Another amazingly snowy winter for the U.S.

By: Dr. Jeff Masters , 3:18 PM GMT on February 11, 2011

Share this Blog
6
+

As northeast Oklahoma and northwest Arkansas dig out from the two feet of snow dumped this winter's latest epic snowstorm, it's time to summarize how remarkable the snows of the past two winters have been. So far this winter, the Northeast U.S. has seen three Category 3 (major) or higher snow storms on the Northeast Snowfall Impact (NESIS) scale. This scale, which rates Northeast snowstorms by the area affected by the snowstorm, the amount of snow, and the number of people living in the path of the storm, runs from Category 1 (Notable) to Category 5 (Crippling.) This puts the winter of 2010 - 2011 in a tie for first place with the winters of 2009 - 2010 and 1960 - 1961 for most major Northeast snowstorms. All three of these winters had an extreme configuration of surface pressures over the Arctic and North Atlantic referred to as a negative North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) and Arctic Oscillation (AO). In this situation, the band of winds that circles the North Pole weakens, allowing cold air to spill southwards into the mid-latitudes.

In the past twelve months, we've had six major Category 3 or stronger storms on the NESIS scale, by far the most major snowstorms in a 12-month period in the historical record. Going back to 1956, only one 12-month period had as many as four major snowstorms--during 1960 - 1961. New York City has seen three of its top-ten snowstorms and the two snowiest months in its 142-year history during the past 12 months--February 2010 (36.9") and January 2011 (36.0"). Philadelphia has seen four of its top-ten snowstorm in history the past two winters. The Midwest has not been left out of the action this year, either--the Groundhog's Day blizzard nailed Chicago with its 3rd biggest snowstorm on record. According to the National Climatic Data Center, December 2010 saw the 7th greatest U.S. snow extent for the month in the 45-year record, and January 2011 the 5th most. December 2009 had the greatest snow extent for the month in the 45-year record, January 2010 the 6th most, and February 2010 the 3rd most. Clearly, the snows of the past two winters in the U.S. have been truly extraordinary.


Figure 1. The six major Category 3 Northeast snowstorms of the past twelve months. Image credit: National Climatic Data Center.

A cold January in the U.S.
January 2011 was the coldest January in the contiguous U.S. since 1994, according to the National Climatic Data Center, and ranked as the 37th coldest January in the 117-year record. Despite the heavy snows in the Northeast U.S., January was the 9th driest January since 1895. This was largely due to the fact that the Desert Southwest was very dry, with New Mexico recording its driest January, and Arizona and Nevada their second driest.

A cold and record snowy winter (yet again!) in the U.S. does not prove or disprove the existence of climate change or global warming, as we must instead focus on global temperatures averaged over decades. Globally, January 2011 was the 11th warmest since 1880, but tied for the second coolest January of the past decade, according to NASA. NOAA has not yet released their stats for January. The cool-down in global temperatures since November 2010, which was the warmest November in the historical record, is largely due to the temporary cooling effect of the strong La Niña event occurring in the Eastern Pacific. This event has cooled a large portion of the surface waters in the Pacific, leading to a cooler global temperature.

Some posts of interest I've done on snow and climate change over the past year:

Hot Arctic-Cold Continents Pattern is back (December 2010)
The future of intense winter storms (March 2010)
Heavy snowfall in a warming world (February 2010)

Have a great weekend, everyone, and enjoy the coming warm-up, those of you in the eastern 2/3 of the country!

Jeff Masters

Snow and icicle sun (emilinetdd)
Snow and icicle sun
Cardinal City (dypepper)
Another exciting day for me, shooting the Cardinals in the Snow!
Cardinal City

Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 500 - 450

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Def my fav Einstein pic..
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
Quoting Patrap:
Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !


Taken perhaps during the 30's Pasadena earthquake event?

(The Einstein, Feynman, and Smalley humor)
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting EnergyMoron:


It is too late for me to do the calculations. I have done them several times.

About 45 percent of the CO2 generated by we humans has ended up in the atmosphere by material balance.

My qualifications with CO2 include being among the first to inject CO2 to get oil out of the ground (now working on sequestration...)

I will post the calculations tomorrow for those who are interested.


More or less correct. We've added a lot of CO2, but fortunately for us up to this point the natural sinks have absorbed about half of it.

Unfortunately those sinks are either beginning to saturate or are being systematically destroyed (see deforestation). Less CO2 will be absorbed and more of it will stay in the atmosphere.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting weatherboy1992:
RecordSeason made a big mathematical boo-boo. An increase from 380 ppm (it is already in excess of 390 ppm but I'll let that go) is not 0.52%. It is 0.052%. People have emitted about twice the amount of carbon dioxide that has accumulated in the atmosphere. The rest has accumulated in the oceans.

That error makes his conclusions totally wrong.


I agree with the conclusion of your analysis... the number "about twice" is similar to my 45 percent... close enough for engineering work as we say.

Now, what is interesting is that about half of the CO2 emitted from fossil fuels has been absorbed by the earth.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:


...Veeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee !
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
489:

Since I am a scientist I live and die by measurements. One of my favorite bible passages is "you have arranged all things by weight, measure and number".

Measurement 1

It was 50 F in the attic at 1500 on 2/8/2011. I was measuring stuff with the AC guy. AC and heat... AC had a bad capacitor. Heat.... was shocked that I was actually generating 60,000 BTU in my hot water based system. Return air to exit air 67F to 100F... mind you no loss of water since no furnace! I do have the reciept.

This was the first HVAC inspection of my own system redesign (beating solar hot water by a factor of 2!)

Measurement 2:

Okay, external temperature from nearest Wunderground station

KTXBELLA2

15:07 55.0 °F

At 1330 it was 50.7 F... attic not gaining heat that fast. Attic cooler than ambient in this case (rare for Houston).

Measurement 3:

Now, for the microinverter


2/8/2011 15:00 2 22 70 37


22... 72 F. Solar panels are much hotter.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Complete Update





Member Since: October 1, 2007 Posts: 81 Comments: 26493
Quoting RecordSeason:
484:

Ya might want to get those thermometers checked. I can link you to video, which I already linked once today, which clearly shows panels are far, far above "ambient" temperature. Unless your roof was solid black to begin with, there's no way putting panels "cooled" your house directly.


Did you read?

"I went to measure my attic."

There is sufficient space between the panels and my roof so that free convection can carry away the heat.

Free convection...

I am very aware of temperature effects on the panels themselves... almost had a record generation day today!

Bird, Stewart, Lightfoot.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RecordSeason:


Because you don't get it.

There is no way humans have raised CO2 by even the alleged 80ppm, because we simply haven't burned that much hydro-carbons in our history of existence.

It would take 179.5 years at PRESENT consumption levels to make an 80ppm increase in CO2...

Consumption levels from 50, 100, 150, etc, years in the past have been insignficant compared to consumption levels of the past 30 years or so.

In 1900, humans used 0.6 terawatts, and in 1970 humans used 6 terawatts.

But for humans to have made an 80ppm difference since the industrial revolution, we would have needed to be using PRESENT consumption levels for the entire time...ok, ~180 years of it anyway.

The reality is that in the past 180 years, humans averaged LESS than 1 terawatt, while in order for HUMANITY to be responsible for 80ppm, we would have needed to average 16 terawatts the entire time.

If you don't like my math, re-do it yourself. Here are some relevant links:

wikipedia.org/wiki/Kardashev_scale

wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth

wikipedia.org/wiki/Coal#Coal_as_fuel

You can also google stuff if you want a second source...I just used these articles because they are convenient and in an easy to read format.


You're missing my point. My point is even if we reach a realistic, 500 ppm in 100 years, we will run into serious problems.

So by trying to prove 900ppm wrong, you are wasting your time.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting RecordSeason:
460:

Gasoline produces about 121megajoules per gallon. Coal is a bit more complicated.

We can get our world energy usage numbers from various sources which use somewhat conflicting methods of calculation, but several articles that are public knowledge put the number near 16 terawatts for 2010.

Coal and natural gas fired power plants are roughly the same efficiency as solar steam powered plants.

My earlier statement was in regards to the waste heat released by photovoltaic cells, and also the temperature of an automobile.

You can calculate this yourself by taking the rough approximate area of an automobile, who's man-made exterior surfaces will be around 130 to 140 degrees. The interior, depending on season, will be an average of around 140 to 150, but can vary from about 100f in winter to as much as 170f in the summer. These are all forms of "useless" trapped heat that has to do with unintentional albedo changes, or unintentional greenhouse effects that don't even have anything to do with pollution. A car would experience these problems regardless of what fuel it uses.

Now if you take the volume of air in the interior of your car, and calculate the amount of radiation it takes to bring it up to isothermal equilibrium in it's highly insulated state, at oh, 150f, you'll find that the car is trapping much radiation that normally would be reflected back into space had it hit most "natural" surfaces(such as a tree trunk or a patch of grass). This heat only escapes through any air holes or flaws in the ventilation system, or through some form of conduction or convection.

By the time you take the entire surface area of the car, including the hood, trunk, fenders, roof, and the super-heated air contained in the interior plus inside the trunk, all of this heat (in excess of the ambient air temperature in a natural environment) is heat which would normally have reflected or otherwise radiated back into space from a natural surface.

You can calculate the specfic heat of air, and of the other materials involved, and you'll find it greatly exceeds the amount of chemical energy in the ~3 gallons gasoline the average american uses in a day. Just the area of the windows alone is more than one gallon of gasoline worth of energy per day...just sitting there, whether or not you even use it...


Look you told me earlier today on the blog that Solar produces more heat than fossil fuels do.

You still haven't shown that.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
The republicans have a solution to our poor economy.

They proposes dismantling the EPA and restrictions on large corporations as far as carbon dioxide and nature is concerned.

and as long as they are at it, they should get rid of all the bad press thats coming from PBS, it's starting to tarnish their image.

If all us poor people and the bleeding hearts would just stop picking on the rich and powerful for once, they be more than willing to be generous and understanding.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JohnTucker:
yea atmo thats why i included a paper from 2010.
? You did? Where?

Oh, switching handles.

Why, btw ? I assume there is a reason...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
Quoting RecordSeason:


Because you don't get it.

There is no way humans have raised CO2 by even the alleged 80ppm, because we simply haven't burned that much hydro-carbons in our history of existence.


It is too late for me to do the calculations. I have done them several times.

About 45 percent of the CO2 generated by we humans has ended up in the atmosphere by material balance.

My qualifications with CO2 include being among the first to inject CO2 to get oil out of the ground (now working on sequestration...)

I will post the calculations tomorrow for those who are interested.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
475:

By direct measurement my solar panels are cooling my house.

They might be warming the entire system... I don't know... but they are cooling my house.

Prompted by a discussion with an old-time Mercedes biodiesel user (they just don't make em like the used to!) I went to measure my attic. It was at ambient after install. Mind you nearly the entire SE and SW sides of the house are covered with panels.

Before, even with the "cool" roof, I was at 10 degrees over ambient.

There were only a few days in October where I could make measurements so I do not know the impact on the AC usage during the summer.

On the other hand, what energy was the "cool" roof reflecting back out to space? Technical answer is simply a lookup....

Solar reflectivity 37.88 percent (very high emissivity value though so black body okay). Okay.

Most of the sunlight where the panels were was heating my house. The 62.12 percent that is.

That has been eliminated (once again, amazingly enough, measurements were ambiant in a southern US attic!).

I don't know how that 37.88 percent figures in (we morons have our limitations) but methinks the panels are cooling.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting JFLORIDA:
I dont think warming has eased, not in any way shape or form:
A lot has happened since 2006, though you can the beginnings of it there...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
Quoting Patrap:
We use 20,000,000 bbls of Oil a day in the USA

Quiz Bowl 2011 Wu style

How much is imported daily?


Okay, 13 million barrels net. We actually export 1 million barrels, primarily Alaska crude and... biodiesel.

Of course biodiesel which is sent abroad to Europe (or used to be... the bottom fell out of the market with the recession and something worse) was...

federally subsidized at a buck a gallon

Federal Subsidies for Biodiesel

Love biodiesel but there was no reason for the subsidy... back with 2008 prices it could do on its own....

But then the US government further intervened with new clean air diesel standards... of course B100 biodiesel met these like a champ BUT...

Car manufacturers decided to take a short cut that makes B100 not useable any more

Fuel injection stupidity by car makers kills B100 biodiesel

So, bottom line... they used to steal the used grease I would stick out. Now I cannot get rid of it.

The bottom has fallen out of the biodiesel market.

Here is the fact sheet for the product

Biodiesel fact sheet

But killed by the car makers like government motors
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Antarctic lake drilling.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5558
Quoting atmoaggie:
And did a fine job of it.

How's school, Levi?
Levi is probably my favorite contributor here besides the Doc himself. I have learned a ton of stuff I never new before from his posts, I have the term "SOI Burst" stuck in my brain from his videos! :-)
Member Since: August 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 324
Quoting Levi32:


I never claimed to have discovered something that has escaped leading scientists. I made an effort to objectively describe the temperature trend of the last decade using the best methods in my power and knowledge to use.

No, no, no. Document it and submit it. Great way to learn. Go for it!
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5558
Quoting Levi32:


I never claimed to have discovered something that has escaped leading scientists. I made an effort to objectively describe the temperature trend of the last decade using the best methods in my power and knowledge to use.

I understand that. But in using the same data available to everyone else yet arriving at a conclusion different from most everyone else, you may be on to something. As such, a well-written, well-placed, well-received paper may be just the thing to start changing the opinions of all those scientists convinced that warming is indeed happening. I've often said that I'd rather AGW not be happening, and I'm always on the lookout for legitimately peer-reviewed science that would contradict the main tenets of AGWT.

Anyway, just a suggestion.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13260

Network News

Guns, death and noise
Sand, oil and blood
Frontiers drawn on paper
No consideration made for
The poor creature who is living
By the grace of God just giving
He's live on network news
Live on network news

Flags, princes, kings
Patriotic tools
As freedom lies in twisted heaps
Whose final breath his soul to keep
Whose greatest foe, the endless sleep
Whose dying wish to reach next week
A bloody star on the network news
A bloody star on the network news

Tanks, boats and planes
Fire, pain and lies
Environmental terrorists
Tease propaganda's paper fist
Whose trade is all the truth that fits
Who often lies but never sits
But on the fence it's the network news
Yes, on the fence it's network news

The lion and the serpent parade out in the sun
All order, flex and gesture
All hail - the techno infidel has come
With satellite bravado and infra-red texture

Beyond these days in time to come
Whose fate is it to measure
Upon these sands such damage done
To spoil God's finest treasure

Beyond these days

Guns, death and noise
Sand, oil and blood
Guns, death and noise
Sand, oil and blood
Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
Quoting Levi32:


I never claimed to have discovered something that has escaped leading scientists. I made an effort to objectively describe the temperature trend of the last decade using the best methods in my power and knowledge to use.
And did a fine job of it.

How's school, Levi?
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12461
Quoting cat5hurricane:

Good evening.

Was the handle, TaylorSwift, already used up?

I'm sorry.
No, that's my name, and I'm a guy.
Member Since: August 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 324
I'm off to a weekend dinner. Later all.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 628 Comments: 26455
Quoting RecordSeason:
Let's try a more precise estimate:

Wikipedia mass of earth atmosphere:

5E18kg.

to go from 380ppm to 900ppm is 520ppm:

or 0.52% of 5E18kg.

So target mass is:

5E18kg * 0.0052 = 2.6E16 kg (CO2).

So to get to 900ppm, we'd need to produce 2.6E16kg CO2 in excess of what the carbon cycle can absorb.

Wikipedia annual coal usage (rounded and converted):

6,077,000,000,000 kg = 6.077E12 kg

It said short tons, not metric.

CO2 = 44 moleculare mass.

Carbon = 12 atomic mass

Carbon = 27.27% of CO2 mass.

Coal mass = 27.27% CO2 mass produced*

* not really, because coal isn't 100% carbon, but I'm giving you benefit of the doubt with a worst case scenario.

6,077,000,000,000 kg coal = 27.27% annual CO2 mass.

22,284,600,000,000 kg CO2 per year.

2.6 E 16 kg/ 22.2846E12 = 1166.7 years.

Which, since before I converted short tons as if it was metric because I was just using round numbers and not paying close enough attention, that also biased the numbers in favor of the AGW-ites. Since it was short tons, not metric, it favors my position even more.

We then find, once again, that it should take over 1100 years to raise CO2 to 900ppm...assuming there is that much hydrocarbons available...which there isn't.



So again, we can safely call BS FAKE FRAUDULENT CLAIM LIAR to the 900ppm projection.

You can quit quoting it now guys. They are blatantly falsifying the numbers of both the fraction of the historical rise which can be attributed to humans and the projected future rises in CO2.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFZrzg62Zj0

Why are you wasting your time with this?

So 900ppm is a ridiculous estimate, WHO CARES?!!?

I'm sure even if it rose to just 600, we would have a huge problem on our hands.

500 ppm even.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Levi32:
For those who appreciate an objective look at the current trends, here is a glance at what's going on right now.

Instead of struggling with the differences between the major temperature data sets, a good estimate of the recent global temperature is probably to simply combine the five major data sets together (GISS, HadCRUT3, NOAA, RSS MSU, and UAH MSU). I will call this the Composite Temperature Record.

The next step is determining a recent trend, something shorter than the century time scale that can reflect what's going on with the climate in recent years. A good time scale to use is decadal, meaning periods of 10 years. The problem with these is that the largest short-term modulator of global temperature, ENSO, has a strong effect in this range. Picking a start point at the bottom of a La Nina or the top of an El Nino can severely skew the recent trend.

Therefore, I made an attempt to create an "ENSO-neutral" roughly decadal period to analyze recent temperature trends. To do this I used Nino 3.4 SST data from ReynoldsV2 and found a time period close to 10 years, ending at January, 2011, with an average Nino index as close to zero as possible. The nino values also have to be lagged by 2 months in order to account for most of the lag effect that ENSO has on global temperature. After doing this, the period I selected for this month is January, 2001 to January, 2011, with an average Nino 3.4 anomaly of -0.00021C.

The linear trend for this period is 0.0038C per year. For comparison, the 100-year trend is currently 0.0070C. Thus, the recent decadal trend has come down to almost half of what the centennial trend is, reflecting the leveling off that occurred last decade. However, taking out ENSO biases, the trend is not completely flat yet, and will depend on how temperatures evolve this decade.



Larger size if wanted


There seems to be some natural cycles that have been countering the anthrogenic warming trend. I was expecting this about 6 years ago after I read somewhere, probably in The Coevolution of Climate and Life, a classic climatology tome from the 80s, about an 80-year long warming-cooling cycle, and we are entering a cooling phase, which is why the temp chart has gone flat since the 1998 peak, the cycle is now going against the anthropogenic warming.

It seems like my prediction has come to pass, right down to the denialists using the flattening of the warming trend to spout nonsense.
Member Since: August 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 324
Quoting hcubed:


So, natural CO2 provided 300ppm, and we've provided 85ppm. More warming from the 300, or the 85?

And, again, if that prediction of 900ppm comes true by 2100, I'll apologize to everyone. Even though I'll be about 148 years old.

The world is not linear. I think of it as adding to a savings account. Simplistic to be sure. We were at an approximate equilibrium at around 280 ppm (pre-industrial revolution levels of CO2). Actually, the world had been cooling gradually, but for the sake of example, call it equilibrium.

If I "spend" as much heat as I "save" at 280 ppm then my bank balance stays constant. If the CO2 concentration increases, then I start to accumulate heat. As years go by, heat continues to accumulate at some rate until reaching a new equilibrium. If CO2 concentrations continue to increase, the eventual equilibrium level also increases.

If sea ice melts that previously reflected sun light, then that's like compound interest on the "savings". If increased evaporation from warmer oceans puts more water vapor--more potent than CO2--in the air (it also rains/snows out though and forms reflective clouds, but clouds also absorb infrared--complicated--also have to consider increases of water vapor in the stratosphere), then ... If permafrost thaws releasing methane--again a more potent greenhouse gas than CO2--then it is like compound interest again.

The record from ice cores reveals that temperature and CO2 concentrations are well correlated. The physical mechanism that makes CO2 absorb infrared is well understood. The amount of CO2 in the atmosphere is easily measured and the amount of heat it absorbs can be calculated.

For what it is worth, I also doubt we will ever reach the 900 ppm level, but that's just because I'm a pessimist. Then again there always is the possibility of nuclear war.
Member Since: May 18, 2006 Posts: 10 Comments: 5558
Quoting Neapolitan:

So when do you plan to submit your work for peer-review? You claim to have discovered a temperature trend that has somehow escaped the majority of climatologists and weather statisticians; if you have indeed done that, you should have no trouble finding willing sponsors.


I never claimed to have discovered something that has escaped leading scientists. I made an effort to objectively describe the temperature trend of the last decade using the best methods in my power and knowledge to use.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 628 Comments: 26455
Hey Record Season, did you miss my response to your novel?



Quoting TomTaylor:


Quoting RecordSeason:
Now for some further examinations of how even solar power will produce some "global warming", if we really want to get technical and examine everything, let us examine what the world's current energy needs are. Which is to say 16 terawatts.

About 5% of human energy useage comes from hydro, and honestly there isn't a lot of room available for increasing this without blocking up rivers that are currently used for cheap means of transport. This would be bad as it would increase energy costs of transporting goods around.

So if the other 95% needs to come from wind and solar, then we need 15.2 terawatts of electricity from wind and solar just to meet current world demand for energy, neglecting the fact that hopefully 3rd world countries might one day reach at least a half decent level of technology to feed and clothe themselves without handouts from the U.S. and Europe...

So we need 15.2 terrawatts of electricity from wind and/or solar.

Well, it's difficult to "prove" but I have shown in the past that wind is practically worthless compared to solar, in terms of both energy per unit area and energy per unit cost.

Since even the most efficient combinations of carnot cycles are no more than 66% efficient, then the 66% is equal to our energy needs. Then we need to produce power plants to absorb enough energy in the form of steam to match 66% of electricity, plus the 34% of "waste heat" to be realistic.

If a 40mw plant does 9000 gallons per minute at 723f, then to make 15.2 terawatts at the same efficiency requires 3.42 billion gallons per minute at 723f.

This is equivalent of the world converting about 0.3% of the volume of the Gulf of Mexico to 723f steam each year.

These systems are already within a few percent of the theoretical limits of efficiency for heat engines.

Obviously, if the third world countries ever catch up in energy use to have a half decent level of technology, then the world's energy use will be several times higher than what it is now, perhaps 50 terawatts per year or more.

We can see that in order to produce this power through solar, which is much cheaper and more efficient than wind, we would need to vaporize an amount of water equivalent to about 1% of the Gulf of Mexico every year to 723f steam.

We cannot possibly do much more in hydro-electric for the reasons specified.

Biofuels are largely a joke, because they compete with farm land for food resources,a nd they consume valuable phosphorous which is needed for those food crops.

This leaves wind, solar, and geothermal.


Allegedly, there are large reserves of geothermal energy under the U.S., but I doubt it's as much as has been alleged. "Old Faithful" only erupts once per hour, after all, and it's certainly nothing like a megawatt class power plant.

As for proving wind is more expensive per watt than solar, it isn't impossible to prove.

Solar steam plant > photovoltaics > Wind

To get that much energy from wind turbines, you'd need several ten-millions (something like 50 million) of turbines world wide experiencing non-stop tropical storm force winds.

Where in this post did you show solar energy creates more warming than fossil fuels?

You still haven't proven that.

And where did you calculate how much heat fossil fuels are trapping. You still don't know that, so you can't say which is better if you don't know how good/bad one or the other is. Additionally you completely left out nuclear. And you assumed every solar plant operates under the same conditions. And you assumed solar energy won't become more efficient. And you assumed that heated steam couldn't be reused for heating ti reduce energy demands.

The list goes on and on. The fact is, you don't know that solar would create more warming than fossil fuels.


And if you are in fact correct, why does any of this matter? Fossil fuels WILL run out.




Sorry I had to quote it, but I didn't want you to miss the part where I showed your predictions are totally false.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting bappit:
"Composite Temperature Record"

Does that stand for cherry-picked temperature record? Okay, that was mean, but what the heck is the source of that? You created something, I think. Really not clear from your post. What is wrong with the data you are ignoring? Why lag temperatures when we want to know what the temperature actually is? How do we know that trends in Nino are not effects in the climate change repertory?



"Composite Temperature Record"

Does that stand for cherry-picked temperature record? Okay, that was mean, but what the heck is the source of that?
"

I gave the five data sets I used to create the composite: GISS, HadCRUT3, NOAA, RSS MSU, and UAH MSU.

I took the average of the monthly values from these data sets, after calibrating UAH and RSS anomalies to the 1880-2010 mean of GISS, HadCRUT3, and NOAA.

"What is wrong with the data you are ignoring?"

No data was excluded or ignored.

In selecting a ~decadal time period with "neutral" ENSO, meaning an average value near zero, it was prudent to consider the current month as feeling the effects of the ENSO 2 months before, which is the standard lag period between ENSO and its effect on global temperature. For example, the global temperature spike in 1998 occurred 2 months after the peak of that El Nino. This lag period is not perfect, but is much better than assuming that the full effects of the ENSO value in one month are felt in the same month.

"Why lag temperatures when we want to know what the temperature actually is?"

I did not lag the temperatures. I lagged the Nino 3.4 data.

"How do we know that trends in Nino are not effects in the climate change repertory? "

ENSO is a well-known and documented oscillation that modulates short-term climate. The oceanic/atmospheric processes which cause this oscillation are not yet fully understood, and it is certainly possible that the behavior of ENSO has changed over the course of Earth's climate history and will change again in the future, but there is no way to know for sure at this time. However, for our purposes on such a short time-scale, ENSO is what it is, and making sure that we pick a time period that isn't severely affected by this oscillation helps reduce potential bias in the short-term temperature trend. This allows for a more objective analysis without cherry-picking the initial and final points for the data set.
Member Since: November 24, 2005 Posts: 628 Comments: 26455
Quoting RecordSeason:


I doubt there are enough hydrocarbons on earth to push it to 900ppm even if we tried. That's like 30.48 quadrillion kilograms of CO2.

the world uses around 6.7 trillion kilograms of coal each year. WE know oil is supposed to run out soon. So presumably most of this 900ppm must be coming from Coal.

Now the atomic mass of CO2 is 44, and of this 12 is from carbon while 32 is from the two oxygen atoms, so 27.27% of the CO2 mass comes from the mass of the coal. So using round numbers we'll just assume coal produces 4 times as much mass in CO2 as the mass of the coal itself.

this gives 26.8 trillion kilogram CO2 per year.

30.48 quadrillion/26.8 trillion = 1137.3 years

30.48 quadrillion kg = 0.9% (900ppm) atm mass.

26.8 trillion kg = mass CO2 from coal per year


This was based on my estimate of the mass by using surface pressure as a "weight" and multiplying by surface area. Which I find is apparently a slight over-estimate of the official atmospheric mass given in an encyclopedia, even though that shouldn't be physcially possible, since the weight of the atmsphere should be proportionate to mass...

So anyway, even if I'm wrong and we use the encyclopedia's number for the mass of the earth, then that only affects my calculation by about 50%, which means it would STILL take 550 years at present consumption to raise levels to 900ppm.

Unfortunately for the fakes who did those calculations, there isn't that much hydrocarbons on earth.

Try again fakes...

Yeah...I call bs....

Using their own numbers plus common knowledge of atmospheric pressure, you can calculate the mass of the atmosphere, OR just use the encyclopedia, and then using public knowledge of energy consumption you can calculate how much CO2 we produce, and it's nowhere near enough to even explain the existing rises in levels.

It would take 1137 years (~550 years if wikipedia's mass is correct) at present levels of Coal usage to raise the levels to 900ppm CO2...


so my initial "guesstimate", upon reviewing public knowledge, is correct, because there actually aren't enough hydrocarbons on earth to raise the atmosphere to those levels, and regardless of who's atmospheric mass number is correct...

I also fudged the numbers in favor of the CO2 accumulation, because carbon is 27.27%, not 25% of CO2 mass, which using 25% slightly inflated the numbers, which decreased the amount of years which would be required by a few percent.



Once again, I call bs, and using their own data...I don't know, becaue maybe I can add, and actually bother to plug in the values...unlike the mindless masses who eat this stuff up...

It appears as though you're unaware that CO2 comes from sources other than the burning of fossil fuels. Just as a for instance, there are close to a trillion tons of CO2 stored in Arctic permafrost, permafrost which releases that COs as it thaws--as is happening right now. Just that CO2 alone is enough to raise the number by close to 100 ppm.

You can start there, if you wish, and let intellectual curiosity and honesty take you down the path toward scientific truth and elightenment.

(After you grasp that concept, we'll discuss methane, a GhG far more powerful than CO2, and one which will be freed at an increasing rate as the planet warms--just another of the many fun feedback effects that illustrate how earnest yet naive and simplistic calculations like those above don't come close to illustrating the whole picture.)
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13260
433. Fluid



classic.wunderground.com


Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
Save for Dr. Masters,MichaelSTL brings the data in a concise easy to digest manner with supporting links and dated,peer reviewed latest Info,with Graphical Imagery even a laymen can follow.

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
Quoting Skyepony:
Solar can be less than $1 a watt now. Ever watched solar companys on the market? Always being sued by an oil company. Installers have their own woes, the industry estimates that the permit dance adds an average of $2,500 in costs to each installation.


Skye:

If you really want to help solar lobby for net metering... there are folks here in Texas who the federally mandated and stimulus funded smart meter has made there solar worthless to the point where the best thing for them to do is to get the cheapest electricity and give their excess back to the grid (I have run the numbers).

I actually have these things and the permitting cost was no where near 2,500 dollars. I did have a problem on the permits in that they had never seen them installed on a split seam roof and the city didn't understand how I didn't have to bolt things into the roof. Sigh. So perhaps it did cost that much in the end.

I ended up paying 5.70 a watt installed (which is DIRT CHEAP by historical standards)... the majority of the cost is the install.

My big bad oil company was once the world's largest solar cell provider and has a thin film CIGS2 startup in Japan.

NET METERING... IF WE CANNOT SELL THE POWER BACK TO THE GRID PANELS ARE WORTHLESS... THIS IS THE BIGGEST BLOCKER IN MANY STATES INCLUDING TEXAS AND TENNESSEE... TN HAS THE WORST NET METER LAWS IN THE COUNTRY

Of course if you use 197,000 kWH/Y and generate about 7,000 kWH/Y selling back into the grid isn't an issue, even in TN.

The other discussion on solar thermal is a good one... costs are 2/3 that of solar PV. What I like about solar PV for the masses is that

1) It helps folks be owners, and have the headaches and responsibilities of ownership of energy sources (does this make them evil then I ask rhetorically?)
2) Come on the power company needs to make a return on its investment and localhome solar PV is going to be cheaper than the solar thermal.

Remember... net metering. We used to have meters that ran backwards (didn't impact me since I knew what was coming and dodged the bullet; but less energy savy folks got the shaft from the federally mandated and stimulus funded smart meter which doesn't do anything for me!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
wunderground.com WOT Reputation score

Weather Underground provides weather information for worldwide locations, including current conditions, hourly forecasts, radar and satellite maps. Specialized weather products include severe weather alerts, hurricane tracking, ski and sports weather, marine and aviation weather and user-contributed photographs.

Congratulations on your site's reputation

Member Since: July 3, 2005 Posts: 414 Comments: 125530
Quoting cat5hurricane:

LOL.

Yet another page from the Marxist playbook as this example so finely, beautifully illustrates that.

Pat on the back for you as well. I knew you could do it.

Was wondering if McKnightley & MrPrefect are jealous?
Where in God's Green Earth did this "Marxist Playbook" meme come from? Does the Right still see Commie Boogymen everywhere? LOL!!!
Member Since: August 29, 2008 Posts: 0 Comments: 324

Viewing: 500 - 450

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 | 30 | 31 | 32Blog Index

Top of Page

About JeffMasters

Jeff co-founded the Weather Underground in 1995 while working on his Ph.D. He flew with the NOAA Hurricane Hunters from 1986-1990.

Local Weather

Overcast
48 °F
Overcast