Snow worldwide

[Jim Hughes]

My first inclination would be to agree with you but than I stopped to think for a moment and I am not 100 % sure. What time frame are you talking about in long term climate trend?

Decades to centuries.

The trend the past 10-15 years is the big catalyst behind the GW charge.

Not really. Maybe from a public perception view, but not a scientific one.

Small pieces, or weather events, add up to bigger pieces and they must slowly change the climate trends by interacting with the earth's environment. Butterfly effect...

But to get a long-term trend in forcing, you need a continued bias, not merely variation. Is there some known long-term trend in the kind of space weather you track?

We still do not know about the possible GCR effect upon cloud coverage. Especially maritime clouds. That could play a large role if connected. We also must consider the possible effect that space weather might have upon ozone levels. The also could have just as much influence upon the climate.

Jim

Well, we've had continual satelite coverage through a couple of solar cycles now. That ought to give us a pretty good baseline for detecting a correlation of cloud cover with space weather.

Well the public perception is very important here since we are trying to get them to change their ways. So the debate during the past decade seems to have cranked up the urgency. Especially since certain climate patterns, like warmest year ever etc...are being pointed out.

Single short term space weather trends can lead to bigger results....I believe last falls space weather is related to the LA Nina that has formed or forming...I even spoke about it last September.

Well if this was an El Nino, which it also can help form, we most likely would have been seeing a worldwide warming down the road since this seems to lag it.

Some research studies have found a correlation between certain types of cloud coverage and GCR levels. But the current lack of understanding to this process is making some people skeptical of the results. Some also question the satellite data.



Jim

[x-y-no]

...you're selecting timepoints at a valley and peak of the 11 year solar cycle and claiming that's the overall trend. That's not legitimate at all...

I realize that the long term minimum to minimum Greenhouse to Irradiance relationship is 20 percent, but the current trend is minimum to maximum, because Jupiter just past aphelion, and we are near the solar minimum and irradiance is higher at the solar minimum, because sun spots are cooler then the rest of the sun, so when there is more sun spots there is less irradiance. There is never a case when the Greenhouse/Irradiance relationship exceeds 25 percent regardless of term of the computation.

Again I have to ask - what time range are you looking at in arriving at these 20% and 25% numbers? What's the underlying data? You'll have to forgive me for not simly trusting your claim - you lost any chance at that when you tried to pass off the difference between two data points at a valley and peak of the solar cycle as representative of the overall trend.

If you want to claim that the majority of the currently observed warming trend is due to changing insolation, then you need to explain why there wasn't a significant global cooling during the latest TSI minimum in the 90s.

The problem is that after the DEP whooped up on DDT, and over development they were in jeopardy of loosing funding and invented this problem in a highly publicized fashion. Dressed it up like the great bag of hot air that it is, and created a bureaucratic empire that feeds multitudes of starving environmentalist.

I offered kenl01 a spare tin-foil hat earlier, I'll see if I can find one for you too.

I'm sorry - but I've been a peripheral but interested observer of the development of the science in this field for over 30 years, and your account of the "invention" of AGW is pure nonsense. I won't speak to political issues and I wish you wouldn't either. This is (by rule) a non-political board so I'll issue yet another plea that we try to stick to facts.

In reality the sun is heading toward supernova, not now, but eventually. That is why the U.S. is headed toward Mars, and not to Kyoto. It’s not that the Green Tea is bad in Kyoto, it is just that Mars is half way to Europa, and the water is there.

OMG! Now I know you're not even remotely serious. The sun isn't going supernova for billions of years, and when it does being on Mars or Europa won't make the slightest bit of difference.

If this is going to be the level of our dialogue, then it's a complete waste of time.

Please pull any series of satellite data before 1994 (the beginning of cycle 23 =/-) and post the link.

If your demanding a single satellite record spanning decades, that's obviously impossible. Satellites have limited lifetimes. It's not even clear how meaningful such a record would be, since sensors degrade over time as well.

But there is a record of multiple overlapping series which can yield a composite.



In fact, the figure you cited earlier was one such composite. From the TAR, chapter 6.11.1.1:

Willson (1997) used ERB data to provide cross-calibration between the non-overlapping records of ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II and deduced that TSI was 0.5 Wm-2 higher during the solar minimum of 1996 than during solar minimum in 1986. If this reflects an underlying trend in solar irradiance it would represent a radiative forcing2 of 0.09 Wm-2 over that decade compared with about 0.4 Wm-2 due to well-mixed greenhouse gases. The factors used to correct ACRIM-I and ACRIM-II by Willson (1997) agree with those derived independently by Crommelynk et al. (1995) who derived a Space Absolute Radiometric Reference of TSI reportedly accurate to ± 0.15%. Fröhlich and Lean (1998), however, derived a composite TSI series which shows almost identical values in 1986 and 1996, in good agreement with a model of the TSI variability based on independent observations of sunspots and bright areas (faculae). The difference between these two assessments depends critically on the corrections necessary to compensate for problems of unexplained drift and uncalibrated degradation in both the Nimbus 7/ERB and ERBS time series. Thus, longer-term and more accurate measurements are required before trends in TSI can be monitored to sufficient accuracy for application to studies of the radiative forcing of climate.

So there is an indication in the direct observational record of a continuing upward trend, albeit a much smaller one than you were claiming. Furthermore, there is also evidence in proxy records of an overall upward trend in TSI since the 17th century. But those same proxy records show that trend flattening in the second hald of the 20th century, whilst the global temperature trend accellerates in the latter part of the 20th century into the 21st.

Reference: http://www.grida.no/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/212.htm (see chapter 6)

[gigabite]

...Sun will NEVER go Supernova ...the Sun will become much more luminous as it evolves is a consequence of the Red Giant phase it will go through before the Planetary Nebula and White Dwarf stages.

Steve

Yes My Master, but his lack of faith in the power of the sun disturbs me. ; )

His affection for the DEP budget over the NWS budget makes him dangerous.


heavy breathing and hissing

[gigabite]

If you want to claim that the majority of the currently observed warming trend is due to changing insolation, then you need to explain why there wasn't a significant global cooling during the latest TSI minimum in the 90s.

You are over simplifying the components. My point of view is that there is more than one cause for warming. There is an inverse relationship between earth sun distance and irradiance. That means the effect varies it does not mean that it is negligible. The rate of change as an absolute value, that is larger than the gas effect.

Please pull any series of satellite data before 1994 (the beginning of cycle 23 =/-) and post the link.

If your demanding a single satellite record spanning decades, that's obviously impossible. Satellites have limited lifetimes. It's not even clear how meaningful such a record would be, since sensors degrade over time as well

please, seven days of cloud data.

…decade compared with about 0.4 Wm-2 due to well-mixed greenhouse gases…

Sir, this is a nebulous statement carefully written to promote the claim, by someone seeking job security. The only method to develop a claim like this is in a lab. There is no way to make a claim of this type from field observations even in Los Angeles the wind blows and the conditions. The statement does not even hint by remote suggestion to the percentages of inert gasses.

… and it does not even correlate with the observed data

http://www.cmdl.noaa.gov/albums/hats_fi ... .sized.png

And as far as your opinion of NASA’s narrative on the colonization, mining, and manufacturing in space it doesn’t seem to mesh well with your wish for greenhouses gasses to go away.

Greenhouse/ Irradiance relationship never exceeds 25 percent regardless of term of the computation.

[x-y-no]

Whatever, gigabite. Like I said - if this is to be the level of the dialogue, it' a waste of time. You toss around obvious but irrelevant facts like the relationship of orbital mechanics to insolation (there's no extraordinary change happening in the Earth's orbit at this time) and make odd demands (seven days cloud data? where did that come from?) issue incomprehensible challenges (what did I ever say about "NASA’s narrative on the colonization, mining, and manufacturing in space").

[Matt-hurricanewatcher]

There was once a inland sea covering much of the south central United states. In I would be under a inland sea here in Portland...If there is global warming now. why was it warmer at those times then it is today to make the water level so much higher?

[gigabite]

The upper limit of sea level was about 60 feet higher 180,000 years ago than it is now. There has been six regular interglacial periods in the last 2 million years the last one ended 10,000 years ago. The Global temperature will be on the rise for the next 150,000 years before it starts to cool at a significant pace then in 270,000 years the Atlantic will freeze and sea level will return to it’s maximum low and the Aleutian Land Bridge to the Kamchatka Peninsula will be exposed.

Because of the weight of the ice some places have experienced upheaval as the glaciers melted.

Now, the plus 60 foot is the generally accepted maximum sea level. Which means that the polar ice caps never completely melt at least in terms of the geologic record. A complete melt down would cause a 255 foot maximum sea level.

The current accepted rate of sea level rise 0.0104 of a foot per year. The maximum sea level rise is 60 feet. 60/.0104/year = 5769.23 years until sea level reaches straight line equilibrium. This doesn’t make sense even for a complete polar meltdown.

There must be times in that 150,000 years of warming that sea level either levels off or drops due to periodic mini ice ages.

[x-y-no]

There was once a inland sea covering much of the south central United states. In I would be under a inland sea here in Portland...If there is global warming now. why was it warmer at those times then it is today to make the water level so much higher?

Because there are other forcings besides AGW. And as I've said many times before, the existence of other forcings does not in any way demonstrate that AGW isn't real.

In fact, one can argue that the evidence of past extreme climate variations is evidence in favor of the idea that AGW is a matter of concern. If the record indicated that climate were extremely stable in the face of anomalous forcing, then we could perhaps afford to be sanguine.

[x-y-no]

The Global temperature will be on the rise for the next 150,000 years before it starts to cool at a significant pace then in 270,000 years the Atlantic will freeze and sea level will return to it’s maximum low and the Aleutian Land Bridge to the Kamchatka Peninsula will be exposed.

[gigabite]

nasa

[x-y-no]

nasa

And your point is?

I don't see any 150,000 year interglacials in that record.

[gigabite]

I guess you need to understand that when the graph is scaled out to include the Cenozoic and Quaternary ranges smoothing occurs, and I was reading from a different resource than the link, and I averaged the cycles over two million years so I would not have to scan the hard resource and use some personal web space.

My point is that it is a foregone conclusion that homo habilis had no hair spray therefore no artificial source of CCL4, but still there is a 6 degree temperature climate swing.

[x-y-no]

My point is that it is a foregone conclusion that homo habilis had no hair spray therefore no artificial source of CCL4, but still there is a 6 degree temperature climate swing.

And once again, despite the fact that my hope of ever communicating to you any concept contrary to you preconceived notions, I'll point out that the existence of other forcing factors and natural climate variability says absolutely nothing about the reality of anthropogenic climate change, nor is it an argument against attempting to mitigate our effect on climate.

I've asked this before and none of you contrarians has ever responded, but what the heck I'll try again:

Does the fact that forest fires occur naturally and have done so since long before the arrival of man prove that man does not cause forest fires? Is that fact an argument against trying to mitigate the effect of forest fires?

If not, why would the same reasoning WRT climate change not be equally flawed?

[kenl01]

Ten feet of snow forces UN to suspend relief efforts in Pakistan

8 Jan 06 - All roads into the Kaghan and Siran Valleys in the Northwestern Frontier Province are blocked with up to nearly ten feet (three meters) of snow in some sections, the UN said late Friday. The Pakistan Meteorological Department warned of more snowfall over the next 72 hours.

Days of heavy storms dumped up to 10 feet (3 meters) of snow in some areas of Kashmir and northwestern Pakistan, forcing the suspension of helicopter flights and aid deliveries.
http://www.pakquake.com/un-suspends-ope ... areas.html

[kenl01]

A quick note:

It's pretty much lunacy here how some people have turned this snow topic into an irrelevent environmental issue. This topic is about snow and cold. That's what's important ! All that other jab about how last year's warmth was caused by anything else other than natural cycles is complete BS and a perfect example of the dumbing down process of America. Some of you ought to just take those newspapers you read and tear them up and throw those damned things in the fireplace at once and make sure that the ash from it does not contaminate your brains any further, and that's all there's to it. Some of you are really stupid ! I couldn't even imagine looking at some of these idiotic posts on here.

I couldn't care less how some want to exxagerate how warm it was last year, or that the cold or snow in other parts of the world is no big deal. Yes it is a big deal, especially the heavy snows this year so far in many parts of the world.

And NO - the growing glaciers in New Zealand are not caused by American made hairsprays, ok ???????

Some of you ought to make a new years reslution: Kill your television and newspapers - and ignore your high school teachers.

Have a good day

[Extremeweatherguy]

A quick note:

It's pretty much lunacy here how some people have turned this snow topic into an irrelevent environmental issue. This topic is about snow and cold. That's what's important ! All that other jab about how last year's warmth was caused by anything else other than natural cycles is complete BS and a perfect example of the dumbing down process of America. Some of you ought to just take those newspapers you read and tear them up and throw those damned things in the fireplace at once and make sure that the ash from it does not contaminate your brains any further, and that's all there's to it. Some of you are really stupid ! I couldn't even imagine looking at some of these idiotic posts on here.

I couldn't care less how some want to exxagerate how warm it was last year, or that the cold or snow in other parts of the world is no big deal. Yes it is a big deal, especially the heavy snows this year so far in many parts of the world.

And NO - the growing glaciers in New Zealand are not caused by American made hairsprays, ok ???????

Some of you ought to make a new years reslution: Kill your television and newspapers - and ignore your high school teachers.

Have a good day

yeah, I think we should be worrying more about global cooling. Why? well below are just a FEW things that have gone on recently that would support that idea:

-10 feet of snow caused the UN to suspend relief efforts in Pakistan. (Jan. 8)

-New Zealand Department of Conservation is worried that people will be injured by falling chuncks of ice off of a rapidly advancing glacier. (Jan. 12)

-Over a quarter of a million people were stuck in a monster blizzard in NW China. Homes were collapsing under the weight of the snow! (Jan. 6)

-One of the coldest Decembers worldwide in many years.

-Coldest winter in over 20 years in Asia.

-First freeze in 70 years in New Dehli.

-Gulf Stream slowing (If it stops, then Europe and the US will enter a mini ice age).

Below are a few good articles too:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060109/w010928.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news ... news.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news ... news.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10736309/from/ET/

http://www.physorg.com/news9478.html

http://english.bna.bh/newsadmin/printable.php?ID=39096

**I mean, come on, would this stuff really be happening if we were deep in global warming? I mean the coldest air in 20+ years in Asia and 10+ years in Europe does not happen everyday, and certaintly shouldn't be happening if the world was warming. Just a few thoughts...**

[P.K.]

Some of you ought to just take those newspapers you read and tear them up and throw those damned things in the fireplace at once and make sure that the ash from it does not contaminate your brains any further, and that's all there's to it.

Careful, you'll be adding to any possible AGW there. Please recycle if you must throw things away like that.

-Gulf Stream slowing (If it stops, then Europe and the US will enter a mini ice age).

It was part of the NADW overturning that was found to have decreased and not the Gulf Stream. Although the error in the experiment was as large as the decrease so we need to look at this more.

[kenl01]

A quick note:

It's pretty much lunacy here how some people have turned this snow topic into an irrelevent environmental issue. This topic is about snow and cold. That's what's important ! All that other jab about how last year's warmth was caused by anything else other than natural cycles is complete BS and a perfect example of the dumbing down process of America. Some of you ought to just take those newspapers you read and tear them up and throw those damned things in the fireplace at once and make sure that the ash from it does not contaminate your brains any further, and that's all there's to it. Some of you are really stupid ! I couldn't even imagine looking at some of these idiotic posts on here.

I couldn't care less how some want to exxagerate how warm it was last year, or that the cold or snow in other parts of the world is no big deal. Yes it is a big deal, especially the heavy snows this year so far in many parts of the world.

And NO - the growing glaciers in New Zealand are not caused by American made hairsprays, ok ???????

Some of you ought to make a new years reslution: Kill your television and newspapers - and ignore your high school teachers.

Have a good day

yeah, I think we should be worrying more about global cooling. Why? well below are just a FEW things that have gone on recently that would support that idea:

-10 feet of snow caused the UN to suspend relief efforts in Pakistan. (Jan. 8)

-New Zealand Department of Conservation is worried that people will be injured by falling chuncks of ice off of a rapidly advancing glacier. (Jan. 12)

-Over a quarter of a million people were stuck in a monster blizzard in NW China. Homes were collapsing under the weight of the snow! (Jan. 6)

-One of the coldest Decembers worldwide in many years.

-Coldest winter in over 20 years in Asia.

-First freeze in 70 years in New Dehli.

-Gulf Stream slowing (If it stops, then Europe and the US will enter a mini ice age).

Below are a few good articles too:

http://www.cbc.ca/cp/world/060109/w010928.html

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news ... news.shtml

http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/world/news ... news.shtml

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/10736309/from/ET/

http://www.physorg.com/news9478.html

http://english.bna.bh/newsadmin/printable.php?ID=39096

**I mean, come on, would this stuff really be happening if we were deep in global warming? I mean the coldest air in 20+ years in Asia and 10+ years in Europe does not happen everyday, and certaintly shouldn't be happening if the world was warming. Just a few thoughts...**

Bingo Extreme weatherguy !

I've been trying to say this for over 6 years now. Another excellent site that I suggest is http://iceagenow.com

That site has some excellent points and allot of snow/cold articles since 1998. When looking carefully at that site, (especially the growing glaciers section) I'm totally convinced we're at the verge of global cooling, at least sooner or later. They make sense to me, especially with so many cold and snow records occurring in so many areas since about 1997/98. It should be very clear when one examines that site carefully. There is a thing called the ice age cycle - something everybody overlooks all the time. I took a course in climate once back in 2003, and I had to argue (almost fist fight my instructor) about the ice age cycles. Funny that most people in the class agreed with me when I brought it up. I check it every day. It's an excellent site !

And I really like the quote from Solomon:

"You turned formerly mundane topics of weather, geology, and archeology into a red-hot page turner. Not by Fire but by Ice is the eye-opener of a lifetime. You have steered my decisions about where and how to live by fighting through the global warming baloney ... a knock-out blow for scientific truth that can save millions."
- Mark Solomon

Sincerely, Ken

[kenl01]

[quote="P.K
Careful, you'll be adding to any possible AGW there. Please recycle if you must throw things away like that.


Hey dude, good point but earth takes care of itself...

We have volcanoes that spit thousand times as much chemicals into the air than we ever could...........


Have a nice day, Ken

[x-y-no]

A quick note:

It's pretty much lunacy here how some people have turned this snow topic into an irrelevent environmental issue. This topic is about snow and cold. That's what's important !

Excuse me, but your original rant (subesquently edited) made the claim that the local and regional cold events described were evidence against AGW. So if you're upset about the topic of this thread, you have yourself to blame.

And NO - the growing glaciers in New Zealand are not caused by American made hairsprays, ok ???????

Who claimed they are?

Some of you ought to make a new years reslution: Kill your television and newspapers - and ignore your high school teachers.

I don't get my science from television or newspapers and I'm nearly 30 years out of high school. Maybe some others here should try getting their information from scientific journals instead of from freeperville.