Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
Pierre Gosselin of NoTrickZone reports on a paper that confirms the slowdown in global surface warming has not been occurring at the poles. See Pierre’s post German Experts: New Paper By Gleisner Shows 2013 Cowtan And Way Arctic Data Hole Paper Was A Lemon.
You’ll recall that Cowtan and Way (2013) Coverage bias in the HadCRUT4 temperature series and its impact on recent temperature trends were able to squeeze a few more drops of global warming trend from the data during the hiatus period by taking HADCRUT4 data and using a statistical method to infill the missing data at the poles, especially in the Arctic where polar amplification is more prevalent.
But a new paper, Geisner et al. (2015) Recent global warming hiatus dominated by low-latitude temperature trends in surface and troposphere data, undermines those Cowtan and Way efforts. The abstract reads (my boldface):
Over the last 15 years, global mean surface temperatures exhibit only weak trends. Recent studies have attempted to attribute this so called temperature hiatus to several causes, amongst them incomplete sampling of the rapidly warming Arctic region. We here examine zonal mean temperature trends in satellite-based tropospheric data sets (based on data from (Advanced) Microwave Sounding Unit and Global Navigation Satellite System Radio Occultation instruments) and in global surface temperatures (HadCRUT4). Omission of successively larger polar regions from the global mean temperature calculations, in both tropospheric and surface data sets, shows that data gaps at high latitudes cannot explain the observed differences between the hiatus and the prehiatus period. Instead, the dominating causes of the global temperature hiatus are found at low latitudes. The combined use of several independent data sets, representing completely different measurement techniques and sampling characteristics, strengthens the conclusions.
There’s nothing surprising about that. We reported the same thing a year ago in the post Cowtan and Way (2013) Adjustments Exaggerate Climate Model Failings at the Poles and Do Little to Explain the Hiatus. The following graph is Figure 2 from that post.
The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here, for those who want to run through the comments.
I ended that post with:
Those who promote the Cowtan and Way (2013) revisions to the HADCRUT4 data don’t understand where the hiatus is taking place and they don’t understand the model failings at simulating polar amplification—or—they are intentionally being misleading.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I am not understanding. The article makes it sound as though Cowatn and Way have a set of data that show the poles have “”warmed” over the past 15 or so years. Is this a “yes, but”?
OK, I have a stupid question.
Based on the physics, why would we expect the poles to warm, even if the earth was warming?
The arctic regions radiate more energy than the absorb from insolation. If it were not for energy being input via water and air currents from warmer regions, they would be even colder. In other words, based on what they get in terms of insolation, they are very warm already. So, for them to get any warmer, they must either:
a) get additional surface energy flux from the GHE, or;
b) get more energy from air and water currents originating in lower latitudes
The problem with a) is that there isn’t much GHE there in the first place. Water vapour, which would in the tropics account for 80% of the GHE is nearly absent. It is just too cold for water vapour to do anything but precipitate out as the air currents approach the arctic regions. Ozone levels are very low for half the year due to a lack of ionization from the sun’s UV rays, and methane hardly counts and absorbs mostly at higher temps than what occur in the arctic regions. That leaves CO2 all by itself, with at low temps, much of the radiated spectrum being outside the absorption spectrum of CO2, see the long tail to the right:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Atmospheric_Transmission.png
So, I’d expect there to be very little GHE in the first place in those regions, even with a large increase in CO2. The atmospheric window without water vapour is a rather large, wide open window.
So, let’s look at b). If the amount of energy coming from lower latitudes was so large that it increased arctic regions temps enough to make a substantive difference in water vaopour holding capacity, we might have something to talk about. But with temps barey above freezing for just a few days of the year each year, that’s orders of magnitude more energy transfer than the current system exhibits. There’s just no reason for the system to change by more than a few percent at most based on the GHE causing warmer water and air currents to originate from low lats.
So…. with nearly no GHE to speak of in the first place, any additional heating originating from warmer air currents and water currents from lower lats would also be expected to radiate straight out to space with very little warming of the arctic region surfaces.
Thinking out loud here… er, uhm, out keyboard…er whatever, just sayin’.
davidmhoffer
Classically, there are two reasons to expect greater Greenhouse gas warming at the poles. I can credibly believe one, though it too seems to work better in the theory than in the measurements.
If CO2 is mixed uniformly around the world’s atmosphere, then it will have a 400 ppm mixture right? But, the very cold poles will be (by their nature) very cold and so have very little water vapor gas present. Thus, IF CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and IF CO2 is “trapping” and re-radiating heat from the surface, then the CHANGE in heat loss should be much greater where there is a greater CHANGE (increase of course) in GHG, right?
Thus, in a equatorial latitude where there is a LOT of water vapor, the addition of a little bit of CO2 won’t change the total GHG concentration very much, right? (For example, 76 + 1 = 77 77/76 = 1.013)
But, where there is only a little water vapor, the addition of the same amount of CO2 will make a greater difference in the total GHG’s present, and so there “should be” a greater CHANGE (increase in GHG’s present compared to what was there before. (1 + 10 = 11 11/10 = 1.10)
But it doesn’t seem to work that way in practice.
the second effect (Arctic amplification, or Sereze’s Arctic Death Spiral of less sea ice increasing absorption of solar energy which heats the water which causes less sea ice which causes more absorption …) has been debunked by no less than the NSIDC and NOAA itself. But we are calculating that effect – proving it cannot happen in today’s world here at WUWT.
Well yeah, agreed. But I think it is more complicated than that. In the tropics, water vapour is high at sea level. If you sample at higher elevations, temperature drops and so does water vapour, until at some point it is inconsequential. Below that level, adding a few ppm of CO2 doesn’t mean much. What’s an extra 30 ppm of CO2 mixed in with 40,000 ppm of water vapour? Diddly squat. But above that level where water vapour is significant, adding 300 ppm of CO2 is significant.
But here’s the thing. In the tropics, the height of the troposphere is on the order of 16 km. At the poles, it is more like 8 km. A big part of the GHE is predicated on the height of the atmospheric air column, and at the poles it has a lot less to work with. So the percentage change might be larger, but it might be of a much smaller number.
I think the problem may be with the Planck’s Law distribution of energy at the lower temperature. If the peak is significantly off from the CO2 absorption peak, than more energy makes it straight through to space. That wavelength peak moves a great deal with radiating temperature. (I know assuming a black body in this case is probably not true, but does make a good limiting case assumption.)
All this CO2 greenhouse assumptions work pretty well from about 10C to a little over 30C, but outside of that range the radiating peak is away from the CO2 absorption line. (there is still SOME energy there, but an ever decreasing portion as the temp moves away from that range).
What about deserts? Little in the way of water vapour so CO2 would disproportionally influence desserts if CO2 leads to warming/drives temperatures.
How have day and night temperatures over desserts trended these past 50 years (or so)?
Except for that pesky temperature relation for absorption and emission spectra for IR absorbing gasses. It is worse in Antarctica because of the additional pesky pressure relationship. Absorption and emission bands are far narrower in these regions.
Complex, isn’t it? 8<)
Makes life fun.
Now, just to add some more "fun" …
The earth is an oblate spheroid, not a real sphere. So any equation of air mass that doesn't take that odd "curve" at both poles (and both ends are different by a little bit) into account is technically in error, right?
But what about the greater density of air at both poles (due to the colder temperature, the closer sea level to the earth's center, and the lower depth of atmosphere measured. Except that the south pole is much higher (physically, at nearly 9,000 feet AGL) than at the north pole (at sea level + 1 meter!), but the air is cleaner and drier at the south pole. the southern sea ice is also at sea level though. But then again, the atmosphere is "thinner" (less high towards space at the poles) so the air mass is less for the same apparent temperature and solar elevation angle, right?
But then again, the atmosphere at the poles is measured right at 1000 bar, plus or minus a little bit, so does the air pressure change matter more than the geometric change and the atmospheric thickness change?
Agree in concept. The poles are our radiators to space. When they are warm, it means the feedback machine is releasing copious amounts of heat, from a decade ago absorbed in the equatorial oceans, into space. That is it. Less ice in the Arctic these past few years means the feed back machine is working and releasing heat to 3 Kelvin space.
Yeah, I’ve made that point myself many times. The warmest ice can get is the freezing point. So once the ice is gone, temps can go up, w/m2 radiated rises with the 4th power of T, and presto, less ice = major negative feedback which cools the planet.
The warmists do not want the general public to understand that less Arctic Ocean ice means a climate response that results in loss of all that heat that would otherwise lead to global warming.
Thus, feedbacks cancel CO2 AGW. IPCC-defined Climate Change = Fail.
“The poles are our radiators to space.”
Well, sort of. Much more energy is radiated to space from the tropics and subtropics than from the poles. It’s just that the poles radiate much more to space than they get in from the Sun. And that is simply because they receive most of their energy not directly from above (like the tropics do), but rather advected to them from lower latitudes, ultimately the tropics.
It’s a fine-tuned machinery, our global climate. The Sun (and the Earth’s rotation) drives the atmospheric and oceanic circulation (evaporation and winds). The circulation (convection/advection) distributes the Sun’s energy across the globe. And finally, the IR-active gases (and the clouds) in our atmosphere rid the Earth system of it; back to space it goes. Warming the Earth? No. Cooling the Earth.
At risk of playing the fool, ‘polar amplification’ should happen. I discussed this with Lindzen himself in person. There are at least two mechanisms. First is Hadley cell transport in the atmosphere. Second and more important is ocean circulation. Or, in simpler non-mechanistic terms, heat always flows from hot to cold.
Well in any disagreement between me and Lindzen, I’d vote for Lindzen.
Did he discuss GHE at all? Or did he think that the effect would come primarily from air/ocean current transport?
If the latter, my assumption would be that his assumption was that warming was taking place and logically energy would be circulated to the poles. Given that w/m2 varies with T^4, the tropics could cool by a smaller amount (in degrees) and the arctic regions would warm by a larger amount, and energy balance would still be maintained. So, “amplification” if one is looking only at temps. But….
It hasn’t been warming, so there’s nothing extra to transport?
That said, I think the lack of GHE in the arctic regions per my reasoning above would mute the amplification effect by radiating a large percentage of the transported energy to space.
DavidMHoffer
Now, what happens if Tropical (+30 to -30 latitude) ocean water changes temperature?
Condition Land Land Water Water Water Change Water Change in Area Temp K Area T Deg C Deg K Temp Deg K Heat (10^9) 20% land 51.0 305.0 204.0 30.0 303.0 0.01 303.01 -0.23 20% land 51.0 305.0 204.0 30.0 303.0 0.05 303.05 -1.14 20% land 51.0 305.0 204.0 30.0 303.0 0.10 303.10 -2.27 20% land 51.0 305.0 204.0 30.0 303.0 0.20 303.20 -4.54 Now, what if Arctic Ocean Temperature changed by the same amounts? No Ice 0.0 248.0 14.0 -2.0 271.0 0.01 271.01 -0.01 No Ice 0.0 248.0 14.0 -2.0 271.0 0.05 271.05 -0.06 No Ice 0.0 248.0 14.0 -2.0 271.0 0.10 271.10 -0.11 No Ice 0.0 248.0 14.0 -2.0 271.0 0.20 271.20 -0.22 Now, keep water temperature the same, change the sea ice area in the Arctic. Condition Land Land Water Water Water Change Water Change in Area Temp K Area T Deg C Deg K Temp Deg K Heat (10^9) 20% Land 51.0 308.0 204.0 30.0 303.0 0.00 303.00 2178.45 20% Land 51.0 308.0 204.0 30.0 303.0 0.10 303.10 2180.72 Tropical land assumed = 35 deg C, tropical water = 30 deg C So, increasing ALL of tropical ocean water temperature by 0.1 deg C increases heat loss by 2.27 x 10^9 100% Ice 14.0 248.0 0.0 -2.0 271.0 0.01 271.01 52.96 80% Ice 11.2 248.0 2.8 -2.0 271.0 0.01 271.01 57.47 60% Ice 8.4 248.0 5.6 -2.0 271.0 0.01 271.01 61.98 40% Ice 5.6 248.0 8.4 -2.0 271.0 0.01 271.01 66.50 20% Ice 2.8 248.0 11.2 -2.0 271.0 0.01 271.01 71.01 0% Ice 0.0 248.0 14.0 -2.0 271.0 0.01 271.01 75.50 But, decreasing Arctic Sea Ice Area in fall, winter, and spring increases heat losses to space by almost 20 x 10^9 units.Less sea ice = More heat lost from the Arctic Ocean by LW radiation!
(emissivity of sea ice and open ocean is essentially the same, sea ice temperature assumed = air temperature = -25 deg C.)
Thus, relative heat lost (into space) in the last set of calc’s is:
(Area of sea ice) x (Temp sea ice)^4 + (Area of Open Arctic Ocean) x (Temp Ocean Surface)^4 = nominal heat radiated from the Arctic. One can play with the S-B constant and emissivities of both surfaces if one wishes, the relative result will not change.
davidmhoffer
The image you showed is weird. It looks like the blue part of that graph has been superimposed on the red part. They in actuality have totally different x axis values. The blue part of the graph shows probably 1000 times the intensity relative to the red. The blue (infrared) should be practically ‘flatlining’ on the red component of the graph, right at the bottom where you couldn’t resolve it by looking.
Yes, the blue and red sections are not to the same scale. One for the sun and one for the earth.
This is the paper that noted in the past there was delay in high latitude cooling of 10 to 12 years when there was an increase in the length of the solar cycle and provides an estimate of cooling for the location in question.
North pole
http://arxiv.org/abs/1112.3256
William: Latitude and longitude of Svalbard (Longyearbyen)
78.2167° N, 15.6333° E Svalbard Longyearbyen, Coordinates
South Pole:
There are cycles of warming in the paleo record (both poles, same periodicity, 1400 years plus or minus 500 years) The warming cycles were not caused by CO2 changes and were all followed by cooling phases.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/05/is-the-current-global-warming-a-natural-cycle/
There are only two measurements worth taking in the Arctic Ocean
1. temperatue of the top 10 meters of open water.
2. Ice coverage extent.
-The latter is done reasonably well in the polar satellite era. The former, hardly if any. Eveything else is short term noise fluctuations (atmospheric pressure patterns, winds, air temps), as they are downstream effects of #1 and #2. CO2 GHG effects, if they persist beyond negative feedbacks, operate only in lower latitudes, as downwelling IR does not warm surface sea water during the daylight months. Increased downwelling conceptually can melt more sea ice, but once the fall-winter dark returns, rapid heat loss balances the system toward zero sum gain-loss.
If we look at http://www.climate4you.com/images/70-90N%20MonthlyAnomaly%20Since1920.gif
We see that Arctic temperatures were much higher than now in the period around 1930-1945
AndyG55,
Correct.
And Arctic ice has started regrowing rapidly:
The Arctic Ocean ice coverage is a feedback response system. The AGW believers want to believe that less AO sea ice means catastrophic GW is the coming apocalypse. It really means the climate system is releasing heat to the cold arctic skies in the dark days of winter. Copious amounts of Trenberth’s “missing” heat are lost on open Arctic Ocean nights. Man’s CO2 is just whisper in a robust feedback system.
joelobryan
Well, it is about time that the NSIDC got around to agreeing with you and I on this matter.
Read the following carefully – The NSIDC reports that the Royal Society of London concurs with your observation, and with what I have been showing for a while: Losing Arctic sea ice from today’s levels means increased heat loss from the Arctic Ocean 9 of the 12 months of the year, and increased heat gain from solar radiation only in May, June, and July.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2015/01/
RACook,
The Arctic Ocean system, in the shortterm, is best idealized as a pendulum. It has the same period , irregardless of the excursions, to the limits.
joeobryan, Dr Norman Page, Jimbo, icouldnothelpit
True. But like any oscillating system, the “forcings” do not change when the position of the pendulum changes. Gravity remains the same at top of right swing, middle, and top of left swing. Dymanic Friction (both air resisnce and bearing friction), however, is zero at left and right sides, and only increases across the bottom; but static friction of the bearing exists only at the top of the left and right positions.
Too too – far too many people – think that we should look at the “highs” or the “lows” for forcings: As if the Medival Warming Period was “caused” by something that happened at its maximum temperature point (1150-1250) and that the Little Ice Age “happened” because “something caused it to cool” in 1650!
Rather, the Little Ice Age “forcing” occurred BECAUSE a cooling force dominated in 1250, that finally STOPPED temperatures from increasing in 1250, and began them cooling down towards a low point in 1650, 450 years later. That WARMING FORCING between 1250 and 1650 caused TODAY’S WARMING, and is still happening. BECAUSE today’s warming is a high point that began 450 years ago, and its fundamental “cause” has not changed.
The same “something” as a positive forcing happened between 1250 and 1650 as happened between 1650 and 2000, and it will continue.
But, the EFFECT of that near-constant group of “positive forcings” and the one (or more!) “negative forcings” is a global average temperature that ALWAYS overshoots and ALWAYS undershoots the mythical “equilibrium” temperature.
The EFFECT today is an overshoot, and that overshoot may be peaking, or may continue for a little while longer. But the negative forcing have not stopped – in fact, if today’s weather is actually at a Modern Period Maximum, then we ARE seeing the largest negative forcings right now! (Of course, we are seeing the positive forcings as well.)
On your clock pendulum. The heat and humidity of the air inside the case are ever-changing, but they are “static” forces that do not change if you look at only one swing of the pendulum. Look at the problem over a full season, or between two pendulums at two different locations, and all of a sudden, the pendulum is longer (sometimes) than it was a few days before! The air friction got less! But, the “energy lost” on each swing depends on the momentary resistance of the pawl as it “clicks” off and on each swing to retard the clock mechanism – so that changes gradually over time as the bearings wear, the pawl tip wears away, and the dirt or corrosion builds up on the two surfaces. So what is “constant” and what is a good example?
Yet the pendulum goes back and forth, doesn’t it?
Again just a straight line (no trend). RSS actually are experts at superimposing a warming trend though.LOL
Furthermore, if you go to http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
And look at 1997 and 2012 (to match the graph in the article)
Any warming appears to be limited to the coldest part of the year.
How is this a problem ???
Well, first of all, there is bloody well very little AREA at either pole: between 71 north and the pole, there is only 14 Mkm^2 of Arctic Ocean (plus a tiny tip of Greenland.) What lies between 60 north and 71 north latitudes is the now-darkening tundra, taiga, Siberian wasteland and swamps, and ice-covered mountains. All getting darker and absorbing more heat as CO2 allows the low-laying plants and bushes to grow faster, earlier in the season, and with longer leaves and limbs.
Down south, there is nothing but ocean between 56 south and the pole: 14.0 Mkm^2 of Antarctic high dry plateau + 1.5 Mkm^2 of shelf ice + 2.5 to 16.0 Mkm^2 of sea ice + the rest of storm-tossed ocean. Call it 43.6 Mkm^2 of area between 56 south (Cape Horn) and the pole.
But there is 510 Mkm^2 of earth area. 90% of the world doesn’t matter because the remaining 0% is getting warmer? IF it is getting warmer at all?
Heck, there is 44.5 Mkm^2 between +5 degrees and -5 degrees latitude along! And that area actually gets radiated by the sun.
Well, second, the story makes no sense against what few measurements are actually made at both ends.
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_southern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
The Antarctic doesn’t seem to be “warming” measurably when you measure it.
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/graphics/tlt/plots/rss_ts_channel_tlt_northern%20polar_land_and_sea_v03_3.png
And the Arctic is going up a little bit, but that can be explained by albedo darkening on the land surfaces, as would be expected as CO2 increases.
Oh wait. The DMI has forecast daily temperatures at 80 north since 1959. What did THEY report?
Winter temperatures have gotten higher (odd that – there is NO SUNLIGHT to react with refelcted CO2 gasses in the winter at 80 north. But during the summer? When there IS sunlight up north over the Arctic ice cap?
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
0.0 change from the baseline average since 1959. ZERO CHANGE during the summer months at 80 north. And that deviation from an average who std deviation really is so close to zero you can see it plotted! (In fact, the DMI summer average temperature has been going down slightly as sea ice area area decreases. This is to be expected, the less Arctic sea ice that occurs from today’s sea ice extents, the greater the heat loss from the Arctic Ocean 9 months of the year. )
“But there is 510 Mkm^2 of earth area. 90% of the world doesn’t matter because the remaining 0% is getting warmer? IF it is getting warmer at all?”
What happened to the 10% and proof reading?
Bummer.
But, you see, if the Antarctic is getting cooler, and the Arctic getting warmer (14.0 Mkm^2 / 510 Mkm^2) , then 2.7% is getting warmer. Except that 2.7% is only getting warmer when the sun don’t shine on it and nobody is present to take measurements on it.
So, how much area is actually getting warmer due to CO2 and radiation? Apparently, 0.0%. 8<)
Do I understand correctly that temperatures in the United States which has the best monitoring system and most sampled locations has been cooling for a decade or more, and the poles which have the poorest and least number or monitored locations are showing temperature increases?
Yes. And the poles are ripe targets for “infilling” algore-rithms. AGW is largely man-made. (read that how you wish).
Killer words:
“using a statistical method to infill the missing data at the poles, especially in the Arctic”
They faked “data” and report the “Faked Data” as observations, and then use their Fake Data to corroborate their cherished hypothesis.
FAIL.
Boffin these days are all the rage.
Seeming as no one has yet any reliable way to properly measure temperatures over the entire polar regions any papers that come out arguing warming or cooling based on the minuscule temperature measuring ability we have need to be used in the bathroom as toilet paper.
A much more common sense approach to temperatures in the polar regions is sea ice. If it’s growing compared to the previous year there’s a good chance that the region has cooled, if it’s receeded from the previous year there’s a good chance it got warmer.
Science 101. Anyone can do it and thus no one qualifies for money to state the bleedin obvious!
wickedwenchfan
But that is NOT what happens.
When Arctic sea ice is lost in September, the next spring sea ice maximum is much HIGHER! Much larger than the previous year.
Your “Science 101” is dead wrong. And dead right at the same time.
Logical, at first glance – at first glance at a college student “101” level in a dry and warm lecture hall reading from a simplified textbook calibrated to a shallow water pond in the middle of a campus in the northern hemisphere at 40 degrees north latitude, but not when you look at the system as a professional needs to.
See, in the real sea ice up north (the Antarctic is different, use the right equations and the right logic to solve the right problem!) low amounts of sea ice in September do NOT mean “more heat is absorbed”. Rather, less sea ice means “More heat is lost from the newly exposed open ocean through increased convection to the air, reduced condution losses between ocean water and air, increased long wave radiation losses to the atmosphere and to space, and increased evaporation losses from the open ocean surface. Is more heat absorbed into open ocean compared to sea ice? A little more is absorbed in August; about the same in September, much less in October, none in November, December, January, or February; about the same in March; and a little more in April.
Net? Heat loss = heat gain when re-freezing begins August 12-14 each year.
So.
Less Arctic sea ice in September = More heat lost from the Arctic Ocean = More sea ice area the next year in March, April, May, June. “Science 101”? No. “Measurements, Real World 606.” Deal with it.
Oh. That Antarctic sea ice that has been constantly increasing since 1992?
Yeah. It DOES reflect more energy than is absorbed every day of the year, 365 days a year. More Antarctic sea ice in February (when solar radiation is still near its annual peak) = more heat reflected from the planet = a cooler planet.
Odd as it may seem I check Antarctic Weather every few days and as far as I can see there’s barely been a few hours when anywhere on the Continent has been above freezing…and we’re well past mid summer.
Anybody claiming Antarctic lost any ice mass this year would have to be barking.
I think any the loss of any ice must be due to the holes they keep drilling in the darn stuff. Maybe someone could get some funding to do a study on the impact their studies have had.
Add the word significant and I am with you on the ice loss. There is always some sublimation occurring on wind swept ice.
This post is dedicated to the good people of New England, buried under record depths of snow,,,
“Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.”
– Dr David Viner, Climatic Research Unit (CRU), University of East Anglia
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html
Boston already has set a new record for monthly snowfall this February, and it’s only the middle of the month!
OK you warmist imbeciles, repeat after me, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-ly: “I blame global warming.”
MORE SNOW, INTENSE COLD COMPOUND THE MISERY
http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/15/snow/2IO1E0ibEJ1PK1sC1wPAyO/story.html
By Jennifer Smith and Jeremy C. FoxGlobe Correspondents February 15, 2015
Boston braced Sunday night for a life-threatening deep freeze after a blizzard bombarded parts of the region with nearly 2 feet of snow and gale-force winds.
The sixth winter storm in three weeks made February Boston’s snowiest month on record, with 58.5 inches, besting by more than 15 inches the previous record set in January 2005.
Temperatures were forecast to plunge below zero overnight Sunday, with wind chills as low as 20 to 30 degrees below zero, and to remain well below normal all week, according to the National Weather Service. Forecasters warned that another storm could hit the area beginning Tuesday evening.
My son came up with a tongue in cheek solution for the ice in Boston: Load the snow they can’t get rid of up in box cars and take it to the Sierra’s and dump it. Boston get rid of its piles of snow and California gets its missing snow pack. Win-win.
Actually we’ve had 96 inches since January 25th with another 6 inches due tonight. The one word weather report in the paper a few days ago got it right, Fargo.
As cold is actually the absence of heat, it appears we have more and more missing heat to account for in whatever heating is found at the poles. And, if the poles heat faster than the lower latitudes, the temperature differential will decrease, and so will the potential energy for storms, logically.
DURHAM, N.C. (AP) — A powerful winter storm dumped snow from Nashville to Nantucket, and arctic-like temperatures gripped much of the U.S. and hundreds of thousands of people lost power in the South.
http://news.yahoo.com/biting-cold-air-follows-latest-england-snowstorm-073636342.html
Once again you warmist imbeciles, repeat after me, v-e-r-y s-l-o-w-ly: “I blame global warming.”
*****************
Winter is eastern and central North America continues very cold, as Joe D’Aleo and his colleagues at WeatherBell correctly predicted last summer.
This is the second year in a row that the US National Weather Service and Environment Canada both incorrectly predicted a mild winter in their long-range forecasts, and WeatherBell correctly predicted a cold winter.
I remain concerned about Excess Winter Mortality rates, especially in regions that do not adequately adapt to winter through proper home insulation and central heating, and drive up energy costs through costly and ineffective green energy schemes.
I expect that global warming hysteria will be muted in much of North America after two very cold winters in the populous Eastern and Central regions.
Best regards, Allan
Arguing about ice extent and temperature trends in the Arctic and Antarctic is easy to do when the data are difficult to measure in such remote places, and so few people have the opportunity to visit them. The Arctic ice extent seemed pretty robust from 36,000 feet when I flew over Greenland, Baffin Bay and Baffin Island last April 15, and I was not surprised to learn that the Ice extent in Baffin Bay was at a 30-year high when I checked the Canadian maritime ice service after arriving home. This year, ice is regrowing vigorously in Casco Bay on the Maine sea coast, and soon the days will return when people will be able to drive their cars across the ice between the islands there as they have done in the past.
All of the hair splitting that is occurring now is happening because the models are obviously WRONG; their predictions have FAILED. It’s becoming more and more apparent with each passing winter now. Just ask about anyone in the Northeast (and especially Boston) what they think. The gravy train is about to come to a screeching halt for proponents of AGW, and they are desperate.
If the poles are warming, and global temps are paused, that means the rest of the planet is getting colder.
Thanks, Paul. Irrefutable logic.
Could one speculate a bit further? How nice it would be to conduct a planet sized experiment on the forcing effect of CO2 alone , in conditions where no other potential GHG species can influence the result and where the albedo and solar input over the course of a year are accurately known.
Does not the Antarctic provide exactly that . The H2O concentration is very low , and since the Antarctic plateau is at altitude , the volume ratio would fall anyway with altitude whist that of CO2 does not .
I have no idea what effect weather patterns from the ocean boundary would have , but if they do not disrupt this experiment then the warming of the Antarctic latitudes is entirely due to the CO2 radiative forcing thus giving an estimate of big the effect could be,
At other latitudes where water vapour is present and abundant , perhaps a negative feedback system involving H2O is affecting the lower or nonexistent temperature rise, even without the (probably dominant) role of the ocean circulations.
I have wondered if part of what causes either of the poles to warm is when the cold polar air gets redistributed away from the pole, causing a cold flow as it travels away from the pole. The movement would bring warmer air into the poles, while cooling regions away from the pole. Could this be part of the explanation for southern sea ice growth? The Antarctic cold is pushed outward leading to a slight warming on the continent, and a major cooling at the edges of the sea ice from the deep cold emanating from the interior.
No…. if the poles are warming, but it is not accounted for, then the planet is warming more than we thought.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/reports_snow_increasingly_rare_becomes_we_knew_snows_would_be_heavier_in_wa/
February 2 08:42 AM
The theme had been snows were diminishing due to global warming.
Flashback 2000: ‘Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past’: According to Dr. David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years winter snowfall will become ‘a very rare and exciting event. Children just aren’t going to know what snow is.’
The IPCC and US government reports through 2007 had projected snows would become much less common as the climate warms especially in the cities.
Environmentalist from Princeton Michael Oppenheimer and RFK Jr, in the year before the Snomageddon winter both bemoaned their children would never get to enjoy sledding like they did as young in the 1960s.
Theories and hypothesis come and go, but to ascertain their validity we need credible data. Habit of changing the past data records be it temperatures, sunspot records, or whatever else to suit currently favoured agenda is not only regrettable but it is the anti-science.
If the pseudo-science is wrong interpretation of the available data to suit one’s beliefs, then the anti-science is altering the available data to suit one’s beliefs.
If anti-science is practiced by keepers of global treasury of data, it is an attack not only on the progress of science but also an attack on the progress of humanity.
If the poles were warmer the ice would melt and we would be able to go there and get good measurements.
what climate change, and reasons for an increase in temp.
http://www.wmo.int/pages/themes/climate/statistical_depictions_of_climate.php
“These changes can also occur to weather stations that are still in rural locations and are often harder to detect. For instance, the growth of trees around a farmstead that maintains a weather station alters the local wind flow and temperature patterns, and so reduces extreme wind speeds and the incidence of frosts (where they occur). The trend in the observations reflects the changes in the microclimate of the farmstead while the general climate may not have changed”
they said it,” may not have changed”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/what-to-call-a-nyt-reporter-of-climate-science/
even here he is translated !!!
apparently this 250km high cloud whatsit on Mars doesn’t fit in with the models.
The explanation is very simple: The face on Mars sneezed! (ok I’ll stop laughing and add /sarc)
If it’s warming so fast in the Arctic, how do they explain that the ice extent is right on average and the ice thickness has been increasing. We are not getting these huge masses of frigid air because it’s warmer up there. They are counting on the ignorance of the public. They are the kind of people you should never turn tour back on.
Environment Canada issued an extreme cold warning with wind chill at -55 Centigrade a couple of weeks ago
in Resolute and Repulse Bay ect… Nanuvut..
http://iceagenow.info/2015/01/blizzard-winter-storm-snowfall-extreme-cold-warnings-eastern-canada-nunavut/
And for today in Baker Lake
http://weather.gc.ca/warnings/report_e.html?nu2
Where is the warming? Is it supposed to mean warmer than -70 C?
Another case of attempting to swat mosquitoes with a sledgehammer or a better metaphor might be “picking at fly shit” to explain away data which does not help to conclude the warmist point of view. Global is global.
Jim G1
When trying to keep food clean (by cleaning utensils and a serving tray before eating), or to clean up food after it has been deposited with fly shiite, there ARE times when “picking at fly shiite” is a worthwhile endeavor…..
Now, there are fast ways to “pick at it”, and efficient ways, and slow ways … But sometimes, yes, you do have to “pick at fly shiite” …. in all of its gory details. Besides, swinging at mosquitos with sledgehammers is even harder. 8<)
Is there something not understood about the term “global”? There is, and has been, a multi-decade pause in global temperature increase, even considering all of the adjustments to past data favoring temperature increase and all of the siting problems, etc. CO2 has continued to rise, ie, no significant relationship between the two. Even were the poles warming slightly, the prognostications of those seeking to potray catastrophe are dead wrong. The real catastrophe will be if it gets a great deal colder and the social and economic damage wrought by the politics of warming. Again, I say “flyshit” to this newest excuse, right or wrong, regarding the facts of the global pause.
The AMO is now negative. If it stays this way Arctic Sea Ice will continue to expand.
The Arctic may stay on the warm side going into the future but this will be due to a weak polar vortex likely going forward ,which will be due to ozone distribution changes in a vertical and horizontal sense due to prolonged minimum solar activity .
Meanwhile Antarctica, has record sea ice or near record sea ice ,while oceanic temperatures are below average and the temperature trend for the Continent of Antarctica has been down, making all the assertions in this article essentially BS.
wow, its all freakily bad-
http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/wcp/ccl/guide/documents/english/WMO_100_en-chap2.pdf
“The representativeness and homogeneity of climatological records are closely related to the location of the observing site. A station sited on or near a steep slope, ridge, cliff, hollow, building, wall or other obstruction is likely to provide data that are more representative of the site alone and not of a wider area. A station that is or will be affected by the growth of vegetation, including even limited tree growth near the sensor, growth of tall crops or woodland nearby, erection of buildings on adjacent land, or increases (or decreases) in road or air traffic (including those due to changes in the use of runways or taxiways) will provide neither broadly representative nor homogeneous data”
what happens when these stations are also estimating up to 1200 kilometers away.
well i never-
“The nature of urban environments makes it impossible to conform to the standard guidance for site selection and exposure of instrumentation required
for establishing a homogeneous record that can be
used to describe the larger-scale climate”
Yes. Thermometers located in the path of air conditioner exhaust measure the temperature of the exhaust.
Thats why the US climate reference network was created. All stations are well located far away from urban areas.
It is also impossible to “correct” the bad data from urban areas. There is no scientific control. All data from urban temperature stations must be rejected from any global calculations. If you do want to know the temperature next to an airport runway, then that’s fine for that specific purpose. Just don’t use that data as an estimate for the climate in that region.
There are a very few surface temperature stations with good long term siting. Good rural data show zero warming.