Posted on 10/25/2006 8:48:42 AM PDT by george76
Passes closed...about two weeks earlier than normal.
Early snow shuts down Independence, Cottonwood.
Winter weather will return to Colorado later today and Thursday as a powerful Pacific storm moves into the state prompting forecasters with the National Weather Service to issue a variety of watches and advisories.
All of Southeastern Colorado is under a blizzard watch beginning at 9 p.m. today continuing through 5 p.m. Thursday.
A winter storm watch covers the Sangre de Cristo Mountains and the Wet Mountains where up to a foot of snow may fall and wind gusts could reach 40 miles per hour.
A snow and blowing snow advisory covers the Sawatch Range and mountains west and north of the Upper Arkansas River Valley.
Trail Ridge Road along U.S. 34 through Rocky Mountain National Park also closed for the season Monday. The passes usually reopen in May.
(Excerpt) Read more at themountainmail.com ...
.
Independence Pass has to be the most beautiful places on earth. Wish I was there now! A bit of a scare if you are driving. But Beautiful.
Record highs caused by global warming. Record lows caused by global warming. Droughts caused by global warming. Floods caused by global warming. Hurricanes caused by global warming. Lack of hurricanes caused by global warming. Incredibly, the public is supposed to believe the "scientists" who have blind faith in this specious theory and continue to fund their unscientific research. They have a preconceived answer to all climate change: the US is at fault.
This is so confusing...
Good is bad.
hot is cold.
No global warming here.
Try again.
Warmer Oceans means stronger troughs over the continents hence colder winters and hotter summers.
Although you should also note this is weather which does not necessarily have a direct correlation to climate. Even deserts get rain storms.
And, of course, it's all the fault of President Bush and his EEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEvil mastermind, Karl Rove.
--until you get to the Aspen city limits, I agree with you--
That wonderful scene in in Chaffee County.Thanks for the heads up
Warmer Oceans means stronger troughs over the continents hence colder winters and hotter summers.
OOPs.
Mystery of Missing Heat: Upper Ocean has cooled slightly in recent years.
Between 2003 and 2005, the top layers of the world's oceans cooled slightly, but scientists aren't sure where the heat went.
According to climate data gathered worldwide, 2003, 2004, and 2005 are three of the five warmest years since reliable record keeping of global air temperatures began more than a century ago. However, oceanographic surveys suggest that on average, the upper 750 meters of the world's ice-free oceans cooled about 0.03°C during that 3-year period.
Didn't you get the memo? The proper term is now Climate Change, not Global Warming. This way everything that happens can be blamed on Bush and big business. Droughts, blizzards, you name it.
Thank you.
There are three ski areas now open.
all early openings
This would be a good time for Gore to have another conference/fund raiser.
Either here or Buffalo
/s
Yup. And the Left tells us that Climate Change is a settled issue. All real scientists agree. No need for further study. Me must act now!
No need to skip Halloween.
Just strike a compromise by watching The Nightmare Before Christmas.
BUMP
Yeah, but a blizzard in October is evidence of climate change, even in Buffalo. Proves Al Gore's point. Of course, if the weather was warm in October instead it would also prove his point. See how great their logic is? Everything proves their point.
" Everything proves their point..."
Gore and friends !!
There is a neg PNA right now, which leads to more western snow than has occurred of late.
It does look like 'The Shining'...
Cats and dogs, sleeping together... /ghostbusters
My son is guiding a couple elk hunters on the far side of Kebbler Pass in Gunnison County. I hope he gets home without too much difficulty.
Will there be snow in Bedford Falls George?
" Will there be snow in Bedford Falls ?"
Yes.
In Colorado, we play baseball in blizzards. Yes, that's snow.
Now amended to 'disruptive climate change', after the kooks took the heat for failing to realize the climate has never been static, AND we have to add "man-made".
Their real issue is that we humans have to stop doing what we do to change the climate, because everything we do is bad.
OK, essentially they are climatic xenophobes.
Sayeth the weather man in Cleveland, Ohio a few years ago, "Today, we had 8-10 inches of global warming..."
Nice :
"Today, we had 8-10 inches of global warming..."
Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Isaiah 5:20
And to think, we were warned about liberals way back in the Old Testament!
Upper 750 Meters of Ocean temp.
The waater below a few meters does not have a direct effect on weather pattern formation.
NOAA's National Climate Data Center is idicating that we have warming of the Oceans surface.
e.g. Globally averaged ocean surface temperatures were 0.44°C (0.79°F) above the 1880-2002 mean, second warmest for January-October 2003.
January-September 2006 Global
Ocean +0.43°C (+0.77°F)
Raw data by month since 1880 is here.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
You can plot the trend line and the global surface temperature change is pretty obvious.
I have a 'friend' in upstate NY and in an email the other day she commented on the snow in Buffalo and said it was due to Global Warming; that GW is causing all the extremes of hot and cold on the earth. I didn't even bother with a response. There is no talking to people who think this way.
You can plot the trend line and the global surface temperature change is pretty obvious.
What isn't obvious from that trendline is the effect of Solar Activity on cloud cover through modulation of Cosmic Ray flux with rising ocean tempertures since the maunder minimum as activity increased and cosmic ray flux decreased.
Solar Activity just topped out at its 8000 year peak in 2003, apparently starting its downside by 2004. Factors pointing to increasing low level cloud cover from here on out reflecting solar radiation back to space with consequent lower ocean heating. The leading edge of temperature decline showing up in upper level ocean currents 2004 b 2005 as pointed out.
Refer:
Effect of Solar Activity on lower level cloud cover: http://spacecenter.dk/xpdf/influence-of-cosmic-rays-on-the-earth.pdf
Solar Activity forcasts: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
In short, the causal chain giving rise to increased surface and ocean temperatures is reversing.
Actually I just agree with those people. I tell them that Bush is doing exactly what I voted for him to do. He's keeping the snow in Buffalo, the hurricanes in the Gulf, the earthquakes on the west coast and the terrorists in the Middle East.
that GW is causing all the extremes of hot and cold on the earth..."
LOL.
" I tell them that Bush is doing exactly what I voted for him to do.
He's keeping the snow in Buffalo, the hurricanes in the Gulf, the earthquakes on the west coast and the terrorists in the Middle East."
....In short, the causal chain giving rise to increased
....surface and ocean temperatures is reversing.
You are assuming 100% of heating is the result of deviation in Solar Influx. Therefore the atmoispheric resisistance to transmission of IR is required to be a constant independent of trace gas concentration. QED it ain't.
Solar influx is only part of the equation for heating. Most recent data I have seen suggests it is responsible for about half of what we see to date.
You are assuming 100% of heating is the result of deviation in Solar Influx.
Wrong, I am going by the fact that cosmic ray influx, modulated by the solar magnetic field, is causing a variation in cloud cover and hence albedo of the earth reflecting solar energy away from the earth's surface.
|
Clouds have been observed from space since the beginning of the 1980's. By the mid 1990's, enough cloud data accumulated to provide empirical evidence for a solar/cloud-cover link. Without the satellite data, it hard or probably impossible to get statistically meaningful results because of the large systematic errors plaguing ground based observations. Using the satellite data, Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Center in Copenhagen has shown that cloud cover varies in sync with the variable cosmic ray flux reaching the Earth. Over the relevant time scale, the largest variations arise from the 11-yr solar cycle, and indeed, this cloud cover seemed to follow the cycle and a half of cosmic ray flux modulation. Later, Henrik Svensmark and his colleague Nigel Marsh, have shown that the correlation is primarily with low altitude cloud cover. This can be seen in fig. 3. |
Solar influx in the form of radiant energy is the lesser factor providing heat, but the variation in cloud cover (albedo) causing a much larger effect in reflecting Solar radiation back into space before ever heating the surface to excite CO2 in the first place.
Therefore the atmoispheric resisistance to transmission of IR is required to be a constant independent of trace gas concentration.
Hmmm, it is not I assuming anything.
The direct radiant effects of IR are negligible in comparison to Solar Activity, and thermal retention characteristics o CO2 increase in proportion to the exponential increase of carbon dioxide, (i.e. atmosphere only increases ~0.2oK for each doubling of atmospheric concentration).
I would point out the models you are basing your assumptions on are flawed in assuming a feedback that has never been demonstrable by physical measures of the atmosphere;
"the direct radiative effects of doubled CO2 can cause a maximum surface warming [at the equator] of about 0.2 K, and hence roughly 90% of the 2.0-2.5 K surface warming obtained by the GCM is caused by atmospheric feedback processes described above."
--- "Increased Atmospheric CO2: Zonal and Seasonal Estimates of the Effect on the Radiation Energy Balance and Surface Temperature" (V. Ramanathan and M. S. Lian), J. Geophys. Res., Vol. 84, p. 4949, 1979.
Where not even the sign of such hypothesized feedback has not been determined and in fact may not exist to increase or decrease thermal variations of any factor much less that of CO2.
In short, no or negative feedback and CO2 is a negligible factor in variation, while variation of atmospheric due to cloud variation is a very real and demonstable phenomena.
QED, Your apriori assumptions on which your thesis of global warming due to increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration is based, has no demonstrable existance.
- "(1) correlation does not prove causation, (2) cause must precede effect, and (3) when attempting to evaluate claims of causal relationships between different parameters, it is important to have as much data as possible in order to weed out spurious correlations.
***
Consider, for example, the study of Fischer et al. (1999), who examined trends of atmospheric CO2 and air temperature derived from Antarctic ice core data that extended back in time a quarter of a million years. Over this extended period, the three most dramatic warming events experienced on earth were those associated with the terminations of the last three ice ages; and for each of these climatic transitions, earth's air temperature rose well in advance of any increase in atmospheric CO2. In fact, the air's CO2 content did not begin to rise until 400 to 1,000 years after the planet began to warm. Such findings have been corroborated by Mudelsee (2001), who examined the leads/lags of atmospheric CO2 concentration and air temperature over an even longer time period, finding that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration lagged behind variations in air temperature by 1,300 to 5,000 years over the past 420,000 years."[ see also: Indermuhle et al. (2000), Monnin et al. (2001), Yokoyama et al. (2000), Clark and Mix (2000) ]
- "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "
[see: Petit et al. (1999), Staufer et al. (1998), Cheddadi et al., (1998), Raymo et al., 1998, Pagani et al. (1999), Pearson and Palmer (1999), Pearson and Palmer, (2000) ]
- "Considered in their entirety, these several results present a truly chaotic picture with respect to any possible effect that variations in atmospheric CO2 concentration may have on global temperature. Clearly, atmospheric CO2 is not the all-important driver of global climate change the climate alarmists make it out to be.
Global warming and global dioxide emission and concentration:
a Granger causality analysis
- "We find, in opposition to previous studies, that there is no evidence of Granger causality from global carbon dioxide emission to global surface temperature. Further, we could not find robust empirical evidence for the causal nexus from global carbon dioxide concentration to global surface temperature."
Most recent data I have seen suggests it is responsible for about half of what we see to date.
The only "data" you have seen is out of date as well as from flawed computer models, not from any emperical measures of any greenhouse effects of variation in atmospheric CO2. Such have never been shown to be a causative or even have a long term correlation except as a lagging effect of atmospheric temperature variations due to other causative factors such as Solar Activity, variations in Earth's orbit, variations in albedo due to external factor unrelated to dioxide emissions.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
