As the snow piles up over the Northeast, it is clear that global warming or climate change has caused this storm. Please take the opportunity to write up a prospective/perspective article as comments and I will combine them into the most coherent narrative for the folks at the New York Times or Washington Post to use in their newspapers. Note, you may use anonymous sources or experts in the field to come up with testimony. You may/should probably include anecdotes from storm-weary travelers who have never experienced anything like this before. Also, bonus points will be awarded to those that incorporate climate model predictions, which are almost always spot on when it comes to “forecasting” these “extreme events”. We will compare our efforts to what the elites ensconced in Washington, New York City, Boston, and London come up with.
Note to the blog police: this exercise is meant to be illustrative of the contortions that the media on both sides of the Atlantic have undergone to rationalize “winter weather”.
So far, Wade has set the standard for best journalism.
Update December 29, 2010: Time Magazine does not disappoint: blizzard is a sign of global warming!
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:58 am
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:49 am
The total energy we receive from the EUV in the 26-34 nm band quoted is 0.0001 Watt/square meter.
It is hard to get numbers correct when there are so many zeroes. Should have been 0.001 Watt/square meter [almost all of it from the bright HeII line at 30.4 nm]. The band comprises about a quarter of the total EUV flux. You can compare this to the ~million times larger TSI, which is what our climate feeds off.
Regardless of TSI staying flat, a 15% reduction EUV has an enormous effect on the botanical life, which in turn has an impact on processing carbon in its CO2 form. Since this whole great debate hinges on the magnitude of the effect of CO2 on climate, writing off the change in EUV as insignificant seems odd.
Lets see if we can make this simpler for them.
Given that the IPCC is NOT projecting adverse surface temperature scenarios until about 2060 (unless you wish to discard IPCC findings in favor of MSM muse), all news media articles claiming a current correlation between weather events and AGW impacts should be dismissed as fiction.
Scenarios: 2010-2030. Part I
by Judith Curry
http://judithcurry.com/2010/12/23/scenarios-2010-2030-part-i/
“The IPCC AR4 projected a near term global average temperature increase of 0.2C per decade. Further, the AR4 showed an insensitivity of global average surface temperature to emission scenarios prior to about 2060.”
[ryanm: damn John, you are simply making too much sense here — and giving away the entire game. Tho citing “moderate” Judith Curry gets you a bonus point for something (?)]
Bandwagon. Call the warmists out on their key talking point
Clean the Garbage Patches that ballooned in size during the age of Industrialization/Globalization and the Oceanic Gyres will 1) lose heat 2) return CO2 to natural variances determined by the climate values established by the magnetic field relationships of Earth, Sun, Galactic Orbital Position (changes to these variables of relations alter ERBE and when that Equation changes all others must be adjusted- Weather is interesting because similarity of conditions does not entail uniform math)
Obliquity, precession, and eccentricity are only Ice Age/Hot House coattendant facts that result from stochastically measurable variables which determine changes to the sun’s energy management system
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:27 am
People who claim that 1/1000,000 of TSI has any effect should substantiate that. You often hear the skeptics ‘argument’ “how can a trace gas making up only 350 parts per million have any effect?”, yet they happily ascribe significant effect to a 1 part per million of TSI.
The latest paper from Krivova, Vieira and Solanki shows a 1.3W/m^2 increase from the end of the Maunder Minimum to now. Including the terrestrial amplification found by Nir Shaviv in his JGR paper on using the oceans as a calorimeter, that alone will account for most of the warming from the little ice age to now, once the temperature record is corrected. The rest could have something to do with the ~50% increase in EUV over the same period, and its effect on atmospheric chemistry. We don’t know yet how much ozone is affected by EUV variation or how much it affects climate, but some say it is likely significant.
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/12/27/solanki-krivova-vieira-crucial-new-solar-paper/
Leif, my apologies, I should have looked further. The chlorophylls A&B, respond most in the 350-450 nm range, apparently just above the lost EUV from the troposphere, so it should indeed have little impact on the botanical world that I wrongly surmised.
The posts in this forum are truly an inspiration. Our spirits will not submit to the tyranny of climate PC. Maybe this could become a regular feature.
[ryanm: the sad thing is that what our commenters have come up with in jest may actually be printed in the NY Times as factual]
tallbloke says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:47 am
The latest paper from Krivova, Vieira and Solanki shows a 1.3W/m^2 increase from the end of the Maunder Minimum to now.
It uses the obsolete Group Sunspot number as its primary input and is thus not valid. Now, people often use out-of-date data if it supports their theory. Even Hoyt & Schatten’s obsolete TSI reconstruction is still being used by climate modelers.
Steve Keohane says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:54 am
so it should indeed have little impact on the botanical world that I wrongly surmised.
People often have such a knee-jerk reaction in order to support what they believe in, rightly or wrongly. You are in good company, c.f. tallbloke’s comment.
Kaboom
hace unos años atras los alarmistas decian que el calentamiento global iba a provocar inviernos calurosos
por que ahora dicen que el calentamiento global provoca mas frio ?????
a quien le creo ????
hasta cuando dejaran de decir payasadas ????
Theo Goodwin says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:59 am
Agreed, we should make this a regular occurance. It will be amazing how much satire we create will align with the goop that the warmist spout out as truth!
Here’s what I have seen in nearly 60 years of life, making my living for nearly 30 of those in the Air:
One, nature is cyclical- in all aspects Atmospheric, Oceanic, Solar,
Two, as much as we admire our models and computers that make them.
they can be and usually are, wrong. Climate modeling is not the same as modeling
wing joints on a Boeing 787 or engines on an Airbus 380. (well maybe).
Three, to ignore history and/or modify it (like the denial of the MWP)
is to repeat it as what appears to be happening now. I value what I hear
from old Fishermen, Ranchers and Farmers, when some oldboy says:”I think we are
going back to the way the weather was in the late 40’s early 50’s” pay attention to
those people. You have more insight on they way things are from the seat on a John Deere, or the Wheelhouse of a Crabber running the Umqua bar….
Is it permissible to report on this warming deja vu ? Hummm, correlation……….., coal, nope, SUV’s, nope, campfires, ah ha! Thai’s the ticket !
http://www.glerl.noaa.gov/pr/ourlakes/background.html
[ryanm: the sad thing is that what our commenters have come up with in jest may actually be printed in the NY Times as factual]
LOL! Oh, the joy.
On reflection, that is not a bad thing. That could give us a bit of control.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 10:08 am
tallbloke says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:47 am
The latest paper from Krivova, Vieira and Solanki shows a 1.3W/m^2 increase from the end of the Maunder Minimum to now.
It uses the obsolete Group Sunspot number as its primary input and is thus not valid. Now, people often use out-of-date data if it supports their theory.
As I pointed out on the Trenberth thread, their opinion is part of the literature. As yet your opinion on this is not.
Steve Keohane says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:54 am
so it should indeed have little impact on the botanical world that I wrongly surmised.
[Leif responds]People often have such a knee-jerk reaction in order to support what they believe in, rightly or wrongly. You are in good company, c.f. tallbloke’s comment.
What does the wavelength of EUV absorbed by biological material at the surface have to do with ozone production high in the atmosphere?
[ryanm: damn John, you are simply making too much sense here — and giving away the entire game. Tho citing “moderate” Judith Curry gets you a bonus point for something (?)]
LOL, if you want to get rid of rats you may as well use rat poison. I can’t tell you the number of times I’ve posted comments on news stories only to get 20 replies that “if the IPCC says its so it must be true”.
I also figured quoting Judith was the easiest way to diffuse any question about the source. If they want to dispute this, let them banter with Judith.
It does bring up a very interesting point, all articles claiming a current correlation between weather events and AGW impacts should be dismissed as fiction if the IPCC AR4 is the accurate. Or, is it possible the Warmists and Skeptics agree on something : ) ?
[ryanm: yep, apparently the 2080-2100 time-splices have been moved up to the present day. whew, that was fast. If only more than 3-8C of warming had taken place since 1998 like they said it would…]
tallbloke says:
December 27, 2010 at 12:23 pm
As I pointed out on the Trenberth thread, their opinion is part of the literature. As yet your opinion on this is not.
The Hockey stick is part of the literature, too. It is wrong to use the word ‘opinion’ about a conclusion reached by painstaking analysis.
What does the wavelength of EUV absorbed by biological material at the surface have to do with ozone production high in the atmosphere?
EUV does not reach the surface, and does not even produce ozone in any significant amount [the air is way too thin in the thermosphere – millions of times thinner than in the stratosphere].
shoot — s/b if IPCC AR4 is the source.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 12:41 pm
It is wrong to use the word ‘opinion’ about a conclusion reached by painstaking analysis.
Ok, your scientific opinion. For which you have very good reasons. 😉
No offence intended. You didn’t seem to have a problem with it on the Trenberth thread.
tallbloke says:
December 27, 2010 at 1:16 pm
Ok, your scientific opinion. For which you have very good reasons. 😉
No offence intended.
Still, the word ‘opinion’ is normally not used in scientific publications. Acceptable substitutes might be ‘finding’, ‘result’, ‘analysis’, and similar.
You didn’t seem to have a problem with it on the Trenberth thread.
No need to bitch twice…
The fundamental cause of the trouble is that in the modern world the stupid are cocksure while the intelligent are full of doubt.
– Bertrand Russell, 1872 – 1970
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:49 am
The total energy we receive from the EUV in the 26-34 nm band quoted is 0.0001 Watt/square meter.
Its not about energy, I covered this the other day. EUV is the main player in the density and height of the Thermosphere, the solar wind and geomagnetic field are also important but perhaps play a modulating role while EUV sets the baseline. The two are similar in output but not hard linked. CO2 is also a smaller player but I am not sure if there is much fluctuation going on there. Perhaps someone else could advise?
The Thermosphere link to the NAO and AO via pressure changes is the area of interest. Ulric and I are currently looking to see if there is a link between arctic pressure and the solar wind.
Leif Svalgaard says: December 27, 2010 at 10:08 am
tallbloke says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:47 am
The latest paper from Krivova, Vieira and Solanki shows a 1.3W/m^2 increase from the end of the Maunder Minimum to now.
It uses the obsolete Group Sunspot number as its primary input and is thus not valid. Now, people often use out-of-date data if it supports their theory. Even Hoyt & Schatten’s obsolete TSI reconstruction is still being used by climate modelers.
Steve Keohane says:
December 27, 2010 at 9:54 am
so it should indeed have little impact on the botanical world that I wrongly surmised.
People often have such a knee-jerk reaction in order to support what they believe in, rightly or wrongly. You are in good company, c.f. tallbloke’s comment.
I don’t have a ‘belief’ in the game here Leif. I was wondering about the secondary effect of a change in the amount of UV on the photosynthesis process, but realized I needed to confirm the UV absorption spectrum of the chlorophylls. I was not looking at TSI as a thermal effect, rather as secondarily affecting the photosynthesis process and the carbon cycle, and therefore the relative amount of CO2 vs. temperature being impacted. Just wondering about how that might further confound the issue.
The spectrum charts I have found show just under 300nm at the earth’s surface, albeit a tiny fraction of the solar output. http://i51.tinypic.com/2yxr6rl.jpg
From that chart at 350nm about 10% of what comes in is getting to the ground. I am thinking in context of WUWT article “…UV declined TSI Constant”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/12/22/sorces-solar-spectral-surprise-uv-declined-tsi-constant/#more-29918
Since chlorophylls like 350-450nm, it looks like 380-400nm also took a hit. It just seemed like a reduction in the photosynthesis process would change the carbon cycle and make more CO2 stay airborne or find another sink.
Where are the measurements for CO2 in the Thermosphere?
CO2 is heavier than air, how does it get up there? It is one and a half times heavier than air: “Because CO2 is heavier than air, it doesn’t readily rise into the atmosphere and, instead, tends to pool in low areas.”
http://hvo.wr.usgs.gov/volccanowatch/2005/05_06_02.html
Who first began promoting the SuperMoleculeCO2 that can defy gravity and air pressure?
AGWScience says this SuperMoleculeCO2 has extraordinary powers to stay up in the air for hundreds and even thousands of years, accumulating in the atmosphere. Is this SMCO2 a genetic mutation randomly generated in evolution, or what..? No longer of any use to plants who require it to be available at ground level because they take it in as food from the underside of their leaves, so what ecological niche does it exploit?
Heard on the grapevine that there are a couple of forests where the plants are organising a protest to save their bog standard CO2 food source against the continuing production of this genetically modified sterile SMCO2 by some global industry giants such as Modinsanto. Rally to their cause, spread the word to your gardens.
Leif Svalgaard says:
December 27, 2010 at 8:49 am
The Thermosphere link to the NAO and AO via pressure changes is the area of interest.
The thermosphere having a mass of 1/1000,000 of the troposphere exerts negligible pressure [and pressure changes].
Tallbloke is on to something….as is Geoff Sharp…..as is Robert Bateman. Three of the smartest guys on here.
It’s not completely figured out right now….but they are on to something.
The question is: “Will the ‘experts’ actually give them a good listen?”
As long as they (the “experts”) have closed their minds…they most definitely won’t.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
VICTOR @ur momisugly December 27, 2010 at 10:32 am:
Creo solamente sé nada.