Looks like our posts crossed. You can explain something after all. A refreshing change, Keep up the good work!
But here in UK we are still under the impression – given by Mr Viner of UEA about 10 years ago that snow will be a thing of the past for us because of global warming. i.e the hotter it gets, the less now we will get.
And the last two winters have been abnormally snowy for us. Is he right or wrong?
Don’t be too hard on him Latimer,is that 5430 ft adjusted?Geez,much higher he’ll need oxygen.
The Wellington T anomaly for march 2012 is – 1.5c,at sea level.
It does snow more when oceans are warm and the Arctic Sea Ice is gone. that snow does pile up and cause the glaciers to advance and cool the earth. It snows more when oceans are warm and earth cools. it snows less when oceans are cold and earth warms.
Do look at the ice core data. This is all in the data.
Temperature is bounded by the Arctic Sea Ice Melting point.
When the Arctic is open the Snow Monster is turned on.
When the Arctic is closed the Snow Monster is turned off.
Umm
On reflection you have given a simple bathtub explanation of glacier growth – fair enough…if you not all the snow that fall one winter melts in the summer, then the glacier grows and if the reverse it shrinks. Which is OK for a first level explanation. You do not need to be an on-depth student of the Younger (or even Older) Dryas to work this out…you can do it in the bath as a gedankenexperiment.
But your discussion of snowfall amounts
‘I do know that it takes energy to move moisture from the ocean to the land, and the more energy there is the more that can be moved’
barely rises above the trite. And seems to contradict the hapless David Viner’s remarks. Because he argues that the warmer it gets, the less snow we will have. You argue the opposite.
And – leaving snow aside – we should see more rainfall worldwide, not less. Yet one of the predicted outcomes of global warming is supposed to be drought.
Hi mak,still don’t know if we are going to freeze or cook here.But we have to pay for the ETS scheme regardless.Wind farm here been put on hold.The one we have is losing money.We need more extreme weather to make the wind blow.It’s not happening.Oh,I see,global warming has stopped the wind blowing in NZ.Got it
GK: Kind of quiet out there, Dusty.
TR: Well, it gets quiet in Minnesota in January. People get thoughtful.
GK: Nobody moving out there. Makes me nervous something bad is just about to happen.
TR: That’s why you didn’t want to camp under a tree?
GK: That’s right. Cougars jump out of trees. Anvils fall out of trees.
TR: What anvils?
GK: That’s the problem. You don’t know until it’s too late.
TR: Never heard of an anvil falling out of a tree.
GK: You never heard of it because the people they fell on couldn’t pass on the word.
TR: What’s the anvil doing up in the tree?
GK: Somebody put it there because that’s the last place you’d look.
TR: You are crazy. You know that?
GK: Just telling you what I think.
TR: Loneliness has driven you over the brink into paranoia and insanity, pardner.
GK: Ha! I’m a cowboy. Loneliness is what I crave. Insanity is what we eat for breakfast. No, sir, solitude is a gift, Dusty. We are cowboys. Lonesome is part of the iconic nature of the calling.
The National Weather Service glossary defines heat wave. Oddly, they don’t define cold wave. Do they consider that term archaic and no longer necessary?
http://www.weather.gov/glossary/
Heat Wave
A period of abnormally and uncomfortably hot and unusually humid weather. Typically a heat wave lasts two or more days.
I don’t remember the public complaining about March being uncomfortably hot or unusually humid. Many seemed pleased with the weather in the mid-west. Why is it being called a heat wave? Did Humpty Dumpty provide the NWS definitions?
‘Globally, precipitation can be approximated by surface evaporation, since the variability of the atmospheric moisture storage is negligible. This is the case because the fluxes are an order of magnitude larger than the atmospheric storage (423 × 1012 m3 year−1 versus 13 × 1012 m3 according to Baumgartner andReichel (1975)), the latter being determined by temperature (Clausius–Clapeyron). Hence the residence time of evaporated water in the atmosphere is not more than a few days, before it condenses and falls back to Earth in the form of precipitation. Any change in the globally averaged surface evaporation therefore implies an equivalent change in precipitation, and thus in the intensity of the global hydrological cycle. The process of evaporation requires energy, which it obtains from the surface radiation balance (also known as surface net radiation), composed of the absorbed solar and net thermal radiative exchanges at the Earth’s surface. Globally averaged, this surface radiation balance is positive, since radiative absorption, scattering and emission in the climate system act to generate an energy surplus at the surface and an energy deficit in the atmosphere (Liepert 2010).
Evaporation, or more precisely its energy equivalent, the latent heat flux, is the main process that compensates for this imbalance between surface and atmosphere, since the latent heat dominates the convective energy flux over sensible heating. The radiative energy surplus at the surface is thus mainly consumed by evaporation and moist convection and subsequently released in the atmosphere through condensation. This implies that any alterations in the available radiative energy will induce changes in the water fluxes.’ Wild – The Earth radiation balance as driver of the global hydrological cycle
Living in North Queensland – I have extensive experience of snow and glaciers. I didn’t like either. Although I am going to New Zealand and Papua New Guinea in the next couple of months. Parts of New Zealand have permanent snow and seasonal snow of more than 3m. Papua New Guinea has the world’s only tropical glacier – http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22526716/ns/us_news-environment/t/new-guineas-melting-glaciers-draw-scientists/ – it just goes to show.
The Alley graph is most interesting – I’ve been thinking about it for years. Precipitation is all about energy as Wild explain – the paper is most interesting and intellectually accessible even for amateurs. But there are other factors involved in the runaway snow and ice feedback that plunges the world into glacials every 100,000 odd years. One of these factors possibly involves thermohaline circulation and the transport of heat into northern climes. It has in the past – http://www.reportingclimatescience.com/news-stories/article/proof-that-atlantic-ocean-conveyor-can-reverse-direction.html – but why?
The gulf steam far from slowing down in recent times seems to have got faster resulting in super hot temps in the ocean off the eastern coast of North America. – http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2012/anomnight.3.12.2012.gif – I have no doubt that we come up with a global warming post hoc rationalisation for a faster Gulf Stream if we try.
Brian H | April 2, 2012 at 3:31 pm | Reply punksta;
I’ve concluded that once you consider that a hot atom “bounces” photons from cooler atoms because of their lower frequency and energy level, you can get real stubborn like Myrrh and Dougie. Whether the phenomenon exists is perhaps not a settled question, but trying to justify it by appeal to the bulk-matter 2nd Law is of course inane. And tiresome. So M. is pretty much scroll-by, unfortunately; his opinions on some other matters (excluding the pooling of CO2 at the bottom of the atmosphere) are worth reading.
=====
The claim is used to brainwash the AGW meme of “backradiation” of heat from a colder atmosphere to a hotter Earth’s surface.
Damn well prove the law is broken on any level.
Simple rational thinking has that the reason heat always flows from hotter to colder is because it does so from the smallest level up – hence spontaneous in the 2nd Law. It takes work to change that.
The claim from the AGWSF (ScienceFiction) meme production department that heat flows from colder to hotter is not just not proven it is stupid logic, creating the perpetual motion of Spencer who has no way of stopping colder heating hotter, or the idiocy of those claiming there is a “net” of hotter to colder but unable to explain how. Unable to explain how because they have not only no evidence that their claimed colder to hotter exists, but they cannot explain it in real world physics at that level so are unable to come up with a method of stopping colder taking over and heating the hotter.
Do you understand how ridiculous this is? It is simply claimed without any logic, not in physics nor in joined up thinking.
“Whether the phenomenon exists is not a settled question” is irrelevant here. The claim is made that it exists and explains “backradiation” from the atmosphere. Effin prove it.
You can’t even provide any rational explanation of how it could be possible – that might well be fine with you lot, it isn’t with me. I don’t have to buy into such idiotic fisics, made up and then claimed real through repetition, repetition, repetition. It doesn’t make any difference how much you repeat the fictional fisics meme, it still doesn’t exist because it has never been seen to exist in any industry or in any science field.
it still doesn’t exist because it has never been seen to exist in any industry or in any science field
Have I made that clear? It’s a FICTION.
Just like “shortwave in longwave out” – excising the direct heat from the Sun, the invisible thermal infrared, and giving its properties to visible light and neighbours. FICTION. Shortwave isn’t capable of heating land and oceans. These are Light not Heat.
Just like your “empty space atmosphere” without sound because it’s full of hard dots of the imaginary ideal gas description without weight or volume or attraction bouncing off each other at great speeds unrestricted by gravity, because you have no gravity with your imaginary molecules without volume or weight or attraction! FICTION.
IN THE REAL world, gases are buoyant in air, heavier gases will separate out, like carbon dioxide pooling on the floor of a brewery..
Just like the fiction of taking out the Water Cycle to give the FICTION sleight of hand “33°C ‘greenhouse gas warming’ – the Earth would be around 67%deg;C without the main greenhouse gas cooling it 52°C down to 15°C, the water cycle.
Utter codswallop fictional fisics. All the basics have been tweaked to create it. Carbon dioxide defying gravity to stay up in the atmosphere for hundreds and thousands of years accumulating, makes sense when you realise the AGWSF comic cartoon world doesn’t have gravity! It doesn’t have gravity because its molecules aren’t real.
It doesn’t have a water cycle because its molecules aren’t real but the fictional ideal, so there’s no attraction between water vapour and carbon dioxide in your empty space ideal gas molecules bouncing off each other and the greenhouse container at huge speeds.. Even if you had a way for water vapour to rise in the empty space atmosphere it couldn’t form into clouds… All your clouds appear by magic, you have no real physics to explain how they come to be in your comic cartoon world.
FICTION is what it is. Your basic fisics has been created in someone’s mind. Very clever, could have been a fun fantasy children’s story through the looking glass with Alice, but impossible in the real world.
IMPOSSIBLE.
That’s why you all fail to come up with any explanations that make sense and are reduced to distracting, and strawmen and ad homs. Do yourselves a favour, see it for the fiction it is and move on.
Of course politics is involved, this stuff requires serious money, and there are a bunch of weather forecasting companies out there whose interests do not coincide with NCEP improving. If the NCEP forecast is hugely great, they have nothing to sell.
‘This paper gives an update on the observed decadal variability of the earth radiation budget (ERB) using the latest altitude-corrected Earth Radiation Budget Experiment (ERBE)/Earth Radiation Budget Satellite (ERBS) Nonscanner Wide Field of View (WFOV) instrument Edition3 dataset. The effects of the altitude correction are to modify the original reported decadal changes in tropical mean (20°N to 20°S) longwave (LW), shortwave (SW), and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s from 3.1, -2.4, and -0.7 to 1.6, -3.0, and 1.4 W m^2, respectively. In addition, a small SW instrument drift over the 15-yr period was discovered during the validation of the WFOV Edition3 dataset. A correction was developed and applied to the Edition3 dataset at the data user level to produce the WFOV Edition3_Rev1 dataset. With this finalcorrection, the ERBS Nonscanner-observed decadal changes in tropical mean LW, SW, and net radiation between the 1980s and the 1990s now stand at 0.7, -2.1, and 1.4 W m^2, respectively, which are similar to the observed decadal changes in the High-Resolution Infrared Radiometer Sounder (HIRS) Pathfinder OLR and the International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) version FD record but disagree with the Advanced Very High Resolution Radiometer (AVHRR) Pathfinder ERB record. Furthermore, the observed interannual variability of near-global ERBS WFOV Edition3_Rev1 net radiation is found to be remarkably consistent with the latest ocean heat storage record for the overlapping time period of 1993 to 1999. Both datasets show variations of roughly 1.5Wm^2 in planetary net heat balance during the 1990s.’ Depends on what you consider evidence – very few deny the radiative physics entirely just that there is a lot more happening.
Bart and R Gates, pay these knotheads no nevermind. They couldn’t possibly know what we know about snow and its cataclysmic implications. Little do these clowns realize, that like many native peoples, we climate seers use several different terms for the substance they call “snow”:
calefactory crystals
harbingers of heat
tribunals of torridity
fatal flakes and
white sparkly death
David Wojick | April 3, 2012 at 1:56 pm |
“Inactivist scientists who think they should have some sort of special authority in the democratic political process” are any better?
No offense, Dr Wojick. Could you remind us again of your special role in the democratic political process?
Can’t believe I am arguing with a couple of civils about the fundamentals of statistical physics. Spare me please ….
Have you walked into a cage full of tigers?
Unlike your magical tiger-repellant rock, each passing year brings ever more opportunities for some kind of refutation of the AGW hypothesis. But cherry-picking data, pictures of submarines surfacing in the Arctic, and all the rest of it doesn’t quite cut it.
As long as all the evidence points to the Earth’s energy system accumuating energy, steadily and continually over at least the past 40 years, and probably longer the AGW hypothesis remains quite intact.
About all that is left is to find another reason (i.e. a forcing or some combination thereof) that would mimic greenhouse gas accumulation in terms of climate fingerprint.
Eli,
The track record of government forecasting is rather poor. The tornados hitting Dallas were not at all predicted until the preceding hour or so.
So we have the party of government workers and governemnt unions demanding ever more money to do at best a mediocre job pretending that Republicans are out to hurt the American people.
And it is painfully clear to anyone paying attention that yet another marginal cost of the AGW obsession is the quality of actual meteorological work.
Steven Mosher | April 3, 2012 at 2:04 pm |
By my admittedly scant reading, scientists’ will to enter politics is dwarfed by politicians’ will to enter science.
Scientists beg to be kept out of wars, and/or uproot their families and/or disrupt their research and/or their lives, perhaps flee their countries, and they sometimes are followed after and on all sides where they take refuge they are sometimes dragged into conflicts by adopted governments and armies, politicians and philosophers, activists and prelates.
Da Vinci, Gallileo, Newton, Darwin, Einstein.. and if it weren’t in some degree true of them, then not a few simply made it up like John Nash.
The relationship inherited by seekers of knowledge to seekers of power isn’t escaped, as much as most scientists sincerely and earnestly testify they wish it could be.
So where scientists obtain knowledge of the sort that presages harm, I’m not especially going to get it into my head they’re doing something wrong to enter that arena willingly, the one that interested parties have dragged unwilling scientists into throughout history.
Indeed, I find the suggestion of wrongdoing naive, unscholarly, and perverse.
It seems the Rabett has lost his wits.
Please define “accumulate more energy”.
TIA,
