the case.
Oh great, take out the fractal and you don’t have a fractal so there is no fractal issue…. Yes, I see now, clearly I forgot that the answer to the problem is to change the definitions and the data …
Yes, and a cube is just like a sphere once you push the sides in…
A global average temperature is a physically well-defined property.
What is the physical definition for a mathematical creation? Be sure to address Nyquist and both the spatial and temporal domains of your grid.
Go ahead, I’ll wait…
BTW, I can define a Wookie and a Tribble too, doesn’t make them any more real… Kind of like the Aether…
Tom P (23:11:47) :
Ron,
“…there is no significant change in temperatures from 1995 until 2001 and cooling from 2001 up to now.”
I’m having some problems fitting these trends to the data:
http://img23.imageshack.us/img23/1866/trends.png
Do you have a plot which better illustrates this?
This example and other exchanges with TP point out the speciousness of an argument which involves cherry picking. In the time frame of 1998-2009, so-called global temperatures have been cooling. From about 1977 to 1998 they have been warming; from about 1945 to 1975 they were cooling; from about 1910 to 1940 they were rising….do you get the picture? For the 20th Century there was a net rise of about 1°C. This corresponds nicely with a net fall of similar magnitude for the 19th Century. A good depiction of the 20th Century temps clearly illustrating the temperature trends and the cyclical nature of such trends can be found here.
The linked graph shows that we are currently in a 60-year cycle of temperature rise and fall. The 20th Century contained a little over one and a half cycles which contained two warming phases and one complete falling phase. Little wonder that the net change for the 20th Century was a temperature increase.
In the longer range, these 60-year cycles are impressed on a longer wavelength cycle that has a period of more than 1000 years. This includes the MWP and the LIA. For the past 300 years or so we have been recovering from the lows of the LIA.
All of this concern about short-range climate fluctuations is, to use a popular phrase of the times, a distraction.
The fundamental argument between AGWers and climate realists is the contribution, if any, that CO2 makes to any changes in global temperatures.
In the linked graph there is an excellent correspondence between cycles of Total Solar Irradiance and the major ocean/atmosphere cycles of the PDO+AMO. However, for the century as a whole, there is no correlation, nil, nada, between the global temperature cycles and CO2. Since careful, continuous measurements of CO2 really began in 1958 at Mauna Loa, there has been a monotonic rise every year which has ranged between 0.29ppm in 1964 to 2.93ppm in 1998. Continuous and consistent global measurements of CO2 began about 1980 and the annual rises range from 0.64ppm in 1992 to 2.91ppm in 1998. It’s interesting to note that the maximum annual rise in both data bases occurred in the Great El Niño year of 1998.
Another interesting characteristic of atmospheric CO2 is the very regular annual cycle which is clearly depicted in this Global Chart.
This annual oscillation relates to the NH growing season in which CO2 is extracted from the atmosphere in the summer months, and returned to the atmosphere as leaves from deciduous trees and annual crops die off and decay. This rapid atmospheric response gives the lie to those who claim long retention periods for atmospheric CO2. It seems CO2 tends to equilibrate very rapidly. It’s the equilibrium constants of the major sources and sinks that apply, and clearly it is the oceans that are the major player in this regard.
So, if other possible causes of global temperature variations correlate well with the temperature changes, and CO2 does not, why in the world are we spending so much time in trying to tie the two together? The answer is obvious. I believe that man-made CO2 is a measurable component of the atmospheric concentration. As such, it is the only human caused contribution to the atmosphere (recognizing that there are other man-made effluents that have a lesser presence) and as such can be regulated.
I’ll leave it right there to avoid a political discussion.
Tom P-
“My plots are based on satellite anomalies, not absolute surface air temperatures so your link to the GISS page concerning the latter is irrelevant.”
Good, it wasn’t intended for you, it was intended to amusingly slap RW in the face.
“But I agree, 3 to 5 degF or 2 to 3 degC is a reasonable ballpark figure for concern. I think it’s reasonable to try to measure at sufficient accuracy to see if that’s where we heading, as for instance the UAH satellite team are doing, whatever the cause might be.”
You apparently completely missed my comment amount that being an arbitrary figure I pulled out of my ass. It is impossible for you to agree with me on something I don’t have a real opinion on. But, since we are going down that road, extrapolate UAH out and you get about 1.3 C by 2100, which is below your alarm warranting range (which is arbitrary, AFAIK) and the surface trends so far observed aren’t to alarming either. Will that change. Damned if I know. But I doubt it.
On the point of a linear fit, outside the area near ends of series smooths like Hadley does can work OK, and the only reason that isn’t preferred with the satellites is because the data sets are too short to allow for it. Of course, with a Correlation coefficient of round .5, why fit a line (or anything) at all? Let the data speak for itself. My rule of thumb with trends is “If you can’t see it, it ain’t there”. So I see a slight trend in UAH-seems to be there, and noone should need a trend line to tell them that, unless poor chartsmanship is being used to deceive them.
kim,
“That long term rising temperature trend does not have a known cause. It does not correlate with the CO2 curve, and has been going on since the end of the little ice age.”
I’m glad we agree that there is a long term rising temperature curve to explain. But why do you think that trend does not correlate with the CO2 curve, which is also rising over the same period?
Tom P 13:08:38
I gave you four temperature series with a declining temperature since around 2005. See my comment at 10:22:31. Granted, that’s a short trend, but given that the PDO has flipped to its cooling phase and that the last century’s temperature is a pretty nice fit with the phases of the PDO, we can expect another 20 or so years of cooling. Even the warmistas admit that would be a significant trend.
============================================
C’mon, Tom P, don’t be so obtuse. Look at the temperature curves. We warmed from the early 1900’s to around 1940, cooled to around 1970, warmed until just the first part of this century and are now cooling. Why quibble about just when the temperature peaked? The top of the curve was around 2002-2006.
Be not the first to take up the new, nor yet the last to set aside the old. CO2 is a minor determinant of global temperature, so minor, in fact, that we haven’t been able to determine what it is.
======================================
“Tom P (13:08:38) : although I can understand why you’re disappointed ”
Don’t worry Tom, I’m not disappointed. You are wrong.
Tom
It was far warmer during the Holocene than it is now.
You have a funny way of propagandizing.
Does your funny math reassure you?
Tom P-when to things move in the same direction at the same time, you can expect some correlation-I could show a correlation between the price of tea in China and CO2 and if I don’t adjust for inflation, I probably end up with a similarly good correlation to that with temperature. But you are a smart guy, you know why that’s meaningless. Right?
timetochooseagain,
First, we probably really do agree (for the first time?) that even if linear trends continue, we can probably handle the resulting climate change of a little less than 2 degC by 2100. The issue would be if they either continue beyond 2100 or if the trend is above linear before then.
A correlation coefficient of 0.5 is statistically medium to high so it is most certainly not wrong to draw a linear trend. What is mathematically wrong is to then put a more complex curve on it.
Kim,
I think we agree that its the last one hundred years’ trend that needs explaining, not what’s happened since 2005. The PDO has not injected energy over the whole century:
http://www.weatherquestions.com/PDO-and-20th-Century-warming-Fig02.jpg
Again, over that period why do you say there was no correlation with CO2?
kim:
Using the kind of analysis you’re doing, global warming clearly also stopped in 1985:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/to:1985/from:1978
and late 1992:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/to:1992.7/from:1978
and mid 1999:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/to:1999.4/from:1978
and in mid 2004:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/to:2004.5/from:1978
But right now, without any doubt at all, the most recent data show an unambigous warming trend of no less that 1.5°C/decade – far faster than any model prediction:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2008/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2008
Very clear to see, isn’t it? Completely undeniable.
The Blessed Hansen is on record as saying that it is impossible to determine precisely what the global temperature is. Which is an interesting starting point.
Next question: can anyone (RW, Tom P?) tell us what the global temperature is supposed to be? Where is the evidence that the temperature today is the optimum? Would we be better or worse off if it was 1C warmer? Or cooler?
Since higher CO2 concentrations are better for crops and more people die of cold than heat, explain why another 100ppmv and another 1C are problematic.
And since it appears from the 20th century that temperature cycles are about 30 years long and the last upswing began about 1975 why is it unacceptable to look at the figures from about 2003-2005 to see if that cycle has finished or not?
I’m only curious you understand!
Well, kind of. Again, when speaking of just the mean temperature change around the globe, stating an exact figure is not really such a smart way to look at it. Warming concentrated in high temperatures would be worse than concentrated in low, for instance. I don’t know what the expectations are, but I think I have some idea. And I take the optimistic view that if AGW really does take us to 1.4 ish more mean warmth by 2100, and that isn’t hurting us at that point, then by 2100 we should be sufficiently advanced as a society to either cope with another century of the same or to eliminate the problem altogether. As society develops, problems tend to evaporate…
Tom P (14:05:51) :
I see you didn’t reply to me about (13:47:26)
It was far warmer on earth during the Holocene Optimum than now — you agree? It’s a ‘yes’ or ‘no’ question.
Why play this game of how much warmer it was divided by how long ago it was? Why play that silly numbers game? It is irrelevant. Is this the best use of your time? And even if we were all forced to play your game we still would come to the conclusion that earth is cooling.
You would quickly agree that it was far warmer during the Holocene than now and that the warming that happened recently is by no means unprecedented?
You do love the truth, don’t you?
RW (14:09:50) :
You guys get tedious.
Steven Goddard, Re:
I don’t mean to quibble with the wording “normal”, but as this storm moves out, I consider the Colorado river basins, somewhat exceeding Lake Wobegone children, all well-above average for the time of year, with the exception of the San Miguel, in SW corner of the state, but a few of their snow-samplers have yet to report. As it now stands, we’re in good shape for the summer:
COLORADO
GUNNISON RIVER BASIN ………………………… 112 109
UPPER COLORADO RIVER BASIN ………………. 117 112
SOUTH PLATTE RIVER BASIN …………………… 112 107
LARAMIE AND NORTH PLATTE RIVER BASINS 106 106
YAMPA AND WHITE RIVER BASINS ……………. 114 108
ARKANSAS RIVER BASIN …………………………. 115 105
UPPER RIO GRANDE BASIN ………………………. 111 110
SAN MIGUEL, DOLORES, ANIMAS
AND SAN JUAN RIVER BASINS ……………….. 96 102
kim,
Tsonis has a plausible explanation for the wiggles, which I’m most certainly not quibbling about, but not for the long-term trend. We can’t reject CO2 as contributing to the trend through a lack of correlation – both the long term temperature and CO2 concentrations moved up last century.
But this of course does not prove causality (I agree with timetochooseagain again!).
However, we now reach the nub of the issue. What might have contributed to this long-term warming, and do the possible causes have the necessary power to produce the warming we have seen over the last century?
“RW (14:09:50) : Very clear to see, isn’t it? Completely undeniable.”
Who cares what was predicted. You act as this ‘prediction’ meant something in the first place.
It was warmer on earth during the Medieval Warming Period than now.
It was warmer during the Roman Warming Period than the Medieval Warming Period.
It was warmer during the Holocene Optimum than during the Roman Warming Period.
There, I just denied you.
That’s all now Tom P and RW. I have much more interesting things to do.
Tom-I can see you are much more reasonable than my first impression of you suggested to me. However, I think it is important that we remember that while we do expect CO2 (and Methane, and other hydrocarbons which also generally rose in concentration) to cause some warming) that one can say this, while still believe that there are a myriad of other factors involved. Many are anthropogenic (land use/land cover changes, aerosols (both the cooling and warming kind) and some are natural (solar effects are very poorly quantified at present and we don’t even have consistent measurements recently, yet this is pretty much it for what “natural” effects models include. What if the left something important out? You may think it unlikely, but it is a question worth asking.
Sam the Skeptic,
Above 2 degC we’ll really have problems. The world might indeed be a bit better if it we at a slightly different temperature. Coping with the change from current conditions is the issue.
Looking at 30 year cycles is fine but there’s no evidence in the satellite data of such a cycle in the 30 years so far. And 2009 has been warmer than 2008 by quite a distance, so judging turning points from short-term data is a mug’s game.