Open thread Jan. 28, 2014
We had about 33 inches of snow with the blizzard Juno. Luckily it was a light and fluffy snow, so there was little damage for electric lines and such. (The storm was a reminder to check ocean temperatures and effects on weather.)
Dan, I’m not sure what you meant by: ” (The storm was a reminder to check ocean temperatures and effects on weather.)
Just read the ratio yesterday, somewhere, (maybe even here?) for every degree F of rise in ocean temp, the atmospheric moisture content rises, I think, 4%? Global warming deniers snarkily point to increased snows as ‘proof’ there is no global warming. This is the science that shows they don’t know what they’re talking about, but it sounds good to their friends.
I’m wondering if there have been any studies on comparing the (by our standards) high taxes in the OECD countries vs. the US, and what Americans pay out of pocket for those things that are paid for overseas by the higher taxes.
My first instinct is to think that, if we took a family of four, for instance, making between $50-60k a year, and compared what the cost of child care, health care, college, transportation costs, or whatever else fits in this mix, and compared their out-of-pocket costs to a similar family in, say, Denmark or France, how would that look?
If you know of any such studies, and can point me to them,
So on the temperature snow thing, I am not a warming denier. I also think that it makes sense if we take a bunch of sequestered carbon–fossil fuels–and release the carbon into the atmosphere in the form of carbon dioxide, that we could be the major contributor to warming. And I am generally in favor of burning less fossil fuels even if it does not contribute to warming just because they are not renewable and they pollute the air I and every other oxygen based organism breathes. But I also think there is a lot of human hubris involved in thinking we are going to do much about it and one of the theories for why ice ages start involves the falling of snow which in turn causes the sun’s heat to be reflected back into space. Would it not be a real kick in the head if the global warming causes more snow to fall which reflects more sunlight which causes the earth to cool to the point where we have another ice age? Just saying. I am sure the models consider this reflected energy just like they predicted that NYC would bear the brunt of the storm.
Anyway, because this is an open thread, I was wondering about the effect that the measles outbreak has on the GOP’s insistence that well to do people not pay for less well to do people’s health insurance. I know that the reason there is an outbreak is not that kids are not vaccinated because of the cost, but rather their whacko parents, but isn’t the effect the same. My adult children who have had the vaccine–I had the real thing-are at some slight risk because there are a lot of children who have not been vaccinated. I am sure there are other examples–probably STDs are the ones that should get the male GOP Congress Critters attention–that while we live in a society everyone’s health matters to your health.
Sandi, why the snark? ” Global warming deniers snarkily point to increased snows as ‘proof’ there is no global warming. This is the science that shows they don’t know what they’re talking about, but it sounds good to their friends.”
It takes near 100% relative humidity for most precipitation to even start reaching ground level. Moisture for these major storms come from the oceans and not from the atmosphere. Please look at how N’Easters are formed, and what influences them before making foolish statements.
Hint: the warm ocean influence is the Gulf Stream. How do you plan on changing that? The other major influence is cold air currents from the north. How does climate change effect that? These storms are often catalyzed by a smaller storm. We had a clipper system from the Midwest occur first. All these are NORMAL weather events which have occurred for millennia.
This storm was not especially larger than normal nor more intense it just was slowed by normal air steering currents to dump more snow than usual where it lingered.
Where’s the climate change linkage? H9ow does that 4% absolute atmospheric water vapor even effect it?
” At present sea surface temperatures are more the 2F above normal over huge expanses (1000 miles) off the east coast and water vapor in the atmosphere is about 10% higher as a result. About half of this can be attributed to climate change.”
All these are NORMAL weather events which have occurred for millennia.
Well no, but if it makes you feel better you can continue to repeat it. Ocean warming impacts the Gulf Stream leading to larger amounts of precipitation. There seems to be a connection between warming and changes in the polar jet stream http://climatestate.com/2014/01/05/polar-vortex-jet-stream-and-climate-change/
The changes are real and the consensus is overwhelmingly on the side of them being anthropomorphic. It’s not hubris to think that we could change our consumption patterns to mitigate our impact. It may be overly optimistic.
Marko, this is what I said: ” the warm ocean influence is the Gulf Stream. … The other major influence is cold air currents from the north. … These storms are often catalyzed by a smaller storm. We had a clipper system from the Midwest occur first. All these are NORMAL weather events which have occurred for millennia.”
and this is what Trenberth said: “The number 1 cause of this is that it is winter. In winter it is cold over the continent. But it is warm over the oceans and the contrast between the cold continent and the warm Gulf Stream and surrounding waters is increasing…”
Trenberth then went on to make the statement unrelated to his first which you quoted above. He also said the warm SSTs were ~1,000 miles from the East Coast. The Gulf Stream is well inside that area and warmer than the area he called warm. But, his most important statement was this: “About half of this can be attributed to climate change.” That means that the other 1/2 is from natural causes, IF HE IS USING THE NORMAL EUPHEMISM THAT CLIMATE CHANGE = ANTHROPOGENIC. If he does not mean that then more questioning is necessary.
Mark, the Polar vortex is not new. Yours and Marko’s references are just propaganda sites.
For anyone reading this, here is a thought problem. What is the MAJOR cause for warming the oceans?
“He also said the warm SSTs were ~1,000 miles from the East Coast. The Gulf Stream is well inside that area and warmer than the area he called warm. ”
Look at the map he provides of the SST anomalies. The warm areas EXTEND to 1000 miles. The most extreme anomalies (4-6 degrees C ) are in fact right in line with the Gulf Stream , contributing to what the “normal” warming would be.
At least get your analysis of my propaganda site correct before bashing it.
Marko, you are absolutely correct. I misread/misunderstood his comment. This is the NOAA graphic for SSTs: http://www.ospo.noaa.gov/data/sst/anomaly/2015/anomw.1.26.2015.gif
Trenberth makes it clear that it is the gross differences on temperature that matter. I’m still not sure of how the temperature scale of fractional degrees difference of SSTs versus the multiples of 10 degree differences in air currents makes a difference to intensifying storms. What is clear is that the steering currents matter greatly.
As to Climate Progress being a propaganda site, I use a measure of how contrary discussion points are treated. Climate Progress has a long history of deleting, modifying, banning the commenter and or just not showing many of them.
I’ll wait for your answer to my little physics quiz.
Climate terrorism has given my bad back a new life. About 3 years ago we obtained a snowblower, and I gave up shoveling out to the wood pile and cleaning the huge clutter at the end of the drive way by shovel.
Still tough on the back when the snow is 10 inches above the top of the 21″ augur.
What is different this week? The storm was a puny little bugger over Cleveland, decided to run out to sea over Charleston instead of Norfolk, and the temperature diffs were pretty huge. It was 12 hiours late to forecast as well
I think this one is #5 on top list for Beantown.
So blizzard means no global warming, I just ate breakfast so no world hunger either.
As you can delete sites who delete crazies you could have stopped at the top.
ILSM, did you even read what i said? You obviously did not Grok it.
I’ll wait for your answer to my little physics quiz
I have a BS and did 4 semesters of Physic.
Your quiz: Before physics decide if the “system” you model remains the system you have.
The solution is not physics it is statistics. Too many “tail” events. The system changed, the source of changed system is climate terrorists.
Nothing quite like a climate denier giving physics tests, though the Patriots giving sportsmanship tests would be close.
ILSM, how does statistics answer the question?
Karnot cycle explains a lot in thermodynamics.
As I observed and also paid a lot of tuition (for the 60’s); physics’ “laws” are observations of a “system or systems”. If the system changes you need new laws or at the least retest your “laws”.
The tests to prove physics’ laws are based on design of experiments, (some really primitive in the Newton and Koepler times) which is statistics.
Playing the Patriots is like playing the Seahawks at home where their 12th player attempts to drown out the siignals. Not saying you are not accurate on observing the Pats’ methods to get an edge.
I was in Va when they ran a snow plow on the home field to make it possible for Viniteri to kick the winning field goal in a play off game in 02(?)
ILSM, since this simple question is too difficult, I will give yo a hint. The answer is a 3 letter word starting with S (a vowel other than a, e, I, o) and ending with n.
Re: snow effect on albedo. Here where I know live near Buffalo, NY, there is mostly snow cover on the ground from December through February. Once it is there it doesn’t make much difference to the albedo how deep it is. However, in the last few years, we get some big snow storms, but then most of it melts away before the next storm. A week or so ago I could see the grass again but it is snowing now.
Re: sun. Heat from the sun reaches us mostly in short wavelengths, then is radiated back into space in longer wavelengths. C02 passes the short wavelengths but absorbs some of the longer wavelengths. This is known as the “greenhouse” effect.
JimV, CO2 is only one of the GHGs. H2O is the major player making up ~95% of the total. Even though CO2 is sold as the boogy man, it actually intercepts less IR than H2O.
The latest science is finally recognizing the importance of oceans in actual long term storage of heat compared to atmospheric GHGs. The current pause has been a beneficial effect to the science, by expanding the focus.
Its not that man does not have an effect on climate, we do. But the effects of nature seem to augment and/or overwhelm our effects. How much is man’s effort and how much natural has always been the core argument.
“The latest science is finally recognizing the importance of oceans in actual long term storage of heat compared to atmospheric GHGs ”
That’s a lie.
Unless of course you think 1990 was “finally”.
Of course it goes farther back than that. But you know that. Just like you know all of your straw men are pure bs, promulgated by fossil fuel lackeys and idiots.
EM, I am forever amazed at your anger and inability to read. My comment was: “The latest science is finally recognizing the importance of oceans in actual long term storage of heat compared to atmospheric GHGs ” Go to your own reference and find the date published. Describe to us how that report can be referencing the NEW SCIENCE.
Worse read the sections on natural influences and see how much is spent on ocean influences.
Well, yes, climate terrorism is a SIN.
It is not “new science”.
Simply because the ability to measure the impact of the oceans has increased(largely due to the recommendations in the first IPCC report) does not mean it is new.
To suggest climate scientists “ignored the oceans until they needed them”(as you have done many times) is worthy of scorn. And accounts for my anger at people like you. Actually, everyone with an IQ in double digits should hate people like you.
EM, I see you chose t5o not read the section of your own reference I recommended. That section is representative of what I said. It is overwhelmingly focused on the GHE and the GHGs. It has a passing reference to the oceans.
As I said, the newer climate science recognizes the oceans’ importance in causing the pause. If the overwhelm the underlying GHE heating when they enter their cooling oscillation phases, then they MUST ALSO enhance it when they are in their warming oscillation phases.
Your own reference shows how: “…climate scientists “ignored the oceans until they needed them…” to explain the pause. Moreover it is an explanation of why the climate models over estimate the importance of the GHGs and the GHE, giving too little credit to natural causes over the man-made atmospheric gases.
Your anger is because you can not accept the science, and are locked into the concept prevalent in the science of 1990s. Nature has changed that science.
The idea that oceans are one sink for global warming is not new. What is new is recent science, published last year, containing new measurements showing that the so-called “pause” could be explained by increased ocean temperature. Since oceans, like land and air, are all part of the globe, global warming didn’t “pause,” it just changed its distribution. That’s the thing about energy (which is what we mean by “warming”), it can move. Eventually, surface warming rates will increase.
” Every year, roughly half of the heat-trapping gas remains in the air, building up over the decades and centuries. But why should adding such small amounts of an invisible, nontoxic gas be a cause of concern? The total amounts are miniscule, but their consequences are significant. Even relatively small amounts of the gas can warm the Earth by the greenhouse effect, perhaps affecting the climate.
Roger Revelle (1909-1991) and Hans E. Suess (1909-1993) realized the threat decades ago. They argued that the oceans might not readily absorb all of the carbon diode being released into the air, and that the amount of atmospheric CO2 would steadily increase as the fuel and power requirements of our worldwide civilization continued to rise. With prophetic insight, they wrote in 1957 that:
“Human beings are now carrying out a large-scale geophysical experiment of a kind that could not have happened in the past nor be reproduced in the future. Within only a few centuries we are returning to the atmosphere and oceans the concentrated organic carbon stored in sedimentary rocks over hundreds of millions of years. This experiment, if adequately documented, may yield a far-reaching insight into the processes determining weather and climate.” ”
As you can see, the contribution of oceans to global temperatures and temperature flux was well-appreciated in 1957. The threat of human generated CO was presciently anticipated in 1957. Climate modeling since then has buttressed this prediction with experimental evidence and provided more detailed and precise mechanisms, as well as introducing additional forcing mechanisms such as the release of methane from melting permafrost and underwater methane clathrates.
Joel, your earlier comment was on track with the heat xfer concept. This latest falls back to the pre-pause thinking where its all about CO2. The pause shows that the emphasis on CO2 was too large. Even your quote relates oceans to the storage of CO2 and not heat.
“The pause shows that the emphasis on CO2 was too large. Even your quote relates oceans to the storage of CO2 and not heat.”
No, CoRev. You do not understand the science.
You say that CO doesn’t matter, then you say that the ability of the oceans to store CO and not heat is the story. Sorry, these are not mutually exclusive. The oceans absorb CO, yes, but as they warm, their ability to absorb CO shrinks. And oceans also absorb heat, which is why they warm. So both happen, and their concurrence is mutually reinforcing.
Go read the 2014 Science paper I cited to you last year. If you understand that, you will agree with me. If you don’t read and understand the science, don’t waste my time here–you are an unserious dilettante.
Joel, this strawman won’t fly: “You say that CO doesn’t matter…” when you quoted what I actually said: ““The pause shows that the emphasis on CO2 was too large. Even your quote relates oceans to the storage of CO2 and not heat.”.
You then double down with even more straw:
“No, CoRev. You do not understand the science.
You say that CO doesn’t matter, then you say that the ability of the oceans to store CO and not heat is the story.”
I’m not going to discuss that strawman, but will discuss the changing view point of how the oceans effect temperature. In the last decade NOAA said things like this:
“• Heat absorbed by the ocean raises ocean temperatures, in particular SSTs.
• The ocean is by far the Earth’s greatest reservoir for heat that accumulates as a result of the planetary energy imbalance caused by greenhouse warming. The large thermal inertia of the ocean delays the impacts of greenhouse warming, which, on the one hand presents society with an opportunity to mitigate climate change, and on the other hand commits the Earth to ongoing warming for decades to come….
• The ocean ABSORBS AND STORES HEAT AT THE SURFACE and releases it to the atmosphere in remote locations, thereby contributing substantially to climate variability…. ”
As shown by EM, and your reference, the early science (?over?) emphasized the importance of GHGs, especially CO2. Then after recognition of the pause we had the above NOAA interpretation of how important were the oceans in “…contributing substantially to climate variability…. ”
Now, with broader acceptance of the pause by traditional climatologists, we find the science is concentrating how the deep oceans store heat and xfers it deeper where the sensible heat is/can not be meeasured.
What I said was that the newer4 science has shifted emphasis from the importance of CO2 (ACO2) to ADDED ocean impacts. ts not they ignored oceanic influences but emphasized them in conjunction of the
Here’s what you posted:
“CO2 is only one of the GHGs. H2O is the major player making up ~95% of the total. Even though CO2 is sold as the boogy man, it actually intercepts less IR than H2O.”
So you did treat CO2 like it doesn’t matter (“boogy man”).
“Now, with broader acceptance of the pause by traditional climatologists, we find the science is concentrating how the deep oceans store heat and xfers it deeper where the sensible heat is/can not be meeasured. ”
Uh, no. There is not a “broader acceptance of the pause.” There is a broader awareness of how heat moves around the planet over time, and a broader awareness that the so-called “pause” is merely an artifact of how global temperatures are measured. And, no, interest in deep oceans wasn’t driven by a “broader acceptance of the pause.” As I demonstrated above, there has been an interest in oceans, deep and shallow, for 60 years or more. What has driven the latest science in the deep ocean as a capacitor for global heat is better tools and new data.
The idea that oceans contribute to climate variability is only new to you, CoRev. To climate science, what is actually new is new data supporting and extending existing models of the role of oceans.
It is likely already too late to repent.
Oh, the pause……..
Joel, please desist in the strawman argumentation. “The idea that oceans contribute to climate variability is only new to you, CoRev. To climate science, what is actually new is new data supporting and extending existing models of the role of oceans.” What I said was the newer science raised EMPHASIS on the role of the oceans in climate variability. Even my NOAA reference made that point.
The only argument you seem to have is by ?deliberately? misreading and misinterpreting my comments. Yours’ and EM’s references actually reinforced what I said about the CO2 emphasis in the older science even when citing the oceans.
We have digressed to discussing semantics versus any understanding of the science. Their are multiple interpretations of the existing science.You seem to insist only one exists.
Semantics is the basis of climate denialist thought. Course, when all of the science is firmly against your thoughts, semantics is the only alternative.
What you need is the liberal application of prozac or a baseball bat. Or maybe both.
EM, who or what is a climate denialist? That comment in relationship to your ?semantics? comment? As always you fail the basic logic test. Thyen you top it with an ad hominem.
You are a climate denialist.
You are trying to say I do not believe that there is a CLIMATE? Bwa ha ha, you can’t even phrase that insult reasonably.
Look old man, just because you cannot seem to keep up with the modern meanings of words does not mean I cannot phrase an insult correctly.
If I called you a climate skeptic you might understand the term. But you are beyond skeptic, and do not deserve to be called such.
I guess the next step would be climate asshole. You’re already there of course, but I’m just trying to be nice.
EM, spare me you attempts at being nice. 😉
“We have digressed to discussing semantics versus any understanding of the science. Their are multiple interpretations of the existing science.You seem to insist only one exists.”
You have digressed to projecting.
“You are trying to say I do not believe that there is a CLIMATE? ”
This comment is juvenile. You are a deeply unserious person, CoRev, who substitutes silly word games and obtuse interpretations of half-understood science for serious discourse. In short, you are a silly old troll. I’ve tried to engage you on the topic, using your own words and rebutting them with science. You reply with disingenuous denial and misdirection. I don’t really care what you believe about the climate data, since you so obviously don’t understand it. I’m a bit surprised you continue to embarrass yourself in front of all the smart folks who read this blog, but that’s your petard you’re hoist by.
Joel, yup! You just described my cross to bear, the smart folks that are one Google search deep in knowledge, and because of it believe they understand the science.
“the smart folks that are one Google search deep in knowledge, and because of it believe they understand the science.”
Ah, CoRev. Still projecting, I see.