Guest post by Dr. Richard Keen
The winter of 2009-2010 was a memorable one in the Northeast and Mid-Atlantic states, with locations like Philadelphia enjoying multiple massive snow storms that led to record totals for the winter. As with all exceptional weather events of late, the usual suspects blamed the occurrence on global warming. In a NOAA press release reported in USA Today (http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/2010-07-15-heat-record_N.htm), Jay Lawrimore stated that…
Heavy snow, like the record snows that crippled Baltimore and Washington last winter, is likely to increase because storms are moving north.
To which I commented on “Watts Up With That” on July 16, 2010 ( http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/07/16/a-spot-check-on-noaas-hottest-so-far-presser/ ) that Lawrimore’s remarks show a complete lack of understanding of weather (which makes up climate).
Anyone who spends a few winters on the East coast knows that snow there is generally caused by lows off the coast, and if the storms move north (as Lawrimore claimed), Baltimore, Philadelphia, NYC et al. find themselves in the warm sectors of the lows, and enjoy warm southerly winds and rain.
That’s the theory; how about some data to show that a warmer climate should lead to less snow, not more. The data are easy to find and interpret. More than a century of winter snow totals and average winter temperatures (December-January-February) are posted on the NWS Philadelphia web site. Seasonal snow totals in Philadelphia are dominated by the occurrence (or non-occurrence) of large snow events (i.e., the snowiest winters have two or three major storms, and the least snowy winters had none). Here’s some charts and correlations.
Chart 1 compares yearly winter snow totals (in blue) with winter mean temperatures (in red). The small circles are for individual winters, and the heavy lines are 30-year running means (since climate is defined by some, such as the WMO, as a 30-year average). The winter temperatures are plotted upside-down to show the correlation better. And the correlation is that warm spells, like those in the 1930s, 1950s, and 1990s, have less snow overall than cold epochs like the 1900s, 1910s, 1960s, and 1970s. Note that the 30-year running means are plotted and the end of each 30-year period, so while the 30-year means are shifted a bit from the highs and lows of the annual values, the 30-year curves for snow and temperature line up together. Also note that over 126 years, Philadelphia’s winters are not getting warmer or colder, and there’s not much change in snowfall.
Chart 2 is a direct comparison of yearly snowfall with winter temperatures. The correlation coefficient (square root of R2) is greater than -0.5, which is not bad for anything in climate. It clearly shows a trend for more snow during colder winters, and less snow during mild winters. Philadelphia’s average annual snow fall is 20.5 inches, and the coldest winters produce about twice that amount, while the warmest winters are almost snowless.
The occurrence of snowy and less snowy winters during cold and mild winters is summarized in the table below. Although half of the winters are warmer than the median temperature (of course!) and half are colder, and half of the winters are snowier than median and half are less snowy, the co-occurrence of snow vs. temperature is not so even.
There are several ways to describe the relation between winter temperature and snowfall….
- Colder winters are three times more likely to be snowier than the median.
- Snowy winters are three times more likely to be cold.
- Warm winters are three times more likely to have less snow than the median.
- Less snowy winters are three times more likely to be mild.
One way the relation between snowfall and winter temperature CANNOT be described is that warmth leads to more big snowstorms and greater total winter snowfall.
By the way, I did this analysis for Philadelphia because it’s where I was raised and learned about weather before moving to Colorado. The warmers will no doubt raise their usual charge of “cherry-picking” when inconvenient data shows up. I challenge them to examine others locations in the northeast to find one they can “cherry pick” to support their claims. Until they do, the recent large snowstorms stand not as a symptom of global warming, but as yet another indication that global warming may not be happening at all.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Speaking of frozen lakes and snow…
The Blizzard of 77
http://members.shaw.ca/wellandwx/blizzard77.htm
I have a summary of 2010 snow coverage and compare December of 2010 to past years.
http://theinconvenientskeptic.com/2011/01/snow-extent-for-2010/
P. Solar says:
January 5, 2011 at 4:57 am
As I understand it, the warmist proposition here is that snow is a form of precipitation and that GLOBALLY warmer temps will lead to increased precipitation in affected areas….Your analysis neither proves or disproves this hypothesis. Despite the title, you do not address the issue.
P. Solar, the fact is that it is ipcc Climate Science that doesn’t try to prove or disprove its own alleged hypotheses. In this case they’ve only hand-waved once again, and tried to make us do their work, which they will dismiss anyway.
In brief, P. Solar, you are assuming that ipcc CO2CAGW Climate Science is making objective statements about reality which are susceptible to confirmation or falsification by real, scientific method, science, when that simply isn’t the case as judged by its practice over time. It’s practice instead indicates that ipcc Climate Science is only a massive Propaganda Op. directed toward controlling people under the guise of doing real science.
For example, P. Solar, according to your above interpretation of what the AGW hypothesis says about how it works to explain the snow, Global Cooling could, in like manner, also hypothetically do the same thing by lowering temps enough in the affected areas, thus causing increased precipitation there as snow.
Even a theory based on no change in Global Mean Temperature can also explain the amount of snow; because a null hypothesis or theory simply appealing to normal climate-weather variability from “natural” influences, and as already established by a record, can explain the increased snow, and probably without even mentioning or needing GMT!
In fact, Dr. Keen’s Chart 1 also shows that most likely nothing new of significance is going on regarding the snow and cold in that area compared to the past 100+ years.
So why is it immediately necessary for Climate Science to appear to worry about something new affecting the climate and weather there, such as its CO2CAGW hypotheses, without even offering any actual evidence such as Chart 1! And then to also appear to claim by implication that this actual record is proof of those hypotheses in particular, instead of tending to prove that nothing new is occurring?
The problem with ipcc Climate Science as indicated by Dr. Keen’s Chart 1 is that starting right from the beginning, the CO2CAGW warmists won’t let what they assert be falsified. Therefore, they aren’t really making any assertions about the real world to begin with, and they know it as judged by the way they act; so that what they assert is functionally/in practice totally meaningless regarding objective, scientific reality.
Again, that’s why they apparently didn’t even do anything like what Dr. Keen did to try to back up what they appeared to be saying! Where was the beef!
Imo, the only conclusion which makes sense of the way ippc Climate Science operates, is that the ipcc “Climate Scientist” CO2CAGW warmists don’t care at all about proving what they appear to say. In fact, since they assiduously avoid using the scientifc method, or if you prefer, using the acceptable rules and principles necessary for doing real science, they almost must know that getting into a truely scientific debate about CO2CAGW would only insure that they will be proven wrong, or at least would include that possiblility as an unnessary risk to their real goal – which, functionally, is looting and controlling the rest of us, as is already widely indicated; and also for some of them the goal is proving that they have meaning in life by, of course, using that venerable obsessive-compulsive controllist method of achieving personal meaning in life, but now modified to include only forcing the rest of us to do what they want, instead of keeping it responsibly limited to themselves!
Even though what the ipcc Climate Scientists say often has the form of a factual assertion, it turns out that the alleged assertion can’t be objectively disproven according to Climate Science’s practice; and therefore, in its actual use by Climate Scientists, the alleged assertion says nothing about objective, scientific reality.
For example, the alleged CAGW “assertion” will turn out to be non-falsifiable either because it is non-specific – such as your interpretation of what they are saying about the amount of snow, which doesn’t actually distinguish Global Warming from any other objective temperature condition. Or else ultimately the Climate Scientists simply won’t let their assertion be disproven because, despite any and all rational and scientific arguments and facts to the contrary, they will simply keep on repeating their same noises anyway as though they make sense, usually along with throwing in a lot of other irrelevant diversions and distractions from the relevant question about the objective reality of what they say.
Very simply, Climate Science’s alleged hypotheses and assertions are not statements intended to be scientifically objective because the real goal of ipcc Climate Science is not to help the world by doing real science, but rather to “win” in terms of being able to loot and control as much of the World as possible; of course, including the goal in the case of many of CO2CAGW’s rank and file supporters, to “prove” that they are meaningful in life by running out the clock until they die via their otherwise incessant attempts to make us follow their – amazingly always counterproductive and overtly destructive – commandments.
As I understand basic meteorology mid-latitude storms are driven by temperature contrasts in competing air masses not warming, and if AGW theory is correct the preferential warming in northern latitudes should reduce the contrast and storms should be less severe. Ice core records show that interglacials are less stormy not more. ..And the development of ice sheets during global cooling phases must require increased intensity of mid-high latitude storms.
R. Gates
‘it is only the jet stream and atmospheric circulation patterns’
And those are decidedly the results of the orbital speed of the planet and the coriolis effect it creates, the tilt of the planet in relation to the sun, sun’s current gravitational push and pull and all else. Apparently the earth’s system is all that very non linear and very “chaotic” and so, apparently, in such systems, one has to account for, well, essentially, everything, or at least as many variables as possible, or otherwise they, apparently, don’t work that well for long term predictions. :p
——–
Curt says:
January 5, 2011 at 1:02 pm
I too grew up in the Philadelphia area, and the key thing you must be aware of with regard to snowfall is that Philadelphia is often near the “freeze line” in winter.
———-
Right. That is why it is so interesting.
Even IF one accepted the counter-intuitive “Warmer=more snow” concept, then there would still be, presumably areas just south of that freezing line, where the snow would not fall as snow or would disappear quickly.
Philadelphia is in a region that , were the whole climate “moving north”, the effect might be noticeable.
But that isn’t what is happening. Instead the snow is falling in places even further south, where no snow normally falls, and those places are sporting low enough temperatures ( at least temporarily) to support the snow.
Last week as I sat here watching it snow for 24 hours and blow like a hurricane, with windchills in the 0f range, I thought,” This is how the really bad stuff starts. Everyone hunkers down, only it never stops. Glaciation”
And it didn’t seem farfetched.
Good work Dr Keen.
Dr. Keen,
I have done a great deal of research in understanding when and how evaporation started. In doing so, I had to follow Ice Ages and salt evaporation.
This gave me a very good understanding of the planets time lines and reactors to generate change.
I am so absolutely disgusted with current climate science that follow waves and temperature anomalies.
They missed the actual physical changes that have been occurring since 1970’s.
Our planet just keeps melting ice until it runs out, overheats slightly to generate pressure and changes then freezes again. Simple pattern running for billions of years.
R Gates: You claim that due to CAGW we should expect the “FREQUENCY of certain kinds of events to increase” and “in areas that normally can get heavy snow or rain events, you’d expect to see an increase in the frequency and magnitude of such events over a longer term period.” However, we are not having more severe weather. Examine hurricane and tornado trends worldwide. When it is reported that Australia has not had such a drought in 80 years means that 80 years ago the continent had a worse drought. The U.S. city that has experienced the most hurricanes has not had one in many years. The national records for rainfall and snowfall were set more than a half-century ago, not recently.
I fret to think of the media’s reaction if we had a repeat of the severity of weather events that we had decades ago – because we likely will.
All one has to do is consider the non-linearity of the Clausius-Clapeyron equation to see that increasing temperatures will most likely lead to increasing precipitation, globally averaged. This analysis is fairly meaningless.
It also has a glaring error in that it fails to consider the widely variable snow:liquid precipitation ratio which rapidly decreases with increasing temperature. You need to compare the liquid equivalent, NOT the snowfall depth!
It is all very different down here in the southern hemisphere.
We all a simple, no nonesense people.
In Sydney, when it’s dry, then it’s hot in summertime.
But when its cloudy and rainy, then it’s (relatively) cold.
It has not been very hot so far this summer.
But it has been very wet.
I think that the temperature figures should have included March, as well as December, January and February. This is because on average, Philadelphia’s snowiest months in decreasing order are February, January, March and December. Next in order of decreasing snowfall is April, with November being behind April.
However, after 44 Marches living in or near Philadelphia, I think that more likely
the correlation between cold and snow will still hold up somewhat positive for Philadelphia.
In extremely cold areas (a lot colder than Philadelphia), where warming is usually short of changing snow to rain either year-round or in specific months, warming tends to increase snowfall respectively year-round or in the snow-not-rain
months. But in Philadelphia, in long term average the month with highest
percentage of precipitation by liquid water equivalent being snow has only about 1/4 of it being snow and a majority of it being rain other than freezing rain.
Rutgers University Climate Lab graph showing greater extent of snow in Northern Hemisphere, MEANING IT’S GLOBAL NOT LOCAL.
http://climate.rutgers.edu/snowcover/chart_seasonal.php?ui_set=nhland&ui_season=1
Modern day global warming began in 1975, they say. In the graph there is a trend of increase in snow cover since 1975. You can see the extent of snow coverage is growing, covering a larger area heading southward—there is no other direction it can go. It is not covering a smaller and smaller area heading northward as time goes by.
So apparently snow is not a rare and exciting event because of global warming. This is yet more evidence that the manmade global warming hypothesis is wrong. A hypothesis that does not have supporting evidence is a wrong hypothesis and must be discarded.
Richard Keen reckons
——-
That’s the theory; how about some data to show that a warmer climate should lead to less snow, not more. The data are easy to find and interpret.
——-
Well how do snow storms form?
The standard explanation is that a cold stream of air collides with a warm stream of air with a lot of moisture. The cold air hugs the ground (oddly enough this is where the thermometers are) and the warm moist air is forced up ( where the thermometers are not).
So you get the most intense snow storms when you have the most moisture and you don’t get that from cold wind. You do get lots of moisture in the air when that air originated from some place else that was warm.
So how come Dr Richard Keen the professional Climatologist thinks that snow comes from cold air only??? And that cold thermometer readings at ground level prove anything much???
Here’s how my simplistic mind visualizes (explains) it . . . . meteorologically.
For other uses, see Coalescence (disambiguation).
Coalescence is the process by which two or more droplets or particles merge during contact to form a single daughter droplet (or bubble). It can take place in many processes, ranging from meteorology to astrophysics. For example, it is both involved in the formation of raindrops as well as planetary and star formation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coalescence_(meteorology)
Coalescence needs a particle of mass (dust) to form moisture around it. . . .
We have just had some good volcanic action . . . and do regularly . . . which helps to form the the precipitation drops . . . thus causing more precipitation in localized area’s . . . since those particles have not sufficiently homogenized in the atmosphere . . . which happens over a longer period of time. . . .
Thus, the Blizzards in the North . . . Snow in Australia . . . and then the recent Flooding in Australia . . .
Anthony . . . has hosted some that have talked about the homoginization phenomena of volcanic dust . . . so they would be the one’s to check with . . . to see if this proposition “even holds water”!
It is amusing to see the global warming fan club try to explain why the third harsh winter in a row fits in perfectly with their theory of human-caused (and needing to be taxed) global warming. But we are all smart enough to understand that this claim that global warming makes cold weather is not science, but science fiction; a plot device lifted from the science fiction movie “The Day After Tomorrow”, and interestingly enough the same film Al Gore stole computer-generated ice cracking from for his so-called “documentary”.
The global warming cult and its financial arm, the “Carbonazis”, have invested a huge amount of time and money and political capital selling the need for a carbon tax to the world, to find the new global environmental authority as a step towards global government. But three harsh winters in a row have sounded the death knell for the warmista predictions, and this “hot climate makes cold weather” nonsense is a Hail Mary pass to save the agenda in the face of harsh winter reality setting in, by claiming that the cold weather is what the theory of global warming predicted.
Yet we know this is nonsense. The Global Warming folks have been predicting WARMER winters, indeed the extinction of winter entirely! Back in 2000 the Hadley CRU (the institution at the heart of the Climategate email and software scandal) stated “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past”.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
In 2008, scientists were claiming there would be no ice at the North Pole.
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/exclusive-no-ice-at-the-north-pole-855406.html
Also in 2008, the warmistas were claiming that winter as a whole no longer existed!
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/34252/Why-winter-no-longer-exists
And only last October, the UK Met Office declared that global warming would result in a very mild winter this year.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/208012/Winter-to-be-mild-predicts-Met-Office
Interesting fact: the Chairman of the Met Office board, Robert Napier, is or has been:
* Chairman of the Green Fiscal Trust*
* Chairman of the trustees of the World Centre of Monitoring of Conservation
* a director of the Carbon Disclosure Project
* a director of the Carbon Group
* Chief executive of the World Wildlife Fund UK
He is also a member of the Green Alliance.
Entire careers and funding have been built on the theory that the Earth is getting warmer, and people desperate to cling to their public credibility are proclaiming that now that heat causes freezing in an effort not to lose their jobs and funding despite having totally blown predicting what was going to happen.
There is more at stake to this scandal than just academic tenure and scientific funding. Around the world, local governments struggling with the harsh economy have heard the constant proclamations of warmer winters and have slashed their budgets for winter preparations, secure in the knowledge they would not need as much road grit, ploughs, or fuel oil as previous winters.
The result is that the disaster of these last three winters has been magnified by lack of adequate preparation. Already Britain has sold out of standard snow tires and is running out of road grit. Budgets for winter contingencies are already exhausted across Europe, and most tragic of all, the millions of people made homeless by the Wall Street excesses of the last ten years are freezing to death as heating fuel for shelters and warming centers runs out. Dozens have died just in Santa Barbara California. The media focus on hypothermia induced mass deaths of birds and fish are an attempt to distract from the human costs of the global warming hoax.
The blood of all those dying in winter accidents on unprepared roads, or freezing to death, is on the hands of those academics, media pundits, and scientists, who all signed onto the global warming agenda because it was fashionable and trendy and the source of vast amounts of research grants, together with the investors who planned to do to the entire world with carbon what Enron had done to California with electricity; force people to buy a carbon credit, a mythical commodity literally created out of thin air that was planned to fuel the next great Wall Street bubble.
One can make ice by heating a pan of water on the stove.
Freedom is Slavery
Ignorance is Strength
War is Peace
Warming is Cooling
(Apologies to George Orwell)
Just to add to the above I just ran across:
Earth is getting dustier, model suggests
http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-earth-dustier.html
No mention, of what volcanoes add.
Dan Murphy says:
January 5, 2011 at 12:56 pm
R. Gates says:
January 5, 2011 at 11:03 am
I always read and appreciate your comments, but for this snippet:
“…….Generally, since every GCM predicts an acceleration of the hydrological cycle, and there is global evidence of this occurring, then….”
If you would, please provide a link/citation for the global evidence of an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. Mind you I am not disputing this; I just want to see to see the study/data, as I would consider this to be evidence of a negative feedback climate mechanism. I know this is not fully agreed upon; for example the role clouds play as a net positive or net negative feedback is disputed, and of course clouds (and thunderstorms and other major storms!) are part of the hydrological cycle. But evidence of an acceleration of the hydrological cycle is something I’d be very interested in reviewing.
Thanks!
_____
Dan,
Start with this article:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/greenspace/2010/10/global-warming-river-flows-oceans-climate-disruption.html
For an older general overview (written prior to the release of more recent data) go to here:
http://www.waterandclimateinformationcentre.org/resources/8022007_Huntington2006_JHy.pdf
Here’s the thing, for millions of years the earth has responded to higher CO2 levels with an acceleration of the hydrological cycle. This is the natural way of providing a negative feedback process to keep CO2 within certain limits. Unfortunately, this normally occurs over very long time periods (thousands to millions of years), so it will interesting to see how this normal negative feedback process works with the relatively sudden spike in CO2 levels the earth has seen since about 1750…
Ever hear of humidity?
One of the driest places on the planet is in the middle of Antarctica because it never gets warm enough to put enough water into the air for it to then rain/snow.
The problem you have is a failure to understand that snow and rain don’t just magically appear in mid-air. The water it is made of has to get into the air in the first place for it to later precipitate back out. Colder air temperatures result in less water being held in the air, and thus less water to fall as snow and rain. It’s bloody obvious to anyone with a brain.
Secondly, not everywhere is cold. Some places are exceptionally hot. That’s what happens when the climate changes. The climate is changing because of global warming. Global Warming is the cause, Climate Change is the effect. One involves the increase in the MEAN temperature of the globe, the other is the change of weather patterns due to that excess heat. The mean can still be rising (as it is) while some areas get colder than they were. All it takes is for more areas to get hotter than get colder, and that is exactly what is happening.
This exceptional cold is caused by the solar minimum. This solar minimum is practically unprecedented. The only other time this has happened, the Thames froze over for two months. The world is obviously a lot warmer now.
It doesn’t take a degree in climatology to understand these simple facts. In fact you pretty much have to turn your brain off to believe the stuff said on this blog.
It seems like about every two weeks or so I have to repeat the following, for all of the new readers who are “Flocking” to WUWT like Bears in a honey tree. And yes, for the benefit of Joel Shore, “Flocking” is here used in its colloquial sense; and not in its strictly scientific sense.
Read:- “How Much More Rain Will Global Warming Bring ? ” Frank Wentz (RSS, Santa Rosa CA) et al.
July 07-2007 SCIENCE.
This paper reports on actual experimental climate science; wherein the authors actually made real Physical measurements, using well credentialed Satelite instruments, to obtain the rates of increase in Gobal Total Evaporation, Global Total Atmospheric Water Content, and Global Total Precipitation as functions of global mean Temperature (not Anomalies); presumably either surface or Lower Troposphere (izzat the + 2 metre thing ?).
Their results for ALL THREE of those variables, showed rates of increase of 7% per deg C rise in Temperature.
No they did not watch these through a full one degree C rise in Temperature; those are rates, and since Climatists can deal in hundredths of a degree, they wouldn’t have to wait too long to see that much. Actually I think their total change was about 0.5 deg; but don’t quote me on that; read the paper, and then bawl me out if I got that rong.
For some reason, it is expected that Total Global Precipitaion, and Total Global Evaporation should always be equal; well over climatically significant time scales. Apparently it has something to do with having the oceans stay on the ground, rather than up in the sky.
For comparison; they reported that the GCMs; there’s a whole “Flock” of those; take your pick; agreed with their actual experimental observations; which is seldom the case; but ONLY for the Total atmospheric Water (H2O) content. For the Totals of Evap/Precip, the mega supercomputer models still think they should be equal; but nowhere near as big as Wentz et al actually measured; and which Mother Gaia says is what it is supposed to be. They say it is only supposed to be 1%, not 7%. Well actually since the GCMs always have to have a 3:1 error fudge factor, they say it is 1% to 3%; but NOT 7%; so let’s call it 2% +/-50%.
So Mother Gaia and Wentz et al are off, from the much more expensive GCM simulations by a factor of 3.5; which is outside even the IPCC’s standard range of error bands.
The only thing that Wentz et al did not report on was that it is traditional in climate science, to have precipitation accompanied by clouds; and not just any clouds like Noctilucent clouds for example; but real “precipitable” clouds that contain significant amounts of H2O in various and sundry phases of ordinary matter; well sometimes maybe even in Plasma form, when Donner is doing his “Blitzen”. So some of you Vikings call him “Thor”; but he’s Donner to us Wagnerians.
But in any case, I postulated; quite without proof; that in fact the Evap/Precip increase rate that Wentz et al observed would likely be accompanied by something of the order of a 7% increase in those precipitable clouds. And I added that, the 7% increase, could consist of some combination; quite unknown to me, of INCREASE in cloud AREA (extent), and/or INCREASE in cloud OPTICAL DENSITY (due to more H2O content), and/or INCREASE in the PERSISTENCE TIME of those clouds. And no I have no idea what the mix might be; or care.
And I shouldn’t have to add, that we are talking about increases, in Temperature, Evaporation, Water Content, and Precipitation, AND CLOUDs that persist for times of climate relevence; NOT last night’s weather.
Now MY conjecture has NEVER been proven; and so it could be that CLOUDS remain absolutely unchanged in any way, during all of those 7% per deg C changes that Wentz et al, along with Mother Gaia actually observed so it remains an unproven conjecture.
I should also add that Stephen Wilde has also opined; that those cloud changes; could also include simply moving from one region of the earth to another.
I am not up on Stephen’s Climate Theory; so I can’t say which way the clouds might move; but I certainly agree that such movement could be a legitimate change that leads to Wentz et al’s observed results.
As a foot note, I might add, that Dr Roy Spencer, in one of his WUWT essays mentioned cloud increases that might operate as a negative feedback cooling effect; and he mentioned changes of the order of !%, in “Clouds”, and offered that that was an extremely large amount of feedback effect.
I have no opinion as to how a 7% change per deg C would rank compared to Dr Roy’s 1% large effect; but I certainly think it would show up above the noise level.
So this should give the new reader some idea of how Temperature changes, and Precipitation; at least on a global scale interract; and it should also be obvious that in the “what goes up must come down” scenario; the coming down place and the going up place are not necessarily one and the same place.
So read the Philadelphia Story, In light of Wentz et al
One final attribution; or semi anyhow. One of the regular knowledgeable often guest posters here at WUWT; it might be Bill Illis; my abject apologies for forgetting who it was; also posted here, not so long ago, that a 1 deg C increase in Temperature is calculated to yield a 7% increase in atmospheric water content; and that from the “Clausius-Clapeyron Equation.”
Wow fancy that; well established theory, and experimental satellite observations; and even super megacomputer expensive GCM simulations ALL agree that a 1 deg C rise in Temperature will and does result in a 7% increase in atmospheric water content.
I almost wonder if those GCMs actually calculate the C-C equation; wouldn’t that be hilarious. I should also add, that C-C is highly non-linear; so that 7% per deg C, whether calculated or observed or megasimulated, is only valid for the current general range of Mean Global Temperature. If the earth warms by 20 deg C in the next century; we should expect those numbers to change; and likely increase at an even faster rate; but for now it is a mere 7% per deg C.
George E. Smith says: a bunch, so much I tend to forget the big picture . . . so begin asking SO . . . .
Truth is: when it comes to pro-jecting the future regardless of “whether its weather” or the the direction of the stock market . . . Not many develop any credibility until they have a “track record” of being correct . . .
In the stock market if your any good and have money & “ca-hoo-na’s” (brave enough to take risks) you could “legitimately” get rich!
Predicting the weather/climate was originally for actuarial insurance purposes, so that those with the money & “ca-hoo-na’s” could improve the risks of their investments in the industry.
No one predicting a Northern Blizzard in the Northeast . . . is like saying no one expected winter.
Once the “hucksters” get the climate change model correct . . . they will again dumb down the “commoners” and blame it on man . . . . they get to tax the “carbon” out of the “commoners” and they still won’t honor their fiduciary obligations. Read an insurance contract . . . “but I’m not bitter”!
To try to make the point . . .
Antikythera mechanism . . . . once was made . . . then it was lost . . . now it’s found . . . . but was it just for “astrology”?!
http://blogs.nature.com/news/thegreatbeyond/2010/12/ancient_greek_computer_rebuilt.html
It is amazing.
When it is hot and dry it is said to be a symptom of global warming.
When it is very humid it is blamed on GW too.
When it snows a lot we are also led to believe it is caused by GW.
When it storms or floods it is because of GW.
When an animal dies it is because of GW.
…
Can any of these ‘scientists’ then explain to me how global cooling would look like?
Why does any person think, say, or write about global warming? Facts? How about media brainwashing, the propaganda campaign to sell global warming so that a worldwide carbon tax could be levied to pay for world government.
There is no legitimate global warming science, that all died on 19 Nov 2009 when the climategate torpedo sunk the IPCC (you have heard about climategate and the fraudulent emails, right?) The only people still thinking, talking, or writing about global warming caused by CO2 are either those still duped or paid shills. CO2 is a trace gas, it can NOT cause temperature change, man made CO2 is only 3% of the total of this trace gas and thus man made CO2 can NOT do anything.
http://globalwarmingcon.blogspot.com/
Memorize this chart: only 3.62% of the total global warming gases are CO2, and of that only 3.4% are man made. Thus man made CO2 is only 0.117% (3.62/100 x 3.4/100).
click on this link to see chart:
http://c3headlines.typepad.com/.a/6a010536b58035970c01156faaf697970b-800wi
Wow,
During the last glaciation period of about 100,000 years the NH had 5000 plus feet high glacial plates further south then Chicago and New England and Great Briton. That locked up immense supplies of water (about 150M sea level rise when it melted).
It must have been pretty warm somewhere on this planet. Of course NYC and Chicago didn’t have it. I guess AGW really did those areas in. No wonder we want to stamp out AGW. If we don’t we’ll be buried in ice again.
I suppose it was global cooling that allowed the Vikings to settle and farm Greenland.
Am I going to be the first to say this? My opinion: Cold equals dead birds and dead fish. Goes along with fewer bats in my attic and fewer worms in my garden. How does THAT mesh with global warming?