Skip to comments.Powerful winter storm prompts blizzard watch ( no global warming )
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 ...
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.
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.
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..."
" 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."
- "Other studies periodically demonstrate a complete uncoupling of CO2 and temperature "
- "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.
|New Research Adds Twist to Global Warming Debate
October 12, 2006
By Steven Milloy
In the experiment, cosmic radiation was passed through a large reaction chamber containing a mixture of lower atmospheric gases at realistic concentrations that was exposed to ultraviolet radiation from lamps that mimic the action of the suns rays. Instruments traced the chemical action of the penetrating cosmic rays in the reaction chamber.[Click here for more details about Svensmarks hypothesis and experiment, including high-quality animation].
The data collected indicate that the electrons released by the cosmic rays acted as catalysts to accelerate the formation of stable clusters of sulfuric acid and water molecules the building blocks for clouds.
Many climate scientists have considered the linkages from cosmic rays to clouds as unproven, said Friis-Christensen who is the director of the Danish National Space Centre. Some said there was no conceivable way in which cosmic rays could influence cloud cover. [This] experiment now shows they do so, and should help to put the cosmic ray connection firmly onto the agenda of international climate research, he added.
But given the potential significance of Svensmarks experimentally validated hypothesis, it merits more than just a place on the agenda of international climate research it should be at the very top of that agenda.
Low-level clouds cover more than a quarter of the Earths surface and exert a strong cooling effect. Observational data indicate that low-cloud cover can vary as much as 2 percent in 5 years which, in turn, varies the heating at the Earths surface by as much as 1.2 watts per square meter during that same period.
That figure can be compared with about 1.4 watts per square meter estimated by the [United Nations] Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change for the greenhouse effect of all the increase in carbon dioxide in the air since the Industrial Revolution, says Svensmark.
Middle Ages were warmer than today, say scientists
Claims that man-made pollution is causing "unprecedented" global warming have been seriously undermined by new research which shows that the Earth was warmer during the Middle Ages.
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.