“Milder winter temperatures will decrease heavy snowstorms,” says the IPCC in 2001.
Recent snows suggest much for AGW induced snow worries, but still the hype continues:
“Heavy snowstorms are not inconsistent with a warming planet,” said Jeff Masters, director of meteorology for www.wunderground.com (source Breitbart)
Heavy snow would be tragic if it weren’t so funny. Memo to Dr. Masters: with the current mindset, nothing is inconsistent with global warming. – Anthony
By Joe D’Aleo, ICECAP
It is called “Miracle March 2011” in the Sierra. At Boreal, near Donner Summit, as of a few days ago, they had received 217 inches this March bringing the seasonal snowfall to 762 inches. The previous record was 662 inches in 1994/95. The recent prolonged storm brought 6-7 feet of snow. The normal for the season is around 400 inches. Their snowbase is between 275 and 375 inches (20-30 feet).
The Snow Water Equivalent is well above normal and bodes well for both agriculture and coastal cities which rely on the melting snow for irrigation and drinking water. There have been battles for decades over how much water the farmers should get to use in the long dry growing season.
As show above, and confirmed below, this wet season has brought over 80 inches of water equivalent to some of the higher terrain.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Smokey
Is not a proper NULL. In fact your’s doesnt even make sense. To state a proper null you have to pick a variable and state a numerical relationship.
Look at yours: There are no difference between Observed and expected?
expected? expected what.
Try writing an equation. Then you will have a testable null. What’s even funnier is that
the observed values are NEVER equal to the expected. they are always a tiny bit more or a tiny bit less.
You can’t write the equation. You dont even know what a null is.
what are your expected average temperatures for the next 10 years?
Now let me give you a little hint for what a real null is like. An earth with 560 ppm of C02 at equilbrium, everything else held constant will be warmer than a world with 280 ppm at equillibrium, everything else held constant.
Smokey
“Every observation of current trends, temperatures, and rates of change have happened exactly the same way before the first SUV rolled off the assembly line. ”
Well first off this isnt true. what is the observation of “current” trends? What do you mean by current? 1979 to present? what?
Second, AGW says the following. take a world with X methane, y TSI, z aerosols and
p C02. Now increase the C02. The theory predicts that after the system reaches equilibrium from the force, the temperature will be HIGHER.
If doesnt say the highest ever. It doesnt say the rates getting there will be unprecedented. It says more C02 (everyting else held equal) will result in higher temps. You and other keep getting hung up on the idea of unprecedented changes.
These are not strictly speaking part of the argument. the physics says more C02 means higher temps. On average.
steven mosher says:
[Regarding the current trend being the same as past trends]: “If doesnt say the highest ever. It doesnt say the rates getting there will be unprecedented.”
[Actually, the claim is constantly made by warmists that the current decade is the “hottest ever.” If that were so then the null hypothesis would be falsified.]
Now, I have never said that more CO2 causes no warming. You’re re-framing the debate to try and paint me into a corner. Won’t work. As Willis is fond of saying: quote my words. Here, you’ve set up a strawman, knocked it down, and say “Aha!” No Fair.☹
Next, you ask, “what is the observation of ‘current’ trends? What do you mean by current? 1979 to present? what?”
I mean throughout the Holocene. Phil Jones himself shows that the current temperature trend has repeated. I have more charts showing the same thing if you’re interested. Just ask.
Finally, your misunderstanding of the null hypothesis comes from confusing ‘observed’ with ‘expected.’ This is clear from your question: “Observed and expected? expected? expected what.”
The expected hypothesis refers to the alternative hypothesis [which can be any different hypothesis], which is tested against the null hypothesis. The CO2=CAGW hypothesis is one such example. It states that a rise in CO2 will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
The null hypothesis states that current temps are within the same parameters, and are no different than past temperatures. In fact, there is no discernable difference in temperatures, trends, or rates of change. The alternative hypothesis expects a change from past parameters due to the large ≈40% increase in CO2, but no such change has ever been identified. There is no evidence supporting the alternative hypothesis. Thus, the alternative hypothesis fails, and the null hypothesis remains unfalsified.
220mph says:
March 30, 2011 at 2:00 am
R. Gates says:
March 29, 2011 at 3:46 pm
As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd, unless you’re talking about the shorter-term cooling which corresponds quite regularly with every short-term La Nina cycle, but that’s of course weather and not climate.
And a perfect example of the mindless repetition of irrelevant facts – carefully constructed – cherry-picked – to provide the required result.
“2000-2009 warmest decade on instrument record”
100% completely meaningless … to the point, sorry – no other way to say it, of being simply moronic.
____
This is the one and only time I shall reply to you. If you expect replies from me, using the term “moronic” in regards to scientific facts isn’t the way to encourage me to reply to you.
jtom says:
March 30, 2011 at 8:36 pm
Well, R. Gates, I was thinking you were holding your own fairly well in the discussions, and may actually have some intelligent points, until you wrote, “During this time, CO2 has existed with nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm or so, rising and falling with glacial advances and retreats.”
You clearly do not understand the basic need of CO2 to support life if you think the “nice comfortable range, 150 to 280 ppm” is a GOOD thing. A ‘perfect temperature’ (at least by your standards) doesn’t mean too much if most all life is extinct.
Furthermore, you cherry picked the last 800,000 years wrt CO2 levels, although CO2 levels have been reconstructed for the last several million years. That reconstruction clearly shows that over the last few hundred thousand years there has been an impoverished level of CO2. Moreover, what history – and science – tells us is that the “comfortable range” for life on this planet is around 1000 ppm of CO2.
______
CO2 levels beyond what we’ve measured in ice-core data are proxy reconstructions at best. However, CO2 levels have certainly been higher in the past, and some forms of life certainly did well in such climates. As for homo sapiens, we’ve pretty much enjoyed the range of 150-280 ppm, and seemed well served by it overall, with the higher part of that range certainly lending itself to a more comfortable existence for humans living in more northerly latitudes.
We are now well out of the range our species has enjoyed for as long as we’ve been homo sapiens. What a higher range will mean for the climate and for us is the issue, isn’t it? It is also of interest to not that currently, now that we’re outside this range, we are seeing a greater loss of species than seen in many millions of years. This loss I am NOT attributing to the rise in CO2, though the two events (species loss and rise in CO2) certainly may have a common connection.
R. Gates says:
March 31, 2011 at 9:24 am
It is also of interest to not that currently, now that we’re outside this range, we are seeing a greater loss of species than seen in many millions of years.
Source that please. Provide the reference.
R Gates: “CO2 levels beyond what we’ve measured in ice-core data are proxy reconstructions at best. However, CO2 levels have certainly been higher in the past, and some forms of life certainly did well in such climates. As for homo sapiens, we’ve pretty much enjoyed the range of 150-280 ppm, and seemed well served by it overall, with the higher part of that range certainly lending itself to a more comfortable existence for humans living in more northerly latitudes”
—————————–
Before making a fool of yourself a THIRD time, please research what happens to photosynthesis in plants when CO2 levels fall below 200 ppm, then consider what happens up the food chain.
Tim Clark says:
March 31, 2011 at 1:05 pm
R. Gates says:
March 31, 2011 at 9:24 am
It is also of interest to not that currently, now that we’re outside this range, we are seeing a greater loss of species than seen in many millions of years.
Source that please. Provide the reference.
______
Here you go:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/03/2/l_032_04.html
http://www.whole-systems.org/extinctions.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020109074801.htm
http://news.minnesota.publicradio.org/features/2005/01/31_olsond_biodiversity/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2010/mar/07/extinction-species-evolve
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=The_Sixth_Great_Extinction
http://www.greenfacts.org/en/ecosystems/figtableboxes/figure1-8-species-extinctions.htm
http://maps.grida.no/go/graphic/species-extinction-rates
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6502368/ns/us_news-environment/
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9472-bird-extinction-rates-far-worse-than-realised.html
http://dsc.discovery.com/news/2006/07/03/fewerbirds_ani.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/wildlife/3306508/Red-List-of-endangered-species-wildlife-disappearing-as-never-before.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1317778/England-losing-25-wildlife-species-year-Experts-issue-stark-warning.html
And thousands more where these came from.
jtom says:
March 31, 2011 at 1:48 pm
R Gates: “CO2 levels beyond what we’ve measured in ice-core data are proxy reconstructions at best. However, CO2 levels have certainly been higher in the past, and some forms of life certainly did well in such climates. As for homo sapiens, we’ve pretty much enjoyed the range of 150-280 ppm, and seemed well served by it overall, with the higher part of that range certainly lending itself to a more comfortable existence for humans living in more northerly latitudes”
—————————–
Before making a fool of yourself a THIRD time, please research what happens to photosynthesis in plants when CO2 levels fall below 200 ppm, then consider what happens up the food chain.
____
Not sure what you’re getting at here. Plants and animals together make up the biosphere, and together we kinda like a range for CO2, and oddly enough, so does the entire background carbon cycle. Seems you get too much CO2 and the hydrological cycle speeds up, more rock weathering occurs, CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere. You get too little CO2, and oddly, plant growth declines as the hydrological cycles slows down as well. This allows CO2 to build-up again. So there is this curious relationship between plants, animals, the carbon cycle, and the hydrological cycle on earth, where they all work together to keep CO2 in an interesting range for the benefit of all…seems an interesting focus on such a “minor” little trace gas..at least, that what the past 800,000 years of ice-core data tell us.
Make no mistake…CO2 is good…when kept in a range. The Dose Makes the Poison.
R. Gates says:
As 2000-2009 was the warmest decade on instrument record, your notion that the “globe will continue to cool” seems a bit odd, unless you’re talking about the shorter-term cooling which corresponds quite regularly with every short-term La Nina cycle, but that’s of course weather and not climate.
220mph says: … a perfect example of the mindless repetition of irrelevant facts – carefully constructed – cherry-picked – to provide the required result.
“2000-2009 warmest decade on instrument record”
220mph says: 100% completely meaningless … to the point of being simply silly.
____
R. Gates says: This is the one and only time I shall reply to you. If you expect replies from me, using the term “moronic” in regards to scientific facts isn’t the way to encourage me to reply to you.
Fixed it for you …
The fact remains, claiming “2000-2009 warmest decade on instrument record” is first; not even entirely supported by the instrumental record, as the books keep getting “cooked” – the temps in the instrumental record keep getting adjusted.
And second even IF it was an accurate statement this claim is entirely meaningless – the “instrumental record” is an entirely irrelevant period of time in the historical temperature record.
The historical record you USE when it benefits you – ie: your reference to the ice core data.
And turn around and completely ignore when it poses difficult questions you don’t want to respond to, ie: explaining how temps in an miniscule time period are in any way relevant as to establishing evidence of AGW in the context of one appx 110kyr climate cycle or even in context of the last 15,000 years of stable temperature record.
That is the question every AGW proponent seems to run away from.
Where is the evidence of warming?
Where is the relevance of “2000-2009 is warmest decade of instrumental record”? …
… when reviewed against the last 15,000 years temp record – which shows the last 131, or even 1000 years of temps, including the alleged hockey stick increase – are entirely within the natural variability, nowhere near the peak, and the increase in recent temps is not in any way unusual, when compared to that last 15,000 year temp record?
R Gates, really. The poison is in the dose? Then answer this: How soon will you die if you increase oxygen compared to carbon dioxide in the air you breath? And how soon will you die if you increase carbon dioxide compared to oxygen in the air you breath? Or this: What does your body do if given too much oxygen? What will your body do if given what you think is too much CO2? And how sensitive are you to these changes? Did you know that your body craves CO2 more than it does O2? And did you know that if you increase deep breathing in a mistaken effort to deliver more O2 to your system, it will shut down O2 absorption mechanisms leaving you with less O2 instead of more? Now tell me again, which is more toxic? And what is the preferred range?
Sometimes the hole in the hat you talk through gets really big.
R. Gates says: (March 31, 2011 at 4:48 pm)
So, looking briefly at the sources you list in this post it seems you are obsessed with fear of extinction. I always thought there was a driving fear behind your posts. In addition you use MSNBC and PBS as sources. That alone disqualifies you as anything but brainwashed. Good bye.
I’ve noticed that most folks don’t have a good subjective view of the difference between weather, and climate. Not even many experienced climate scientists. But believe it, or not, you get pretty good examples just driving an 18 wheeler. I did that for a few years back in the ’80s, and early ‘90s. And I wore out a pretty nice long nose Peterbuilt doing it.
One year I hauled a lot of supplies to some mines way up north. One in the Yukon. Another was a little north of Nome, Alaska. That place in the Yukon had to do all of their hauling in the winter on the ice road. Because, up north, many of the routes are impassable if the ground isn’t frozen.
So a typical trip would be to pick up a load of grinding balls that are used in huge tumblers to crush ore, in Chandler Az. And in 70 degree T shirt weather. And the other end of the trip would be well north of the Arctic circle. And well into Arctic winter conditions. I’d return to Arizona with a load of Ore concentrate. And do it all over again.
Weather was what was happening at any given location, anywhere along the way. Climate was the whole dang trip, taken as a whole.
When we hear Canadians complaining of the economical consequences of ice roads that no longer freeze in the winter, then you can believe things are warming up. The ice roads are doing just fine from what I hear. As for me, I don’t see anything here in California that’s not just locally screwy weather.
And it’s been really screwy here in Ca. The scary thing about all the extra snow is that it has the potential to melt quickly in the spring. Just a few years ago, in ‘97, some unusually heavy snows were followed by heavy rains in the high country. That warm rain accelerated the melting of a lot of the extra snowpack. And all hell broke loose downstream. It got so bad, they had to evacuate Yosemite Valley. There’s a hell of a lot more snow on the ground now, then there was before that ‘500 year flood’. More than twice as much. And the warm spring rains are only just beginning to fall.
I wonder; would two ‘500 year flood’ events Ca. in less than 20 years, be seen as evidence of climate change?