WunderBlog Archive » Category 6™

Category 6 has moved! See the latest from Dr. Jeff Masters and Bob Henson here.

As Earth Warms Up, The Sun Is Remarkably Quiet

By: Bob Henson 8:09 PM GMT on January 11, 2017

If you’re looking toward the sun to help explain this decade’s record global heat on Earth, look again. Solar activity has been below average for more than a decade, and the pattern appears set to continue, according to several top solar researchers. Solar Cycle 24, the one that will wrap up in the late 2010s, was the least active in more than a century. We now have outlooks for Cycle 25, the one that will prevail during the 2020s, and they’re calling for a cycle only about as strong as--and perhaps even less active than--Cycle 24.

Weak solar cycles tend to produce fewer solar storms, those dramatic bursts of magnetized material from the sun that generate spectacular auroral displays and play havoc with satellite-based systems and power grids on Earth. However, solar storms that do emerge during weak cycles can be among the most potent, notes Scott McIntosh (National Center for Atmospheric Research). Just as a catastrophic hurricane can occur in an otherwise quiet season, a quiet solar cycle can still cause devastating space weather, McIntosh told me. “If you look at the record of extreme events from the sun, they most often occur in weak cycles, and they almost always occur in the deep, descending part of the cycle,” he said.

When scientists like McIntosh fret about the potential consequences of a solar storm, they often point to the Big One: the outburst from September 1-2, 1859, that’s been dubbed the Carrington Event. Occurring near the peak of a fairly quiet cycle, the Carrington Event was an extremely intense solar flare aimed directly at Earth. It produced stunning auroral displays around the globe, even in Cuba and Hawaii. The barrage of magnetized particles also knocked out telegraph communications across Europe and North America. A 2013 study from Lloyds of London (see PDF) found that a similar event today could cause up to $2.6 trillion in damage, with up to 40 million Americans losing power for anywhere from two weeks to two years. “While the probability of an extreme storm occurring is relatively low at any given time, it is almost inevitable that one will occur eventually,” noted the report. In fact, we dodged a major solar bullet in July 2012, when a flare roughly as strong as the one in 1859 happened to point away from Earth instead of toward it. See this 2009 post by Jeff Masters for more on how a solar storm can disable electric grids.



Figure 1. Solar material bursts from the sun in this close-up from a video captured on July 9-10, 2016, by NASA’s Solar Dynamics Observatory, or SDO. The sun is composed of plasma, a gas in which the negative electrons move freely around the positive ions, forming a powerful mix of charged particles. SDO captured this image in wavelengths of extreme ultraviolet light, which are typically invisible to our eyes. The imagery is colorized here in red for easy viewing. Image credit: NASA/SDO/GSFC/Joy Ng.


Climate and the solar cycle
The solar cycle, which is about 11.5 years long on average (it varies from 9 to 14 years), can be measured in various sophisticated ways. It’s also trackable simply by counting sunspots, an activity that dates back to the 1600s. The weakest cycles on record occurred during the so-called Maunder Minimum, from about 1645 to 1715. This happens to coincide with the peak of the Little Ice Age, which brought long stretches of conditions far colder than today’s climate to parts of North America and Europe. We can’t pin the Little Ice Age entirely on the Maunder Minimum, though, since volcanic eruptions appear to have kicked things off centuries earlier. It’s now believed that the Maunder Minimum played a minor role at best in sustaining the chill, though it does appear that weak solar periods can lead to colder winters in Europe, based on centuries of data from central England.


Figure 2. International Sunspot Numbers (one of two leading measures of sunspot activity) show the dip in sunspots during the Maunder Minimum as well as the ups and downs of each solar cycle through the mid-2010s. The current solar cycle (Cycle 24, only partially depicted here) reached dual peaks in 2011 and 2014, with a top ISN just over 100. This was the lowest top ISN for a solar cycle since Cycle 14, which peaked in 1906. Image credit: David Hathaway, NASA.


Newly precise measurements confirm that the total solar energy reaching Earth actually doesn’t change all that much from cycle to cycle. As a single cycle ramps up from minimum to maximum, the sun spits out as much as 10 times more energy in extreme ultraviolet wavelengths. However, the sun’s total energy output (irradiance) goes up by a mere 0.1% during a solar cycle, and this boosts global surface temperature by no more than 0.1°C per cycle, according to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.


Figure 3. Global temperature change (thin light red line), as reported by NASA/GISS, together with the annual total solar irradiance, or TSI (thin light blue). The dark red and dark blue lines show the 11-year moving averages. Data sources: Temperature from NASA GISS, and TSI from 1880 to 1978 from Krivova et al 2007 (data). TSI from 1979 to 2015 from PMOD (see the PMOD index page for data updates). Image credit: Courtesy skepticalscience.com.

What makes a solar cycle?
As with many solar cycles, Cycle 24 had a double peak, in 2011 and 2014, and it’s still on its downward swing, as evident in the Solar Cycle Progression graphics at the website of NOAA's Space Weather Prediction Center. Cycle 24 isn't expected to end until around 2020. (Each cycle is defined as starting when the previous one bottoms out). New approaches to prediction are lending more confidence in scientists’ ability to predict how the upcoming minimum and the following maximum--which should arrive in the mid-2020s--will unfold.

The prevailing notion among solar experts is that plasma flows through the sun in two giant loops that cause the solar cycles to wax and wane. As it flows equatorward, the plasma carries magnetic fields with it, generating sunspots and other features at the surface. Magnetic fields that rise to the surface of the poles during solar minimum are believed to serve as the raw material for the subsequent cycle’s strength. As these magnetic fields drift toward the solar equator, they get stretched and distorted, which helps to trigger sunspots as well as outbursts of charged plasma that can hurtle toward Earth and cause solar storms. The distortion occurs because the gaseous solar sphere actually moves with a faster rotation rate as you go toward its equator, like a sphere made of taffy that’s mounted on a spindle and spun along its midsection. (This NASA animation shows the process in three dimensions, including a rendition of the poorly understood flow beneath the solar surface.)

Unfortunately, the sun’s magnetic fields are very hard to observe, especially near the poles, which complicates the task of predicting the next solar cycle. However, some phenomena related to the polar fields are easier to measure, such as a minimum in geomagnetic activity (the flow of energy reaching Earth via the solar wind). Over the last several cycles, such indices have been extremely well correlated with the strength of the following cycle peak, with correlations as high as 0.99.

Outlook for the 2020s: Another modest cycle
The community of solar researchers has only recently come into consensus on the “polar predictor” method of using polar magnetic fields as the best predictor of solar cycles. A decade ago, various methods produced conflicting results on how strong Cycle 24 would end up. Forecasts based on polar fields at solar minimum did remarkably well; others had more trouble in capturing the cycle’s length and strength. “One of the things we learned is that the difference between the hemispheres is critical,” said McIntosh. The north half of the sun ran about two years ahead of the south during Cycle 24, and that overlap led to the double-peaked maximum (2011 and 2014) while lessening the cycle’s overall peak strength.

Researchers are now trying to push the limits of prediction further. They’re using statistical and dynamical models, plus some data-based intuition, to predict several years in advance how the subsurface magnetic fields will look when they emerge near the poles around 2020, and what, in turn, those fields may tell us about Cycle 25.

• David Hathaway (recently retired from NASA) and Lisa Upton (NCAR and Space Systems Research Corporation) expect a Cycle 25 about as strong as Cycle 24, or perhaps slightly weaker. They published their outlook in November in the Journal of Geophysical Research. Hathaway and Upton used an ensemble model to project the polar fields from now to the end of 2019, with the ensemble showing an uncertainty by that point of about 15%. Natural solar variations in the early 2020s could add to the uncertainty, they note.

• Leif Svalgaard (Stanford University) pioneered the idea of using solar polar fields as prediction tools with colleagues in the 1970s, and he successfully pegged the eventual weakness of Cycle 24 back in 2005. Svalgaard is calling for a weak Cycle 25, but perhaps just a bit stronger than Cycle 24, based on precursors that appear slightly more active this time around.

• NCAR’s McIntosh believes Cycle 25 could extend the recent string of progressively weaker cycles. “We anticipate that the growing degree of overlap between cycles means that Cycle 25 will be weaker than Cycle 24,” he told me.

• Also at NCAR, Mausumi Dikpati will release her outlook for Cycle 25 in a paper to be published later this year. Dikpati and colleagues predicted a stronger-than-average Cycle 24 (as did Hathaway and others). This didn’t materialize, but Dikpati did correctly forecast that Cycle 24 would begin later than usual. Dikpati is now doing a post-mortem on her Cycle 24 forecast, which was based on a pioneering model of the solar dynamo (the flow of plasma that produces magnetism within the sun). As with weather models, she expects that improved data assimilation--bringing the latest observations into the solar dynamo model--will help boost its accuracy.


Figure 4. A composite of 25 separate images from NASA's SDO, spanning one year from April 2012 to April 2013. The image reveals the migration tracks of active regions towards the equator during that period. Image credit: NASA/SDO/Goddard.

Tweaking the time frame of solar forecasts
Even if we have several more decades of a quiet sun ahead of us--a “grand minimum,” which is quite plausible according to recent work published by McIntosh and others--we know that quiet cycles can produce dangerous solar storms, so there’s plenty of motivation to push ahead with solar forecasting. This includes predicting variations that last only a few months to a year or two. Dikpati is leading a team with participants from NCAR, NOAA, Stanford, and the University of Colorado Boulder in order to help advance this type of prediction. Their goal is to use data-infused models to predict solar activity and the likelihood of solar storms a few months in advance. “A seven-day lead-time forecast of weather on Earth covers a period of seven Earth rotations,” Dikpati said in an email. “Similarly, forecasting bursts of solar activity up to seven solar rotations ahead would mean about six months of lead time, since one solar rotation takes about 27 days.”

Every bit of advance notice on the likelihood of dangerous solar storms could be invaluable in a world ever more dependent on reliable power and communications. The potential benefits of cycle forecasts include making satellite projects less risky and more efficient. That’s because the solar cycle can cause air density at low-earth-orbit heights to vary tenfold, vastly altering the atmospheric drag on satellites. Even the most ambitious plans for outer space have a stake in better solar outlooks, according to Svalgaard, who cites this quote from colleague Dean Pesnell (NASA): “A society that travels to other planets needs forecasts of the solar activity visible from any point in the solar system several years in advance.”

We’ll be back with a new post on Friday, including a look at a major late-week/weekend storm that’s still on track to coat large parts of the central U.S. with dangerous freezing rain.

Bob Henson

Space Weather Climate Change

The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Reader Comments

And the Sun is finally shining here in Costa Rica after three days of rain totaling almost 15 inches.
Really interesting!
The patterning in that last image reminds me of the ITCZ. It also appears there might be the equivalent of magneto-plasma MJO.

Superficial similarities though. Plasma dynamics are just a bit different the tropical meteorology. :)

Thanks Mr. Henson real interesting stuff; in term of solar cycles, and climate related issues, the current issue for the Earth is not the Sun itself, but how the atmosphere, under the Sun, is trapping and retaining heat from greenhouse gases as our Sun is a relatively new star.

However, in the rest of the cosmos, we might be seeing two stars (suns) collide in the night sky in the relatively near future:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/colliding- stars-will-light-night-sky-2022


A team of astronomers is making a bold prediction: In 2022, give or take a year, a pair of stars will merge and explode, becoming one of the brightest objects in the sky for a short period.

Climate change is quite normal in history. For example, not many people know that approximately 560 million years ago, there was an event known as snowball earth. Everything, was frozen, save for a small band of water near the equator. Well, if this climate change was really a scam by the Chinese, why are we not under miles of ice? In order to get rid of this ice, the low global temperatures need to drastically rise. Thats climate change. Without, our ancestors would not have participated in the Cambrian explosion 500 million years ago. In the last 500 million years, our world has experienced 4 great ice ages. Lets say that climate change was a scam, then how would you explain this? How would you explain how we got from there to here? Let us not forget the Cretaceous Thermal Maximum, in which the temperature was much higher than it is now. I suppose those dinosaurs had massive factories pumping co2 into the air, right? WRONG. This, compared to our present day climate change happened on a large time scale, approximately a few million years. We are pumping co2 into the air at a much higher rate in a shorter amount of time. At the time, the ssts in the equatorial Atlantic average 29 degrees Celsius. During the thermal maximum, they were much higher, at around 33 degrees Celsius.
Quoting wikipedia, " It was the most extreme disruption of the carbon cycle recorded in the past 100 million years."
My point is, climate change is something that happens regularly, however us human are speeding it up, thus having dire consequences around the globe.

Thanks for the updates, Mr. Henson...
Climate change, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, asteroids, Trump, pollution, war, solar storms, floods, sharknados, .......
Quoting 5. Xyrus2000:

The patterning in that last image reminds me of the ITCZ. It also appears there might be the equivalent of magneto-plasma MJO.

Superficial similarities though. Plasma dynamics are just a bit different the tropical meteorology. :)




great observation! while the systems themselves are different obviously, the pattern recognition that exists within nature is the closest thing i've ever come to as 'intelligent design'
Thanks for the post, Mr. Henson! I've been thinking of the following possibility. During the timespan from Medieval Warm Period to peak of Little Ice Age, agriculture advanced much to the north in places like Scandinavia. And a snow-covered field has a much higher albedo than a snow-covered forest. Perhaps it played a part, alongside with a natural tendency towards the initiation of a new ice age (later blocked by increased CO2) ?

And to daddyjames, from last post:

Yes, I know, the reporting is accurate about the controversy. But why is the scientific community is such a situation, that even plans to have new studies about certain subject causes controversy? Wouldn't it be more fitting for the community to let the studies to happen, and dispute the results afterwards, if they can?

The geoengineering comments I make lack attribution to published studies, in most cases, for one reason: most of those ideas are completely mine. In some cases I find afterwards, that someone else has studied such ideas. One study I've kept in mind is Hope et al. 2004. The rainfall response to permanent inland water in Australia. Especially the paragraph spanning pp. 258-259. And even that study has it's problems to be applied to my idea, since it omits the lake as a heat reservoir. For most of my ideas, I have not found studies. Not that I've made any rigorous searches either, lol. I simply make my own rudimentary models, capable of giving some insight, but with huge errors due to their simplicity. For iron fertilization, I've not bookmarked any studies. I've gained insight fragment after fragment. Indeed, the eventual sedimentation rate is very poor, perhaps 5 - 10 %. But it seems, that 50% of so of the carbon remains in the ocean for hundreds or thousands of years, until it resurfaces after completing an ocean circulation cycle. I made a response to you and others about this a few months ago, with numerous sources, but now it's difficult to find the old comment... Among those sources, in one it was estimated, that iron fertilization could sequester one sixth of current CO2 emissions. So indeed, only a partial solution.

And the energy to compress the air in my power plant idea. For a kilogram of air to be compressed, some 20 kJ of work has to be done. When the air expands, it creates some 30 kJ of work. As the expansion is isothermal, the same amount of heat has to be brought in. As such, the efficiency is 1/3. Carnot cycle efficiency would be approximately 1/10... but sincerely, I don't know, where I got the idea, that efficiency would rise to 0.95, lol.

Quoting 6. weathermanwannabe:

Thanks Mr. Henson real interesting stuff; in term of solar cycles, and climate related issues, the current issue for the Earth is not the Sun itself, but how the atmosphere, under the Sun, is trapping and retaining heat from greenhouse gases as our Sun is a relatively new star.

However, in the rest of the cosmos, we might be seeing two stars (suns) collide in the night sky in the relatively near future:

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/01/colliding- stars-will-light-night-sky-2022


A team of astronomers is making a bold prediction: In 2022, give or take a year, a pair of stars will merge and explode, becoming one of the brightest objects in the sky for a short period.




They say "The brightest objects in the sky"... I assume they mean in the night sky, but I imagine they would be visible in the day sky too.
Caught up at work for minute, so a little break back in. As expected in last blog, we blew right by 58 forecast and are sitting at 62 now in S C IL, press has dropped to 29.65", avg currently still around 12mph but gust now 29. (4:30 update - 64, 29.64", & gust now 35 - have a good one, out.)

Really intrigued by article BB posted last evening about heat storage mechanism, combined with geothermal for cooling efficiently this could really help. Had also caught an article yesterday that at Argonne NRL, I believe, they were working with an ab(d?)sorbent material for remediation. Had left some of it in open air, and noticed some crystalline in it. Put under spectrometer of some sort and determined it had captured CO2 from atmosphere. Can be released at much lower temp than other similar capture techniques, much more to be done, but feel has some promise. Anyway, my science for day. On sun, looking forward to eclipse as will be about 100 mi N of best spot, no need to travel. Am going to start looking seriously at panels this year as costs getting there and loss of big oak tree that shaded late morning sun from S facing roof.
Beautiful January day here in NW FL.. upper 60's clear and a slight breeze....
Quoting 12. ChillinInTheKeys:



They say "The brightest objects in the sky"... I assume they mean in the night sky, but I imagine they would be visible in the day sky too.


They failed to mention the most important part in this short article anyway; that upcoming event we are going to see around 2022 actually probably happened several hundred thousand years ago already but it is just now that the "light" from this event is reaching the Earth................Why this stuff is so fascinating....... :)
PROBABILISTIC HEAVY SNOW AND ICING DISCUSSION
NWS WEATHER PREDICTION CENTER COLLEGE PARK MD
402 PM EST WED JAN 11 2017


Excerpt:

WHAT IS PARTICULARLY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS EVENT IS THAT IT APPEARS THAT CONDITIONS MAY CONTINUE TO DETERIORATE AFTER THE 3 DAY FORECAST PERIOD...POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN A VERY IMPACTFUL AND LONG LASTING ICING EVENT.
So glad to see this. Now for the "counter intuitive" "things are backwards" - "Twilight zone" moment

Yes, as solar cycles decline, earth temps can rise. Why? Momentum. Post summer solstice temps continue to rise in the northern hemisphere, drop in the southern hemisphere till the autumnal equinox when they switch.

There can also be large mass ejections due to "holes" in the suns surface. These are *not* sun spots but areas of ejection. Sun spots raise earth temprature while a sun that is completely blazing with no dark spots does not heat Earth up as much. (queue "Twilight zone music")

Yes Cycle 25 looks to be the same or weaker than the last cycle.

"Without electricity for two years" - sigh yes. Solar flares can burn out transmission line transformers. These things are not "stock" items but made "as needed" and delivered months later *if* all the tests and cets go well. Sometimes they do not. Ocassionally the test failures make *really great* fire ball videos!

Remember this scale - cut off the internet and its 1972. Cut off the electricity and its 1872.
The worst part is sewage.
From last blog:
Quoting 227. Xandra:
So in the end, geoengineering is a lose-lose scenario. It’s a scientific pipe dream. We will not be able to “science” our way out of a climate collapse.

What I see in this discussion is two different ways of thinking - engineer versus scientist.
Engineers are generally trained optimists, with a tendency to construct and build up, that's their job.
Scientists are observers, applying different angles of approach to an issue and thus considering much more elements of influence.
Engineers will look for visible results, whereas scientists will look for answers, helpful or not.
So there is no way that both will agree on a thing like geo-engineering.

Quoting 326. elioe:
In environmentalism, natural state has a great (edit)intrinsic value. For general public to "buy" the action favored by environmentalists, disruptions to "natural state" like geoengineering have to be portrayed in a manner, which gets the public to think, that such schemes have mainly negative consequences for humans. So, if a study was to show, that a certain geoengineering scheme would have primarily positive consequences, it wouldn't fit the environmentalist way of communication.


"Mainly" and "primarily" is good enough for engineers, but not for nature - the consequences of side effects are possibly too heavy. Engineering can't provide for those little wing-clapping butterflies that may or may not cause a lot of trouble. Engineering doesn't take the complexity of natural systems into account.
Quoting 18. TechnoCaveman:

... The worst part is sewage.

Sewage? I didn't think of sewage, oh crap!
Quoting 2. Patrap:

Atmospheric CO2

December 2016

404.48 ppm


December 2015: 401.85 ppm




From Tamino's latest blog:

Certainly we haven’t really made any progress toward reducing our greenhouse-gas levels. But even more troubling is that fact that we haven’t even made progress toward slowing the growth of atmospheric CO2. The year 2016 brought a new record high amount of increase in CO2:



More ...
Lol.I could never sit paranoid all day in the corner over things that are out of my control.Join a social group like a book or science club or a fitness group.I'm not as stressed out as I use to be and am way more calmer and it feels as though a weight has been lifted off my shoulder.
Quoting 18. TechnoCaveman:


... Remember this scale - cut off the internet and its 1972. Cut off the electricity and its 1872.
The worst part is sewage.

Can not even want to imagine high-density population zones with all those huge highrise apartment buildings. Foil hats might not be so bad after all -right?
Quoting 15. weathermanwannabe:



They failed to mention the most important part in this short article anyway; that upcoming event we are going to see around 2022 actually probably happened several hundred thousand years ago already but it is just now that the "light" from this event is reaching the Earth................Why this stuff is so fascinating....... :)


It's all relative ;)
Quoting 18. TechnoCaveman:

So glad to see this. Now for the "counter intuitive" "things are backwards" - "Twilight zone" moment

Yes, as solar cycles decline, earth temps can rise. Why? Momentum. Post summer solstice temps continue to rise in the northern hemisphere, drop in the southern hemisphere till the autumnal equinox when they switch.

There can also be large mass ejections due to "holes" in the suns surface. These are *not* sun spots but areas of ejection. Sun spots raise earth temprature while a sun that is completely blazing with no dark spots does not heat Earth up as much. (queue "Twilight zone music")

Yes Cycle 25 looks to be the same or weaker than the last cycle.

"Without electricity for two years" - sigh yes. Solar flares can burn out transmission line transformers. These things are not "stock" items but made "as needed" and delivered months later *if* all the tests and cets go well. Sometimes they do not. Ocassionally the test failures make *really great* fire ball videos!

Remember this scale - cut off the internet and its 1972. Cut off the electricity and its 1872.
The worst part is sewage.


A huge area of the country not having power for two years is a nightmare scenario. How many people can honestly say they can provide for themselves without modern infrastructure? (groceries, water, plumbing, etc). Not many anymore I would bet, and virtually none for those that live in a major city.
Yeah, the sun is all quiet til it goes BOOM!.......LOL Thanks for the update!

Major sucky storm this first one anyway.......tomorrow is supposed to be better=wetter.

Had rain/drizzle almost all the way home from VA in La Jolla and then boom!.......the clouds parted and sun was out.....if I got anything measurable at my place, it was a trace at best! Boo Hiss! I should not gripe so much as mother nature has been very nice to Soo Cal this winter thus far. Almost 10" at my place since October 1.....keep it coming mother nature!
Quoting 8. PedleyCA:

Thanks for the updates, Mr. Henson...


Any rain Pedley? Maybe just maybe a trace at my place, but had rain almost all the way home from docs in La Jolla ! Tomorrow's storm is supposed to be better.

Some rain totals from NWS San Diego
Link
Quoting 22. washingtonian115:

Lol.I could never sit paranoid all day in the corner over things that are out of my control.Join a social group like a book or science club or a fitness group.I'm not as stressed out as I use to be and am way more calmer and it feels as though a weight has been lifted off my shoulder.


Lol indeed. I've found, that after I joined Wunderground, my stress levels occasionally soar. On the other hand, I like to ponder the topics being discussed here. Long walks, bicycle trips (when there is no snow or ice), wild parties... they all help to charge the internal battery for the next round of coming here for the next climate discussion, or political debate... ;)

And of course the next round of studying, how to spew carbon dioxide with higher energy efficiency, less particulate, sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxide pollution. (As I'm studying energy engineering)

Perhaps the stress levels of this blog would get reduced, if I link the most beautiful weather-related song I've ever heard.

The swings of the monsoon have been set up

That has a poor quality. This has better quality, but no subtitles.
Winter Storm Warning
URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE SAN DIEGO CA
107 PM PST WED JAN 11 2017

...WINTER STORM TO BRING HIGH ELEVATION MOUNTAIN SNOW THURSDAY...

.A WINTER STORM OVER THE PACIFIC NORTHWEST WILL MOVE SOUTHWARD DOWN
THE CALIFORNIA COAST THURSDAY AND FRIDAY. DEEP MOISTURE IN SOUTHWEST
FLOW AHEAD OF THE LOW WILL BRING RAIN AND HIGH ELEVATION MOUNTAIN
SNOW THURSDAY. SNOW LEVELS WILL BE AT OR ABOVE 6000 FEET DURING
THE PEAK OF THE EVENT THURSDAY WHEN PERIODS OF HEAVY SNOW ARE
LIKELY. SNOW AMOUNTS OF 5 TO 10 INCHES ARE EXPECTED BETWEEN 6000
AND 8000 FEET...WITH 10 INCHES OR MORE ABOVE 8000 FEET. THE HEAVY
SNOW AND DENSE FOG WILL MAKE TRAVEL DIFFICULT ABOVE THE SNOW LINE.
THE SNOW WILL TAPER OFF TO SNOW SHOWERS THURSDAY NIGHT.

CAZ055-056-120600-
/O.NEW.KSGX.WS.W.0001.170112T1400Z-170113T0600Z/
SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY MOUNTAINS-RIVERSIDE COUNTY MOUNTAINS-
INCLUDING THE FOLLOWING LOCATIONS...BIG BEAR CITY...
BIG BEAR LAKE...RUNNING SPRINGS...WRIGHTWOOD
107 PM PST WED JAN 11 2017

...WINTER STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM TO 10 PM PST
THURSDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN SAN DIEGO HAS ISSUED A WINTER
STORM WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM TO 10 PM PST
THURSDAY.

* SNOW LEVELS...6000 FEET THURSDAY...LOWERING TO 4500 FEET
THURSDAY NIGHT.

* TIMING...LIGHT SNOW BEGINNING EARLY THURSDAY MORNING WITH
PERIODS OF HEAVY SNOW BETWEEN 10 AM AND 6 PM THURSDAY AFTERNOON.
TURNING COLDER THURSDAY EVENING WITH SNOW TAPERING TO SNOW
SHOWERS.

* SNOW ACCUMULATIONS...
1 TO 5 INCHES BETWEEN 5000 AND 6000 FEET.
5 TO 10 INCHES BETWEEN 6000 AND 8000 FEET.
10 TO 15 INCHES ABOVE 8000 FEET.

* WINDS...SOUTHWEST WINDS 15 TO 25 MPH WITH GUSTS TO 40 MPH.

* VISIBILITY...BELOW A QUARTER MILE IN HEAVY SNOW AND DENSE FOG.

* IMPACTS...SNOW COVERED ROADS ABOVE THE SNOW LINE WILL MAKE
TRAVEL DIFFICULT IN THE SAN BERNARDINO MOUNTAINS AND THE SAN
JACINTO MOUNTAINS. CHAIN REQUIREMENTS ARE LIKELY. LOW VISIBILITY
IN DENSE FOG.

* OUTLOOK...SNOW SHOWERS WILL TAPER OFF AND END THURSDAY NIGHT.
SNOW SHOWERS ARE AGAIN POSSIBLE FRIDAY NIGHT INTO SATURDAY
MORNING.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

A WINTER STORM WARNING FOR HEAVY SNOW MEANS SEVERE WINTER WEATHER
CONDITIONS ARE EXPECTED OR OCCURRING. SIGNIFICANT AMOUNTS OF
SNOW ARE FORECAST THAT WILL MAKE TRAVEL DANGEROUS. ONLY TRAVEL IN
AN EMERGENCY. IF YOU MUST TRAVEL...KEEP AN EXTRA FLASHLIGHT...
FOOD...AND WATER IN YOUR VEHICLE IN CASE OF AN EMERGENCY.
Northern California is going to share some of that snow finally with us good folk in Soo Cal : )
Some very very good news for California with regards to snowfall amounts in the Sierra Nevada Mountain Range!

Link
Heavenly Mountain Resort- I think this place is right by Lake Tahoe and city of South Lake Tahoe.
California, USA
Last Updated: 1/11
24 HR: 48"
72 HR: 108"

108" in 72 hours........=AWESOME!
Quoting 20. washingaway:


Sewage? I didn't think of sewage, oh crap!

Funny - NOT! As someone that works in the wastewater field, I find such "toilet" humor stinks to high heaven!
OK guys, need help. Please WU mail me as I might not see it here.

I have hotel reservations in Fayetteville, AR, the far north west corner of Arkansas. I will be driving from Des Moines through Kansas City, and a little town called Nevada, MO. The weather along the route shows ice starting about noon on Friday in Nevada, but rain in Fayetteville and just overcast in Kansas City.

I am wondering just how late I can wait Friday morning before I have to drive. Google Maps shows it to be about a 4 hour run.

Any help on getting through would be appriciated. I can leave very early Friday morning if that will help, but was hoping to hit Kansas City a little after the rush hour about 9:30 and before the lunch rush before 11.

Cheers
Qazulight


Quoting 32. HurricaneHunterJoe:

Heavenly Mountain Resort- I think this place is right by Lake Tahoe and city of South Lake Tahoe.
California, USA
Last Updated: 1/11
24 HR: 48"
72 HR: 108"

108" in 72 hours........=AWESOME!


Wait. If they got 108" in the last 72 hours, how come they only have 77" up top? Clearly one of those is wrong.

Still AWESOME!
Kirkwood also fishy (100" in last 72 hours but only 84" up top).
Quoting 27. HurricaneHunterJoe:



Any rain Pedley? Maybe just maybe a trace at my place, but had rain almost all the way home from docs in La Jolla ! Tomorrow's storm is supposed to be better.

Some rain totals from NWS San Diego
Link


Showing .13 at the Riverside Airport and .25 at Indian Hill PWS, CoCoRaHS has .21 for before 7AM(CA-RV-019)
I noticed how little sunspot activity there was just the other day on the Sun in my 90mm Maksutov telescope. Pretty remarkable how boring it looked without the sunspots -- going to need a proper H-alpha telescope over the next few years!
Quoting 34. Qazulight:

OK guys, need help. Please WU mail me as I might not see it here.

I have hotel reservations in Fayetteville, AR, the far north west corner of Arkansas. I will be driving from Des Moines through Kansas City, and a little town called Nevada, MO. The weather along the route shows ice starting about noon on Friday in Nevada, but rain in Fayetteville and just overcast in Kansas City.

I am wondering just how late I can wait Friday morning before I have to drive. Google Maps shows it to be about a 4 hour run.

Any help on getting through would be appriciated. I can leave very early Friday morning if that will help, but was hoping to hit Kansas City a little after the rush hour about 9:30 and before the lunch rush before 11.

Cheers
Qazulight





You could try running a few scenarios through the NWS Enhanced Data Display tool:
http://preview.weather.gov/edd/

Click on the drop-down next to "interface" and select "Travel"

Traveling from Des Moines to Fayetteville will certainly take you longer than 4 hours driving time.
Hudson Bay to Experience Periods of Above Freezing Temperatures, Possible Rainfall During January of 2017

Earlier this morning, warm winds rushing in from the south ahead of an extensive frontal system draped across central and eastern North America pulled 32 + degree Fahrenheit (0 + C) temperatures into the southern coastal area of Hudson Bay. These temperatures were around 30 to 35 degrees (F) above normal. An odd event to say the least. One that would have been far less likely to happen without the added kick provided by global warming in the range of 1.2 C above 1880s averages.

Link
Quoting 20. washingaway:


Sewage? I didn't think of sewage, oh crap!



Sewage is "gravity driven system" No power, batteries or gas required.

"You can cut off the water, the gas, the power and the internet but folks will always find a way to flush the toilet. When the "lift pumps" stop - it all just bubbles out the lowest man hole cover" - TechnoCaveman - 2003.

Here weather is *critical* Too cold and it freezes.
Too humid and it does not dry out but festers - even with "septic tank starter" thrown in.
Rain sends raw sewage into the storm sewers polluting rivers.
Not a pretty site. Cause its not washing machine / dishwasher / shower "grey water" but the real thing.

While the government will provide water and as best they can power - they do not provide internet.
So? people ask. Well the SCADA data controlling lift stations, valves and reporting errors is all done over TCP/IP now. Internet is pretty special.

Tech note: sewage predates man (by a lot) Why even cavemen knew "go outside on the downside of the river bank to make 'night soil' "
Quoting 18. TechnoCaveman:


Remember this scale - cut off the internet and its 1972. Cut off the electricity and its 1872.
The worst part is sewage.


It would suck to lose the well pump. We do have a hand pump for just that reason. And a woodstove for most of our hot water.

Realistically, sewage is the least of our problems, now that I've got our line and tank working well. Been almost five years since we needed a pump-out.
Quoting 25. pipelines:



A huge area of the country not having power for two years is a nightmare scenario. How many people can honestly say they can provide for themselves without modern infrastructure? (groceries, water, plumbing, etc). Not many anymore I would bet, and virtually none for those that live in a major city.


Sadly one can not out prep a year. At that point making water, growing plants and raising animals are required.

My heart hurts thinking of all the CPAP machines that will stop. Drug companies that must focus on life saving meds possibly cutting back on PTSD and birth control.

Yes - babies will be born as if it was 1870. No sonagrams, no machines. No spinal taps for pain blocking.

A very, very rough 2022 (if it happens at all. Might not happen.)
Good news is we can prepare. Does not have to be bad.
Quoting 43. nonblanche:



It would suck to lose the well pump. We do have a hand pump for just that reason. And a woodstove for most of our hot water.

Realistically, sewage is the least of our problems, now that I've got our line and tank working well. Been almost five years since we needed a pump-out.


(smiles) You will be called "One of the lucky ones. " but its not luck - its preparation.

Any thoughts on "Weather predicting" as that will be hurt. Cloud reading takes a bit of time to learn and only says so much.

Super computers may not have the people to run them having either fled the area or gotten sick. That is if there is a backup generator with fuel for power. That might be taken to run the hospitals.
Quoting 24. pipelines:



It's all relative ;)
I have read that the event took place hundreds of years ago and the light is just reaching us now, but how do they know that? Was Hubble or another telescope aimed there and caught the event?
With the two stars colliding, I understand that it happened hundreds of years ago and the light is just reaching us. But how do we know that it has happened? Was Hubble or another telescope fortuitously positioned and caught the event?
Quoting 45. TechnoCaveman:



(smiles) You will be called "One of the lucky ones. " but its not luck - its preparation.

Any thoughts on "Weather predicting" as that will be hurt. Cloud reading takes a bit of time to learn and only says so much.

Super computers may not have the people to run them having either fled the area or gotten sick. That is if there is a backup generator with fuel for power. That might be taken to run the hospitals.


Oh it would be more than mere inconvenience. We have solar panels and batteries, but not enough at this point to be "off-grid" and we'd have to be warned in advance to, I dunno, whip up some faraday cages or something to protect those systems.

But we'd be in a s***-ton better shape than the rest of my city-bound family.
Quoting 18. TechnoCaveman:

So glad to see this. Now for the "counter intuitive" "things are backwards" - "Twilight zone" moment

Yes, as solar cycles decline, earth temps can rise. Why? Momentum. Post summer solstice temps continue to rise in the northern hemisphere, drop in the southern hemisphere till the autumnal equinox when they switch.


The variation in solar output has a minuscule effect on global temperature (the mentioned .1C). This is much less than the temperature increase we've seen over the past century, an increase that has continued it's climb regardless of solar minimums and solar maximums.

Quoting 18. TechnoCaveman:
There can also be large mass ejections due to "holes" in the suns surface.


Mass ejections do not affect global temperatures, nor are they guaranteed to even hit the planet. While an ejection can have a mass of a trillion or more kilograms, that mass is spread over an enormous volume resulting in a very low density. A very very tiny fraction of the energy released from a mass ejection ever reaches the planet, and that's assuming it's even pointed in our direction. Even then, unless it's a very strong CME, the protons don't even have the energy to make it through the Earth's magnetic field.

Quoting 18. TechnoCaveman:
These are *not* sun spots but areas of ejection. Sun spots raise earth temprature while a sun that is completely blazing with no dark spots does not heat Earth up as much. (queue "Twilight zone music")


Those "dark spots" aren't really dark. They just appear that way against the background of the sun in the visible spectrum. They're actually areas of intense energy (which you can see when looking at X-ray images) of coiling powerful magnetic fields and plasma. So, ironically, sunspots are indicator of a more active solar "atmosphere" which sightly increase the amount of energy we receive from the sun. A "blazing sun", as you put, is indicative of a calmer and less energetic sun which slightly decreases the amount of solar energy we receive. Over the long term, the average insolation remains unchanged.

Boston residents are bracing themselves as warnings are issued for a possible tidal surge across the east coast of the country.

Yellow warnings are in place for Friday, January 13, for a combination of high tides, a surge, large waves and strong along the east coast.

It was this combination which led to the devastating 2013 Boston floods. The floods effected 300 homes and businesses.

The Environment Agency's warning states: "Coastal flooding is possible along the east coast of England from Northumberland to Kent on Friday extending into early Saturday morning along the Kent coast. There is potential danger to life along the east coast from large waves and over-topping of coastal promenades, along with possible flooding of properties and parts of communities including disruption to travel."



Read more at Link
Quoting 40. ScottLincoln:



You could try running a few scenarios through the NWS Enhanced Data Display tool:
http://preview.weather.gov/edd/

Click on the drop-down next to "interface" and select "Travel"

Traveling from Des Moines to Fayetteville will certainly take you longer than 4 hours driving time.


I think he was referring to the Kansas City-Fayetteville leg where the probability of crossing a swath of freezing rain is a consideration. Des Moines to Kansas also about 4 hours. 8-10 hr trip overall.
Quoting 46. oldmickey:

I have read that the event took place hundreds of years ago and the light is just reaching us now, but how do they know that? Was Hubble or another telescope aimed there and caught the event?


It's predicted to occur. After analyzing the orbital period of the two stars it was found that they're practically touching. Tidal forces and drag will eventually pull them into a collision over the next couple of years (the orbit is rapidly decaying). When the two stars merge, there won't enough mass to stabilize it. BOOM.
Quoting 43. nonblanche:



It would suck to lose the well pump. We do have a hand pump for just that reason. And a woodstove for most of our hot water.

Realistically, sewage is the least of our problems, now that I've got our line and tank working well. Been almost five years since we needed a pump-out.


Sewage is easy, dig a hole... It's how it's been done for a lot longer than we've had sewers. Granted that would be difficult in a major, dense city.
A new study has just revealed a massive peat-filled wetland in Africa’s central Congo Basin — and scientists say the carbon stored there may be equivalent to 20 years’ worth of U.S. fossil fuel emissions. The area is now believed to be the largest peatland system in the global tropics and possibly one of the region’s most important carbon sinks.

Link
Quoting 40. ScottLincoln:



You could try running a few scenarios through the NWS Enhanced Data Display tool:
http://preview.weather.gov/edd/

Click on the drop-down next to "interface" and select "Travel"

Traveling from Des Moines to Fayetteville will certainly take you longer than 4 hours driving time.


That is an excellent site. It shows what I suspected. Ice between Kansas City and the Arkansas border. But the temps are just a little below freezing, if they salt the roads at all it should be clear. In fact even without salt it should be clear just the heat of the tires passing on the interstate should keep the ice melted.

Yesterday I was in Sioux Falls, I decided to spend one more night because the interstate was closed at Sioux City. I could have taken the back route to the east and down to Des Moines, but hey, the hotel and meals were paid for, so I stayed.

Cheers
Qazulight
Xyrus2000, I responded to your reply from last night and I'm not sure you saw it so I'm reposting:

In February of 2016, scientist detected, or observed, gravitational waves for the first time. I postulate, (similar to that of the famous double slit experiment,) that gravitational waves are waves of probability, and the detection of these waves caused the wave function to collapse and thus bombarding us with particles of space-time, which, skewed us right into an alternate reality where nothing makes sense anymore. I call this weird reality the "Alt Right Reality".
CA statewide snowpack currently sitting at 158% of average for this date, in water equivalence.
Snow Water Content
Is This The Best Trick Shot Ever?

The time alone in setting it up and perfecting this is admirable, much less the fact that it actually works.
Severe cold predicted in central Alaska. I was out west in 1989 when a similar "Siberian Express" came south. It killed most of the palm trees in Vegas and was 35 below zero and colder in Utah.

Link

Link


Click link for a much better image.
Link
Quoting 14. JNFlori30A:

Beautiful January day here in NW FL.. upper 60's clear and a slight breeze....


I feel the same way. Upper 70s, clear, and windy here in central Texas.
Quoting 55. Qazulight:



That is an excellent site. It shows what I suspected. Ice between Kansas City and the Arkansas border. But the temps are just a little below freezing, if they salt the roads at all it should be clear. In fact even without salt it should be clear just the heat of the tires passing on the interstate should keep the ice melted.

Yesterday I was in Sioux Falls, I decided to spend one more night because the interstate was closed at Sioux City. I could have taken the back route to the east and down to Des Moines, but hey, the hotel and meals were paid for, so I stayed.

Cheers
Qazulight

Just be cautious... even at the temps just below freezing, there is no guarantee that all freezing rain can be removed by salt/sand/chemicals.
Quoting 56. washingaway:

Xyrus2000, I responded to your reply from last night and I'm not sure you saw it so I'm reposting:

In February of 2016, scientist detected, or observed, gravitational waves for the first time. I postulate, (similar to that of the famous double slit experiment,) that gravitational waves are waves of probability, and the detection of these waves caused the wave function to collapse and thus bombarding us with particles of space-time, which, skewed us right into an alternate reality where nothing makes sense anymore. I call this weird reality the "Alt Right Reality".


A possible premise for a sci-fi story, but unfortunately gravitational waves don't quite work that way.

No, unfortunately there's no cosmic event to blame for Trump. Just people, like always. It never ceases to amaze me that we are the source of almost all of our own problems.
Quoting 64. Xyrus2000:



A possible premise for a sci-fi story, but unfortunately gravitational waves don't quite work that way.

No, unfortunately there's no cosmic event to blame for Trump. Just people, like always. It never ceases to amaze me that we are the source of almost all of our own problems.

It's cheaper than importing them...in this universe, anyway. :^)
Quoting 64. Xyrus2000:



A possible premise for a sci-fi story, but unfortunately gravitational waves don't quite work that way.

No, unfortunately there's no cosmic event to blame for Trump. Just people, like always. It never ceases to amaze me that we are the source of almost all of our own problems.

Damn, and I thought I was on the verge of a Nobel Prize in physics.
Next storm for Soo Cal not really showing up on radar yet as it is offshore too far. It does have a bit of heft to it.



The satellite view gives a good look at the system which has PW Values of 1"+ and the ULL west of San Francisco heading SE towards Soo Cal. Models forecasting .40"-.80" Coast and Valleys and .75"-1.50" Mountains and .25" or less in desert.

Quoting 19. EmsiNasklug:

From last blog:
Quoting 227. Xandra:
So in the end, geoengineering is a lose-lose scenario. It’s a scientific pipe dream. We will not be able to “science” our way out of a climate collapse.

What I see in this discussion is two different ways of thinking - engineer versus scientist.
Engineers are generally trained optimists, with a tendency to construct and build up, that's their job.
Scientists are observers, applying different angles of approach to an issue and thus considering much more elements of influence.
Engineers will look for visible results, whereas scientists will look for answers, helpful or not.
So there is no way that both will agree on a thing like geo-engineering.

Quoting 326. elioe:
In environmentalism, natural state has a great (edit)intrinsic value. For general public to "buy" the action favored by environmentalists, disruptions to "natural state" like geoengineering have to be portrayed in a manner, which gets the public to think, that such schemes have mainly negative consequences for humans. So, if a study was to show, that a certain geoengineering scheme would have primarily positive consequences, it wouldn't fit the environmentalist way of communication.


"Mainly" and "primarily" is good enough for engineers, but not for nature - the consequences of side effects are possibly too heavy. Engineering can't provide for those little wing-clapping butterflies that may or may not cause a lot of trouble. Engineering doesn't take the complexity of natural systems into account.


So we talk about Geo-engineering like it's a proposed event for the future and not like it hasn't been going on for the past 60 years in front of all of us.
My PWS page says the high was 60 today, but the graph shows it never going over 45. Also I'm getting alerts for marine zones 60 miles away. Is this normal?
Quoting 65. Misanthroptimist:


It's cheaper than importing them...in this universe, anyway. :^)


I bet our planet is a great reality show for advanced civilizations. "They just put a complete imbecile in control of one of the largest nuclear stockpiles on their planet. Will they finally destroy themselves? Tune in and find out!" :P
Quoting 68. frank727:



So we talk about Geo-engineering like it's a proposed event for the future and not like it hasn't been going on for the past 60 years in front of all of us.


Hypothetically once our population started exploding we've been altering our world from a natural state of balance. Once we started clear cutting, mass mining, mass producing, etc. we've been geoengineering. Our species hasn't been in equilibrium with the environment for a very long time.

More recently, we've been geo-engineering on multiple fronts with a good portion of that being unintentional. The bill for all of this is finally coming due as we start approaching the limits of what our planet can reasonably support and tolerate. And we still have no long term plan of sustainability.

Hard lessons are going to be learned I'm afraid.
Quoting 72. Xyrus2000:



Hypothetically once our population started exploding we've been altering our world from a natural state of balance. Once we started clear cutting, mass mining, mass producing, etc. we've been geoengineering. Our species hasn't been in equilibrium with the environment for a very long time.

More recently, we've been geo-engineering on multiple fronts with a good portion of that being unintentional. The bill for all of this is finally coming due as we start approaching the limits of what our planet can reasonably support and tolerate. And we still have no long term plan of sustainability.

Hard lessons are going to be learned I'm afraid.

There are consequences in everything we do, even what we perceive as a good thing. Medical science for example, we now live longer, we have wiped out many diseases with vaccines etc.. What if medical science figures out away to double our current average life span? There would be serious consequences. Equilibrium? I fear it will be the elite who will put that into play one day.
Quoting 74. Rmc003:

If you think it is getting warmer, then look outside and tell me if all the record cold events across the US and Europe are just a one off. Pull your head out of the sand and admit we are going into a cooler trend.

It's cold! Is global warming over?
NASA's Climate Kids.

Yes, It's Cold - and Yes, Global Warming Is Still Happening
Livescience.com (2014).
What's most important to remember is that weather isn't climate. A single storm isn't evidence for or against global warming. "It is important to understand that weather is like one play in a football game. Climate is the history of the NFL," Mike Nelson, chief meteorologist for KMGH in Denver, wrote in a Facebook post.


1880-2009. Of course both values are now higher (literally off-the-charts actually), CO2 is now above 400 ppm, global temperature has repeatedly set new records since 2009... Image source : University of Illinois.
Quoting 74. Rmc003:

If you think it is getting warmer, then look outside and tell me if all the record cold events across the US and Europe are just a one off. Pull your head out of the sand and admit we are going into a cooler trend.

Volcan, Argentina: massive mudflows cause major disruption
The Landslide Blog/AGU - Jan 12.
Heavy rainfall in the extreme northwest of Argentina, close to the border with Chile, has caused major mudflows over the last few days. Whilst the focus in the media has been on the disruption to the Dakar Rally, the impact on local people has been far more serious, especially in the town of Volcan. Two fatalities have been reported. Reuters has a nice image of the level of destruction caused by one of the landslides, which has affected the margins of the town:

(for more info, click article's title)

Another recent landslide, this time in Africa : Nigeria - Landslide Sweeps 50 Houses Into River
AllAfrica.com - Jan 10.
Quoting 72. Xyrus2000:


Hypothetically once our population started exploding we've been altering our world from a natural state of balance. Once we started clear cutting, mass mining, mass producing, etc. we've been geoengineering. Our species hasn't been in equilibrium with the environment for a very long time.
More recently, we've been geo-engineering on multiple fronts with a good portion of that being unintentional.


It's a matter of definition: As I understand the word "geo-engineering" it has to be intentional.
All else is just making a mess.
Quoting 74. Rmc003:

If you think it is getting warmer, then look outside and tell me if all the record cold events across the US and Europe are just a one off. Pull your head out of the sand and admit we are going into a cooler trend.


Yes, for a a few days. If you lift your head out of the sand long enough . . .



Assessing the U.S. Climate in 2016

Map of January 2016 to December 2016 U.S. Average Temperature Departures from Average
The average annual temperature for the contiguous United States was 54.9F, which was 2.9F above the 20th century average. This was the second warmest year of the 122 years on record, behind 2012 (55.3F), and the 20th consecutive warmer-than-normal year for the United States (1997%u20132016).

And if you look outside in Alaska



So, I am wondering . . . exactly where are you looking outside?
Good morning. And thanks for the sun-entry, Bob - another Carrington Event is one of the most fearsome prospects I've learned about in this blog by Doc's post from 2009 ...

Meanwhile a small but probably ferocious secondary low - "Egon" - is about to form off the European west coast and will cross the continent tonight. Severe wind warnings for my place mid Germany tonight! Afterwards winter weather should continue with probably very low temps next week, huh.
Here some pics and maps for tonight. I'll keep you updated ...


Forcast surface map for today. You see where "Egon" should form right now.


Current airmasses with Egon's suspicious birthplace southwest of Britain.


ECMWF forecast of gusts tonight with the strongest in Belgium, northeastern France and southwestern Germany as "Egon" is conquering the continent.
Quoting 64. Xyrus2000:



A possible premise for a sci-fi story, but unfortunately gravitational waves don't quite work that way.

No, unfortunately there's no cosmic event to blame for Trump. Just people, like always. It never ceases to amaze me that we are the source of almost all of our own problems.


A source of job creation. Good for the economy.
Quoting 69. Skymeat:

My PWS page says the high was 60 today, but the graph shows it never going over 45. Also I'm getting alerts for marine zones 60 miles away. Is this normal?


Does that usually happen? If not, then it is not normal.
Massive beautiful yellow moon 2 mornings in a row. Pleasant to the eyes, but painful to the person without a good camera :(
Quoting 81. barbamz:

Good morning. And thanks for the sun-entry, Bob - another Carrington Event is one of the most fearsome prospects I've learned about in this blog by Doc's post from 2009 ...

Meanwhile a small but probably ferocious secondary low - "Egon" - is about to form off the European west coast and will cross the continent tonight. Severe wind warnings for my place mid Germany tonight!

That thing is absolutely bombing now. Satpics over the past few hours spectacular with that Cf whipping around and a hint of a sting jet.
Wf-shield entering my region (Gouda/ZH/the Netherlands).
Should take out traffic tomorrow with a load of slush :)
Quoting 74. Rmc003:

If you think it is getting warmer, then look outside and tell me if all the record cold events across the US and Europe are just a one off. Pull your head out of the sand and admit we are going into a cooler trend.


The last 365 days in the US -

New high max - 29692
New low max - 9433
New high min - 38828
New low min - 5551

Link

Your head may be buried in something other than sand .
The filth they breathe in China

Winter has returned to northern China. And so has the country's trademark, deadly smog.

The central government recently declared its first-ever national red alert for air quality, with pollution levels hovering over 12 times the level recommended by the World Health Organization. Indeed, China's unprecedented growth has come at a horrific social cost that is just beginning to get serious attention. The political leadership of China, like Japan and South Korea before it, put economic growth far above environmental protection or health concerns, and the country now faces a catastrophically polluted countryside. Nearly all aspects of China's environment are affected, and the true economic and health effects are only now becoming apparent.


Link
so what is gov. now sec. perrys plan to deal with the nuck waste? we are on a diving board about to jump off. bad thing the nuck waste will be around for another 100000 yrs.
NASA Study Finds a Connection Between Wildfires and Drought

Small particles called aerosols that are released into the air by smoke may also reduce the likelihood of rainfall. This can happen because water vapor in the atmosphere condenses on certain types and sizes of aerosols called cloud condensation nuclei to form clouds; when enough water vapor accumulates, rain droplets are formed. But have too many aerosols and the water vapor is spread out more diffusely to the point where rain droplets don't materialize.

The relationship between fire and the water in northern sub-Saharan Africa, however, had never been comprehensively investigated until recently. A study published in the journal Environmental Research Letters, led by Charles Ichoku, a senior scientist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Maryland, seeks to shed light on the connection.

"We wanted to look at the general impacts of burning on the whole spectrum of the water cycle," said Ichoku.


Link
Quoting 72. Xyrus2000:



Hypothetically once our population started exploding we've been altering our world from a natural state of balance. Once we started clear cutting, mass mining, mass producing, etc. we've been geoengineering. Our species hasn't been in equilibrium with the environment for a very long time.

More recently, we've been geo-engineering on multiple fronts with a good portion of that being unintentional. The bill for all of this is finally coming due as we start approaching the limits of what our planet can reasonably support and tolerate. And we still have no long term plan of sustainability.

Hard lessons are going to be learned I'm afraid.

Xyrus, honest to God this might be one of my favorite posts of yours. Well said.
Good Morning Folks; here is current look for Conus. In terms of the precipitation in the West, the Drought Monitor for the past week (through this past Tuesday) will be issued this morning but the real gains from all the rain the past several days will probably not be fully reflected until the one issued next Thursday as the rains (and snow) keeps pushing in through today.





We need a higher scale for this cloud of ozone..



Here is last weeks Monitor for reference when the new one comes out in about 15 minutes:

Current U.S. Drought Monitor
Guterres: tackling climate will prevent global conflict
Climate Home - Jan 12.

Ban Ki-moon's successor offered a brief outline of his goals to the UN Security Council this week, underlining its mandate to prevent conflict and sustain peace. Wars, said Guterres, "are fuelled by competition for power and resources, inequality, marginalization and exclusion, poor governance, weak institutions, sectarian divides. They are exacerbated by climate change, population growth and the globalization of crime and terrorism. With so many factors at work, it takes very little to trigger a crisis that can engulf a country or a region, with global consequences."

(...) Conflicts linked to environmental degradation have been reported across the world, from the Peruvian Amazon to the Sahel and Syria. Incoming US defence secretary, James 'Mad dog' Mattis is one military mind who understands the links between climate change and conflict, a fellow Marine Corps general told Climate Home.
"There's a fair percentage of conflicts today that have a linkage to climate change that was not previously there," said Stephen Cheney, now retired.
"These include the Arab Spring and Syrian civil war - two insurrections that define world politics and security today."
Despite low sunspots, might be of interest to look into whether strong solar winds from coronal holes are having impacts beyond impressive auroras.
And here is the new Monitor showing the dent in the drought for Cali (at the cost of flooding) and with more rain inbound: that is a lot of lighter reds in the same areas under exceptional drought last week before the rains bringing down that large part of Southern California down to extreme drought.

Current U.S. Drought Monitor
Arctic lakes melting earlier and earlier each year, recent 14-year study shows
'Without any doubt at all, basically almost all lakes are getting their ice out earlier year after year'

Lakes were analyzed in these five areas: Northern Europe, Northeast Canada, Alaskan Arctic Coastal Plain, Central Siberia, and Northeast Siberia.

There were 2,994 lakes observed in Northeast Canada and the majority of them showed a rate of change of 0.3 days earlier per year. That means the ice has been melting about eight hours earlier per year.

But 53 lakes in Canada showed a "really strong trend for earlier (ice) break-up," melting on average one day earlier per year, said Edwards.

Central Siberia showed the strongest warming trend with a melting rate of more than a day earlier per year for most of its lakes. A third of the lakes broke the highest record in the study with a change of 1.4 days earlier per year.


Link
Quoting 87. RobertWC:

The filth they breathe in China

Winter has returned to northern China. And so has the country's trademark, deadly smog.

The central government recently declared its first-ever national red alert for air quality, with pollution levels hovering over 12 times the level recommended by the World Health Organization. Indeed, China's unprecedented growth has come at a horrific social cost that is just beginning to get serious attention. The political leadership of China, like Japan and South Korea before it, put economic growth far above environmental protection or health concerns, and the country now faces a catastrophically polluted countryside. Nearly all aspects of China's environment are affected, and the true economic and health effects are only now becoming apparent.


Link

This should be required reading for every politician promising to 'de-regulate', scrap essential environmental regulations, or de-fang the EPA.

China's problems go well beyond egregious air pollution. The lack of regulations and enforcement has literally poisoned every facet of that country.
Quoting 88. islander101010:

so what is gov. now sec. perrys plan to deal with the nuck waste? we are on a diving board about to jump off. bad thing the nuck waste will be around for another 100000 yrs.


The term "nuclear waste" is actually a misnomer. There's still plenty of very usable fuel in nuclear waste, but due to policies put in place by Carter we are not allowed to reprocess said waste back into fuel. Basically it's like filling your tank with gas, driving 10 miles, then dumping out your gas tank.

If we were allowed to utilize a full fuel reprocessing cycle (like France), the amount of nuclear waste ends up being drastically reduced while providing material for other scientific endeavors, such as fuel for radiothermal generators in deep space craft.

What will Perry do? Who the hell knows. We're going from having the department headed by very smart scientists who understand the research and projects going on there to someone who barely has a grasp of basic physics. It's like putting a toddler in charge of a nuclear power station.
Quoting 91. LAbonbon:


Xyrus, honest to God this might be one of my favorite posts of yours. Well said.


Thank you. :)
From NASA Earth Observatory, the Image of the Day for January 12, 2017:

Atmospheric River Soaks California



An atmospheric river has been flooding California and other parts of the western United States with rain and snow for nearly a week. Precipitation could be measured in feet rather than inches in some locations, and rivers and valleys filled with some of the worst flooding since 2005. According to meteorologists, the deluge is not over as more storms are predicted through January 12, 2017.

Read more
Down to exceptional drought for that area means that they still need more "steady" rains at some point in the future, without one massive rain/flood event at one time, to overcome the extreme drought deficits over a span of the last five years but this will help with the short-term water needs in the Spring as the snow pack in the Sierras melts back into the reservoirs for this first half of this year.

U.S. Drought Monitor forWest





Quoting 11. elioe:

[...] For iron fertilization, I've not bookmarked any studies. I've gained insight fragment after fragment. Indeed, the eventual sedimentation rate is very poor, perhaps 5 - 10 %. But it seems, that 50% of so of the carbon remains in the ocean for hundreds or thousands of years, until it resurfaces after completing an ocean circulation cycle. I made a response to you and others about this a few months ago, with numerous sources, but now it's difficult to find the old comment... Among those sources, in one it was estimated, that iron fertilization could sequester one sixth of current CO2 emissions. So indeed, only a partial solution.

And the energy to compress the air in my power plant idea. For a kilogram of air to be compressed, some 20 kJ of work has to be done. When the air expands, it creates some 30 kJ of work. As the expansion is isothermal, the same amount of heat has to be brought in. As such, the efficiency is 1/3. Carnot cycle efficiency would be approximately 1/10... but sincerely, I don't know, where I got the idea, that efficiency would rise to 0.95, lol.


A couple of links:

Special Series : Ocean Iron Fertilization

Ocean Iron Fertilization - A Timeline - The history of the controversy.


A cycle: scientific experiments, media coverage, calls for caution and more research.


Ocean Iron Fertilization Resources


From the report: Ocean Fertilization: Mitigating Environmental Impacts of Future Scientific Research. DFO Can. Sci. Advis. Sec. Sci. Advis. Rep. 2010/012.

"This document examines the current scientific knowledge and understanding of ocean fertilization, the uncertainties, and fundamental questions required for informed decision making. As part of this evaluation, this document reviews the Draft Assessment Framework created by the the London Convention/London Protocol Technical Working Group on Ocean Fertilization."

Complete PDF document

SUMMARY:

Ocean fertilization has been proposed as a geoengineering method that in some regions of the world ocean may enhance ocean uptake of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere. The US National Academy of Sciences defines geoengineering as “options that would involve largescale engineering of our environment in order to combat or counteract the effects of changes in atmospheric chemistry”.

Ocean fertilization represents one geoengineering approach undertaken by humans with the principal intention of stimulating primary productivity in the oceans. Fertilization proposals are loosely divided into 'micronutrient' and 'macronutrient' additions.

Addition of the micronutrient iron is by far the best studied artificial ocean fertilization technique; nitrogen is the most likely option for macronutrient fertilization.

Expected consequences of large-scale ocean fertilization include changes in phytoplankton community composition and food web structure, vertical export of biogenic material, reduction of subsurface oxygen, and production of climate active gases such as nitrous oxide.

Results from the ocean iron fertilization experiments conducted so far have not determined at what scale fertilization will result in persistent alterations of the ecosystem. However, there is scientific confidence that a “threshold scale” can be determined such that fertilization up to this scale would likely not cause persistent changes to an ecosystem.

Large-scale fertilization of coastal waters with nitrogen entails high ecological risks and potentially irreversible ecosystem disruptions.

The London Convention/London Protocol Draft Assessment Framework provides a mechanism for assessing, on a case-by-case basis, proposals for ocean fertilization to determine whether they represent legitimate scientific research.

It is recommended that there be an examination of the knowledge base for development and application of criteria for conducting environmental assessments of fertilization experiments, and for defining a "threshold scale" below which proposals could be exempted from a full assessment.

A concern over the capacity of a single nation to implement the Assessment Framework suggests that if possible an international body should be available to assist with assessments.

Fertilization experiments have been highly valuable for the study of the dynamics and functioning of ocean ecosystems and biogeochemical cycles, but it is unlikely that individual National Capital Region Ocean Fertilization experiments will ever resolve critical questions about the long-term consequences of ocean fertilization for climate change mitigation.

Future scientific research on ocean fertilization should be encouraged to improve our understanding of the ocean’s response to nutrient addition.

....................

Climate Engineering Conference 2017

106. elioe
Quoting 81. barbamz:



Here we're continuing to deal with "Caius" and now "Dieter". Though those names are not used. If "Dieter" would cause enough damage, it would be christened "Toini". At airport, now sustained winds are at 11 mph, and gusts 22 mph. 985 mbar. Early Wednesday morning, they were 22 mph and 34 mph. By local standards, pretty much. At coast, island of Russarö off the town of Hanko had early this morning sustained winds at 56 mph and gusts to 65 mph. Two cruise ships have been damaged so far: Tallink Romantika en route from Stockholm to Riga, and Viking Grace while at Mariehamn harbour. Neither damage threatened those on board. Two cruise ships have skipped their stop at Långnäs on Åland archipelago.

Now the winds should continue to subside, and by the time "Egon" arrives here in two to three days, it should be dissipating, causing winds less than 25 mph even at coast.
Quoting 95. 999Ai2016:

...

An online searchable "Cycles of War", ~ 1978: https://books.google.com/books?id=uxVBAAAAIAAJ&hl= en
More than 300 buildings at Fort Carson in CO had wind damage. Several people took injuries due to flying debris.
Quoting 79. EmsiNasklug:



It's a matter of definition: As I understand the word "geo-engineering" it has to be intentional.
All else is just making a mess.

And you would say that intentionally digging up, and pumping out, fossil fuels in enormous quantities and burning them to overheat homes and overcharge cell phones and drive inefficient vehicles too fast isn't engineering?
Quoting 19. EmsiNasklug:

From last blog:
Quoting 227. Xandra:
So in the end, geoengineering is a lose-lose scenario. It’s a scientific pipe dream. We will not be able to “science” our way out of a climate collapse.

What I see in this discussion is two different ways of thinking - engineer versus scientist.
Engineers are generally trained optimists, with a tendency to construct and build up, that's their job.
Scientists are observers, applying different angles of approach to an issue and thus considering much more elements of influence.
Engineers will look for visible results, whereas scientists will look for answers, helpful or not.
So there is no way that both will agree on a thing like geo-engineering.

Quoting 326. elioe:
In environmentalism, natural state has a great (edit)intrinsic value. For general public to "buy" the action favored by environmentalists, disruptions to "natural state" like geoengineering have to be portrayed in a manner, which gets the public to think, that such schemes have mainly negative consequences for humans. So, if a study was to show, that a certain geoengineering scheme would have primarily positive consequences, it wouldn't fit the environmentalist way of communication.


"Mainly" and "primarily" is good enough for engineers, but not for nature - the consequences of side effects are possibly too heavy. Engineering can't provide for those little wing-clapping butterflies that may or may not cause a lot of trouble. Engineering doesn't take the complexity of natural systems into account.

The problem with climate geoengineering (or climate remediation as some prefer to call it) isn't lack of research. There's a lot of research in the field. The problem is instead the ethical, political, legal and social issues around geoengineering, and unless you can deal with these issues then any kind of geoengineering would be unviable.

Who would decide what methods to apply and when and where? China? Russia? USA? .....?


Below are six examples why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Source

10. Rapid warming if deployment stops.

A technological, societal, or political crisis could halt a project of stratospheric aerosol injection in middeployment. Such an abrupt shift would result in rapid climate warming, which would produce much more stress on society and ecosystems than gradual global warming.

11. There’s no going back.

We don’t know how quickly scientists and engineers could shut down a geoengineering system—or stem its effects—in the event of excessive climate cooling from large volcanic eruptions or other causes. Once we put aerosols into the atmosphere, we cannot remove them

12. Human error.

Complex mechanical systems never work perfectly. Humans can make mistakes in the design, manufacturing, and operation of such systems. (Think of Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, airplane crashes, and friendly fire on the battlefield.) Should we stake the future of Earth on a much more complicated arrangement than these, built by the lowest bidder?

17. Conflicts with current treaties.

The terms of ENMOD explicitly prohibit “military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury to any other State Party.” Any geoengineering scheme that adversely affects regional climate, for example, producing warming or drought,would therefore violate ENMOD

18. Control of the thermostat.

Even if scientists could predict the behavior and environmental effects of a given geoengineering project, and political leaders could muster the public support and funding to implement it, how would the world agree on the optimal climate? What if Russia wants it a couple of degrees warmer, and India a couple of degrees cooler? Should global climate be reset to preindustrial temperature or kept constant at today’s reading? Would it be possible to tailor the climate of each region of the planet independently without affecting the others? If we proceed with geoengineering, will we provoke future climate wars?

20. Unexpected consequences.

Scientists cannot possibly account for all of the complex climate interactions or predict all of the impacts of geoengineering. Climate models are improving, but scientists are discovering that climate is changing more rapidly than they predicted, for example, the surprising and unprecedented extent to which Arctic sea ice melted during the summer of 2007. Scientists may never have enough confidence that their theories will predict how well geoengineering systems can work. With so much at stake, there is reason to worry about what we don’t know.

--------------------

A study by David P. Keller comparing five different proposed methods of climate engineering found all were 'relatively ineffective' while carrying 'potentially severe side effects' that would be difficult to stop.
'Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario' Nature Communications 5, Article number: 3304 (2014 doi:10.1038/ncomms4304

Abstract

The realization that mitigation efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions have, until now, been relatively ineffective has led to an increasing interest in climate engineering as a possible means of preventing the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change. While many studies have addressed the potential effectiveness of individual methods there have been few attempts to compare them. Here we use an Earth system model to compare the effectiveness and side effects of afforestation, artificial ocean upwelling, ocean iron fertilization, ocean alkalinization and solar radiation management during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario. We find that even when applied continuously and at scales as large as currently deemed possible, all methods are, individually, either relatively ineffective with limited (<8%) warming reductions, or they have potentially severe side effects and cannot be stopped without causing rapid climate change. Our simulations suggest that the potential for these types of climate engineering to make up for failed mitigation may be very limited.

--------------------

Read more about the ethical, political, legal and social issues around geoengineering in my links, comment #227 here.

See also: A Code Of Conduct For Geoengineering Research: An Exploration of a Code of Conduct for Responsible Scientific Research involving Geoengineering

Complete PDF document

--------------------

Professor Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:

"When has humanity managed to sustain a concerted complex technological enterprise for centuries, let alone millennia?"

Professor Martin Bunzl:

"You can test a vaccine on one person, putting that person at risk, without putting everyone else at risk. But with geoengineering, You can’t build a scale model of the atmosphere or tent off part of the atmosphere. As such you are stuck going directly from a model to full scale planetary-wide implementation. In short, you could not conduct meaningful tests of these technologies without enlisting billions of people as guinea pigs—for years".
Another nice day is forecast for the area today.

A cold front will move through the area this morning. There will be a period of strong northwest winds in the 35 to 45 mph range behind the front which will greatly reduce visibility in blowing snow. Brief ground blizzard conditions in open country are likely. In addition, wind chills are expected to range from 25 to 40 below Thursday.

Brutally cold wind chills are expected Thursday night and Friday morning as temperatures in the 20s to lower 30s below zero and 5 to 10 mph winds combine to produce wind chills of 35 to 50 below.

Source NWS.
From The Washington Post:

Scientists have a new way to calculate what global warming costs. Trump’s team isn’t going to like it.


Smoke billows from stacks as a Chinese woman wears as mask while walking in a neighborhood next to a coal fired power plant on November 26, 2015 in Shanxi, China. (Photo by Kevin Frayer/Getty Images)

How we view the costs of future climate change, and more importantly how we quantify them, may soon be changing. A much-anticipated new report, just released by the National Academy of Sciences, recommends major updates to a federal metric known as the “social cost of carbon” — and its suggestions could help address a growing scientific concern that we’re underestimating the damages global warming will cause.

The social cost of carbon is an Obama-era metric first addressed by a federal working group in 2009. The basic premise is simple: Scientists agree that climate change will have all kinds of impacts on human societies, including natural disasters and effects on human health, productivity and agricultural output, all of which have economic consequences.

The social cost of carbon, then, refers to the monetary cost of emitting a single ton of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere, given that these emissions will further contribute to global warming. The value has been used to aid in cost-benefit analyses for a variety of federal environmental rules. Currently, it’s set at about $36 per ton of carbon dioxide.

But the new NAS report, requested by the federal Interagency Working Group on the Social Cost of Carbon, suggests the methodology used to arrive at this value is in need of updating, both to make it more transparent and more scientifically sound. It makes a number of recommendations for future estimates aimed at helping the process “draw more readily on expertise from the wide range of scientific disciplines relevant to [the social cost of carbon] estimation.”

Read more here.
Quoting 85. cRRKampen:
That thing is absolutely bombing now. Satpics over the past few hours spectacular with that Cf whipping around and a hint of a sting jet.

You can say that ...


IR loop with developing storm Egon (updating).

Another current pic where you can see the dangerous dry slot (yellow): Link

The same as a visible: Link

More about "Egon":
https://www.meteoeurope.eu/storm-egon/


Egon's path with hurricane force winds according to French model Arome. Source.

Not bad either the wind maps from Arpege. I better go out to board up some stuff on my roof garden :-(
Quoting 49. Xyrus2000:



The variation in solar output has a minuscule effect on global temperature (the mentioned .1C). This is much less than the temperature increase we've seen over the past century, an increase that has continued it's climb regardless of solar minimums and solar maximums.



Mass ejections do not affect global temperatures, nor are they guaranteed to even hit the planet. While an ejection can have a mass of a trillion or more kilograms, that mass is spread over an enormous volume resulting in a very low density. A very very tiny fraction of the energy released from a mass ejection ever reaches the planet, and that's assuming it's even pointed in our direction. Even then, unless it's a very strong CME, the protons don't even have the energy to make it through the Earth's magnetic field.



Those "dark spots" aren't really dark. They just appear that way against the background of the sun in the visible spectrum. They're actually areas of intense energy (which you can see when looking at X-ray images) of coiling powerful magnetic fields and plasma. So, ironically, sunspots are indicator of a more active solar "atmosphere" which sightly increase the amount of energy we receive from the sun. A "blazing sun", as you put, is indicative of a calmer and less energetic sun which slightly decreases the amount of solar energy we receive. Over the long term, the average insolation remains unchanged.




Xyrus200,

Excellent editing. I must respectfully disagree with the first paragraph about the sun and "minimal" effects.

Maunder and Dalton minimums were caused by a lack of sunspot activity.

Here is my source: https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.sh tml

Your additional two replies are helpful.

Kindly,
TechnoC.
One can disagree all day, but you're wrong.

Science is above the din of lack of knowledge.


Twentieth century climate and solar variations. ... Thus, although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun (see Figure 2).


Sun's effect on Global Warming

About 1,660,000 results (0.43 seconds)
Quoting 17. nrtiwlnvragn:

PROBABILISTIC HEAVY SNOW AND ICING DISCUSSION
NWS WEATHER PREDICTION CENTER COLLEGE PARK MD
402 PM EST WED JAN 11 2017


Excerpt:

WHAT IS PARTICULARLY SERIOUS ABOUT THIS EVENT IS THAT IT APPEARS THAT CONDITIONS MAY CONTINUE TO DETERIORATE AFTER THE 3 DAY FORECAST PERIOD...POTENTIALLY RESULTING IN A VERY IMPACTFUL AND LONG LASTING ICING EVENT.


Well that is just a bundle of joy! I am hoping, still that the GFS wins (but not holding my breath). The local forecasts have been bouncing back and forth regarding where, when, and how bad it may be - but have been a bit more on the "this is gonna be bad" side of things. Not overhyping, mind you, just trying to make people aware.
Some pictures of a very soggy Humboldt County: Link

We got about an inch and a half between Tuesday and yesterday, but it should be winding down now and drying out a bit through the weekend. Happy Thursday folks!
Quoting 110. Xandra:


The problem with climate geoengineering (or climate remediation as some prefer to call it) isn't lack of research. There's a lot of research in the field. The problem is instead the ethical, political, legal and social issues around geoengineering, and unless you can deal with these issues then any kind of geoengineering would be unviable.

Who would decide what methods to apply and when and where? China? Russia? USA? .....?


Below are six examples why geoengineering may be a bad idea. Source

10. Rapid warming if deployment stops.

A technological, societal, or political crisis could halt a project of stratospheric aerosol injection in middeployment. Such an abrupt shift would result in rapid climate warming, which would produce much more stress on society and ecosystems than gradual global warming.

11. There’s no going back.

We don’t know how quickly scientists and engineers could shut down a geoengineering system—or stem its effects—in the event of excessive climate cooling from large volcanic eruptions or other causes. Once we put aerosols into the atmosphere, we cannot remove them

12. Human error.

Complex mechanical systems never work perfectly. Humans can make mistakes in the design, manufacturing, and operation of such systems. (Think of Chernobyl, the Exxon Valdez, airplane crashes, and friendly fire on the battlefield.) Should we stake the future of Earth on a much more complicated arrangement than these, built by the lowest bidder?

17. Conflicts with current treaties.

The terms of ENMOD explicitly prohibit “military or any other hostile use of environmental modification techniques having widespread, long-lasting or severe effects as the means of destruction, damage, or injury to any other State Party.” Any geoengineering scheme that adversely affects regional climate, for example, producing warming or drought,would therefore violate ENMOD

18. Control of the thermostat.

Even if scientists could predict the behavior and environmental effects of a given geoengineering project, and political leaders could muster the public support and funding to implement it, how would the world agree on the optimal climate? What if Russia wants it a couple of degrees warmer, and India a couple of degrees cooler? Should global climate be reset to preindustrial temperature or kept constant at today’s reading? Would it be possible to tailor the climate of each region of the planet independently without affecting the others? If we proceed with geoengineering, will we provoke future climate wars?

20. Unexpected consequences.

Scientists cannot possibly account for all of the complex climate interactions or predict all of the impacts of geoengineering. Climate models are improving, but scientists are discovering that climate is changing more rapidly than they predicted, for example, the surprising and unprecedented extent to which Arctic sea ice melted during the summer of 2007. Scientists may never have enough confidence that their theories will predict how well geoengineering systems can work. With so much at stake, there is reason to worry about what we don’t know.

--------------------

A study by David P. Keller comparing five different proposed methods of climate engineering found all were 'relatively ineffective' while carrying 'potentially severe side effects' that would be difficult to stop.
'Potential climate engineering effectiveness and side effects during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario' Nature Communications 5, Article number: 3304 (2014 doi:10.1038/ncomms4304

Abstract

The realization that mitigation efforts to reduce carbon dioxide emissions have, until now, been relatively ineffective has led to an increasing interest in climate engineering as a possible means of preventing the potentially catastrophic consequences of climate change. While many studies have addressed the potential effectiveness of individual methods there have been few attempts to compare them. Here we use an Earth system model to compare the effectiveness and side effects of afforestation, artificial ocean upwelling, ocean iron fertilization, ocean alkalinization and solar radiation management during a high carbon dioxide-emission scenario. We find that even when applied continuously and at scales as large as currently deemed possible, all methods are, individually, either relatively ineffective with limited (<8%) warming reductions, or they have potentially severe side effects and cannot be stopped without causing rapid climate change. Our simulations suggest that the potential for these types of climate engineering to make up for failed mitigation may be very limited.

--------------------

Read more about the ethical, political, legal and social issues around geoengineering in my links, comment #227 here.

See also: A Code Of Conduct For Geoengineering Research: An Exploration of a Code of Conduct for Responsible Scientific Research involving Geoengineering

Complete PDF document

--------------------

Professor Raymond T. Pierrehumbert:

"When has humanity managed to sustain a concerted complex technological enterprise for centuries, let alone millennia?"

Professor Martin Bunzl:

"You can test a vaccine on one person, putting that person at risk, without putting everyone else at risk. But with geoengineering, You can’t build a scale model of the atmosphere or tent off part of the atmosphere. As such you are stuck going directly from a model to full scale planetary-wide implementation. In short, you could not conduct meaningful tests of these technologies without enlisting billions of people as guinea pigs—for years".


Numbers 12 onward come up as real points of conflict because, IMO, they are the ones people are familure with. War and conflicts.

Number 11 I disagree with. Some Geo-engineering projects using reflective materials and some chemicals in the atomosphere can be reversed once CO2 levels are fixed.
The big *IF* is that when things appear "fixed" people will let C02 rise as it may "promote plant growth"



New Species of Primate Is Named After ‘Star Wars’

The Force is strong with the skywalker hoolock gibbon.

"Scientists announced the discovery of a new species of primate, the skywalker hoolock gibbon (Hoolock tianxing), in the American Journal of Primatology on Tuesday. The scientists named it skywalker because the Chinese characters for its scientific name translate to “heaven’s movement”—but also because they’re fans of Star Wars, according to the BBC."

Mark Hamill, the actor who stars as Luke Skywalker in the film franchise, has already taken note of the name. On Wednesday, he tweeted: “So proud of this! First the Pez dispenser, then the Underoos & U.S. postage stamp... now this! #GorillaMyDreams #SimianSkywalker #JungleJedi.”"
121. OKsky
Whats funny about comment #114 is technically he didn't say anything incorrect, but it is a non sequitur to think that it was in disagreement with X2K.

"Maunder and Dalton minimums were caused by a lack of sunspot activity."

They weren't caused by... they were defined by.
Its like saying spaghetti is caused by an Italian pasta dish topped with tomato sauce.
From The Asahi Shimbun:

Coral bleaching kills 70 percent of Japan’s biggest coral reef


Brown seaweed covers coral killed by bleaching in the Sekiseishoko area of Okinawa Prefecture in this photo taken on Dec. 21. (Provided by the Environment Ministry)

Coral bleaching has killed 70.1 percent of the nation’s largest coral reef as of the end of 2016, up from 56.7 percent just a few months earlier, the Environment Ministry said.

Warmer seawater temperatures last summer are believed to have caused coral bleaching to spread to 90 percent of the Sekiseishoko coral reef in Okinawa Prefecture.

The ministry report, released on Jan. 10, was based on a study conducted in November and December on conditions at 35 points in the Sekiseishoko coral reef, a popular diving area covering about 400 square kilometers between Ishigakijima and Iriomotejima islands.

The previous figure of 56.7 percent was based on a survey conducted in September and October.

Coral bleaching occurs when warmer water temperatures cause coral to expel algae living symbiotically within. The coral turns white and can die.

In the Sekiseishoko area, widespread coral bleaching occurred in 1998 and 2007. Experts warn that the phenomenon could occur more frequently if global warming progresses.
Quoting 122. Xandra:

From The Asahi Shimbun:

Coral bleaching kills 70 percent of Japan’s biggest coral reef


Brown seaweed covers coral killed by bleaching in the Sekiseishoko area of Okinawa Prefecture in this photo taken on Dec. 21. (Provided by the Environment Ministry)

Coral bleaching has killed 70.1 percent of the nation’s largest coral reef as of the end of 2016, up from 56.7 percent just a few months earlier, the Environment Ministry said.

Warmer seawater temperatures last summer are believed to have caused coral bleaching to spread to 90 percent of the Sekiseishoko coral reef in Okinawa Prefecture.

The ministry report, released on Jan. 10, was based on a study conducted in November and December on conditions at 35 points in the Sekiseishoko coral reef, a popular diving area covering about 400 square kilometers between Ishigakijima and Iriomotejima islands.

The previous figure of 56.7 percent was based on a survey conducted in September and October.

Coral bleaching occurs when warmer water temperatures cause coral to expel algae living symbiotically within. The coral turns white and can die.

In the Sekiseishoko area, widespread coral bleaching occurred in 1998 and 2007. Experts warn that the phenomenon could occur more frequently if global warming progresses.

Another '70' on this front. It begins to look like half the planet's coral...
Quoting 113. barbamz:


I better go out to board up some stuff on my roof garden :-(

You better. You're absolutely under the guns of this one.
Over the next few days, warm air will be slowly building its way back across the eastern half of the U.S. The western half of the U.S. will remain below average.
The pattern appears to remain in place for the next couple weeks so the snow and ice lovers will not be happy across the eastern half of the U.S.

Continued global warming (in terms of SSTs) along with "warmer" El Ninos in the coming decades is going to take a big toll on the global reef systems in the equatorial and sub-equatorial portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Basins:


127. OKsky
Quoting 126. weathermanwannabe:

Continued global warming (in terms of SSTs) along with "warmer" El Ninos in the coming decades is going to take a big toll on the global reef systems in the equatorial and sub-equatorial portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Basins:




Continued global warming (in terms of SSTs) along with "warmer" El Ninos in the coming decades is going to take the global reef systems in the equatorial and sub-equatorial portions of the Atlantic and Pacific Basins:


FTFY
Quoting 117. daddyjames:



Well that is just a bundle of joy! I am hoping, still that the GFS wins (but not holding my breath). The local forecasts have been bouncing back and forth regarding where, when, and how bad it may be - but have been a bit more on the "this is gonna be bad" side of things. Not overhyping, mind you, just trying to make people aware.


NWS has been posting on twitter about ice:

NWS

Kansas City

WPC

NWS

Dodge City
Today's version of WU website resolves the problems of which I was aware. Thank you.
( .../tropical satellite maps corrected, and local forecast Warning seems to be live rather than random or relic )
Quoting 128. nrtiwlnvragn:



NWS has been posting on twitter about ice:

NWS

Kansas City

WPC

NWS

Dodge City


Yeah, this is the one that concerns me - as I am pretty close, if not in, the "blue" area in OK. Not good. Differs form the local forecast (at least early this morning). Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.

Quoting 113. barbamz:

(...) I better go out to board up some stuff on my roof garden :-(
Quoting 124. cRRKampen:

You better. You're absolutely under the guns of this one.

Top recorded wind gusts past 120 kilometers per hour / 75 mph in NW France by the coast, and significant values as well with regards to sustained winds:
meteo-ciel (wind gusts, real-time obs)
meteo-ciel (wind gusts, real-time obs) - NW France zoom

From Meteo-France, watches/warnings at 1800z, Jan 12 (screenshot):
. double post due to delay.
133. elioe
More Arctic warmth ahead:



But, where are all the tropical cyclones? No named storms since Dec 28. No significant tropical cyclogenesis shown by GFS or ECMWF for next 16 or 10 days. Shouldn't even some part of S Hemisphere be active by now?
Good Morning Class! Woke up to a cloudy day to start my day in San Diego County on America's Left Coast with another storm forecast for later today and Friday. It is a sad day for me as the San Diego Chargers are moving to Los Angeles.
Quoting 125. Sfloridacat5:

Over the next few days, warm air will be slowly building its way back across the eastern half of the U.S. The western half of the U.S. will remain below average.
The pattern appears to remain in place for the next couple weeks so the snow and ice lovers will not be happy across the eastern half of the U.S.




Looks the snow and ice will still be out in California and the interior western mountain states. That means more rain, snow and cooler temperatures.........bring it on!
For storm # 2 this week are early rainfall totals from NWS San Diego

Link
Quoting 133. elioe:

More Arctic warmth ahead:



But, where are all the tropical cyclones? No named storms since Dec 28. No significant tropical cyclogenesis shown by GFS or ECMWF for next 16 or 10 days. Shouldn't even some part of S Hemisphere be active by now?



Won't lie. I'm OK with warmer temps here in Michigan. Easier to run outside when it's not a frozen wasteland


Love these 1/4"-1.00" storms that have been rolling into Soo Cal with regularity in December and January. They are spaced to allow for soaking in to soils and limiting runoff.


A low pressure system will bring rain and mountain snow today. Precipitation will decrease tonight, but scattered showers are expected to continue mainly in the mountains and deserts through Friday night. Give yourself extra time for commuting today and be extra careful on the roads.

Today and tomorrow



Quoting 138. nrtiwlnvragn:

STORM SUMMARY NUMBER 20 FOR WESTERN U.S. HEAVY RAIN AND SNOW
NWS WEATHER PREDICTION CENTER COLLEGE PARK MD
700 AM PST THU JAN 12 2017


Wonder what the record number of storm summaries issued by WPC is?


I do not have an answer to your question but these are just some amazing numbers!

...SELECTED STORM TOTAL SNOWFALL IN INCHES FROM 400 PM PST FRI JAN
06 THROUGH 600 AM PST THU JAN 12...

...CALIFORNIA...
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN 180.0
HEAVENLY 144.0
SODA SPRINGS 138.0
KIRKWOOD 133.0
NORTH STAR SKI RESORT 122.0
NORTHSTAR 122.0
KINGVALE 101.0
SUGAR BOWL 98.0
SQUAW VALLEY 94.0
TAHOMA 68.0
DONNER PEAK 1 S 54.0
Quoting 140. HurricaneHunterJoe:

Today and tomorrow





Chipping away at that red drought zone.
Euro has a Real Bad LOW hitting Florida/Georgia etc around the 21-22nd of Jan...stay alert folks.......
# 142

How much snow did you end up with? Still snowing?
Quoting 103. weathermanwannabe:

Down to exceptional drought for that area means that they still need more "steady" rains at some point in the future, without one massive rain/flood event at one time, to overcome the extreme drought deficits over a span of the last five years but this will help with the short-term water needs in the Spring as the snow pack in the Sierras melts back into the reservoirs for this first half of this year.

U.S. Drought Monitor forWest






Looks like Bakersfield is not cooperating but that's okay, there is no one living there anyway!
From the Guardian:

Solar power to rise from Chernobyl's nuclear ashes

Chinese companies plan to spend $1bn building a giant solar farm on land contaminated by the nuclear disaster in Ukraine, reports Climate News Network


This power plant in Belarus another example of a solar project on the site of the Chernobyl disaster. Photograph: Viktor Drachev/TASS

It was the worst nuclear accident in history, directly causing the deaths of 50 people, with at least an additional 4,000 fatalities believed to be caused by exposure to radiation.

The 1986 explosion at the Chernobyl power plant in Ukraine also resulted in vast areas of land being contaminated by nuclear fallout, with a 30-kilometre exclusion zone, which encompassed the town of Pripyat, being declared in the area round the facility.

Now two companies from China plan to build a one-gigawatt solar power plant on 2,500 hectares of land in the exclusion zone to the south of the Chernobyl plant.

Ukrainian officials say the companies estimate they will spend up to $1bn on the project over the next two years.

A subsidiary of Golden Concord Holdings (GLC), one of China’s biggest renewable energy concerns, will supply and install solar panels at the site, while a subsidiary of the state-owned China National Machinery Corporation (Sinomach) will build and run the plant.

“It is cheap land, and abundant sunlight constitutes a solid foundation for the project,” says Ostap Semerak, Ukraine’s minister of environment and natural resources.

“In addition, the remaining electric transmission facilities are ready for reuse.”

In a press release, GLC state work on the solar plant will probably start this year and talk of the advantages of building the facility.

“There will be remarkable social benefits and economical ones as we try to renovate the once-damaged area with green and renewable energy,” says Shu Hua, chairman of the GLC subsidiary.

“We are glad that we are making joint efforts with Ukraine to rebuild the community for the local people.”

Click here to read full article.
I cannot believe that Gulf Low would have Hurricane force winds..something IS up weather wise this year.
Quoting 143. LargoFl:

Euro has a Real Bad LOW hitting Florida/Georgia etc around the 21-22nd of Jan...stay alert folks.......


That storm is in Soo Cal on the 19th ......looks to have some ooomph!
Quoting 114. TechnoCaveman:



Xyrus200,

Excellent editing. I must respectfully disagree with the first paragraph about the sun and "minimal" effects.

Maunder and Dalton minimums were caused by a lack of sunspot activity.

Here is my source: https://solarscience.msfc.nasa.gov/SunspotCycle.sh tml

Your additional two replies are helpful.

Kindly,
TechnoC.


The lack of sunspots is a side effect of a less active sun, not a cause. No, the Maunder and Dalton minimums did not cause the cooler temperatures. The slightly lower insolation did have a minor contribution, but it did not significantly cool the planet.

Both the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum occurred during the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that ran from 1300-1870. During that time period there were multiple time periods where temperatures dropped even more than the cooling trend, even when there was no solar minimum present. More recent research has linked evidence of increased periods of volcanic activity increasing atmospheric particulates and sulfur emissions to these periods of cooling. Probably one of the starkest example of this is the Tambora eruption of 1816. This resulted in the so called "Year Without Summer" and caused a global drop in temperature that took a number of years to recover from.

The solar minimum hypothesis sounds appealing because it's "just common sense". But on closer inspection it actually doesn't fit the observations. Even just looking at the past century there's practically no correlation between global temperature and solar variation.
Prettiest day of the year thus far in Wilmington, tomorrow to equal it.

I saw that Oklahoma has a wide temperature gap, 36 in the panhandle (Boise City), 72 in SW OK (Broken Bow)

Extreme difference in a very short period..... didn't change here yet....
we were in D3, D4 has backed farther away though.
Quoting 147. LargoFl:

I cannot believe that Gulf Low would have Hurricane force winds..something IS up weather wise this year.


That's too far out in time to take it serious at this point. Also, those are 850mb winds and not at the surface.
The GFS also shows a 1002 mb low around the same time period moving into northern Florida that brings in about 30 knot winds on the backside of the low as the colder air builds in.

Quoting 143. LargoFl:

Euro has a Real Bad LOW hitting Florida/Georgia etc around the 21-22nd of Jan...stay alert folks.......


With a surface low that strong so far to the south, anyone in the warm sector from me in BR all the way to Florida would be under the gun for some winter time severe weather. My favorite actually.
Quoting 147. LargoFl:

I cannot believe that Gulf Low would have Hurricane force winds..something IS up weather wise this year.

Not to mention the likely south or southeast winds at the surface. Too far out to take seriously yet, but that set up would certainly produce some nasty winter storms with a significant amount shear
Quoting 144. HurricaneHunterJoe:

# 142

How much snow did you end up with? Still snowing?

At my house, the gauge shows 3.75 inches for the event(s) which started Jan 6. That figure is probably quite low, as the bulk of the snow came in at a steep angle and blew right across the collector's opening. Another measure: I cleared the driveway 3 times - 16", 6", and 12", all fairly heavy snow. There was also the rainstorm Sunday - perhaps you heard about that. :)

Edit: Locations in Truckee closer to the crest received much more snow.
Quoting 155. BTRsquatter:


Not to mention the likely south or southeast winds at the surface. Too far out to take seriously yet, but that set up would certainly produce some nasty winter storms with a significant amount shear
yes we really need to see if this will verify by next weekend..this one could..do a little damage but..we sure do need its rain here.
Quoting 153. Sfloridacat5:



That's too far out in time to take it serious at this point. Also, those are 850mb winds and not at the surface.
The GFS also shows a 1002 mb low around the same time period moving into northern Florida that brings in about 30 knot winds on the backside of the low as the colder air builds in.


ok thanks...its been awhile since ive seen the Euro predict such a strong storm.

Getting a decent shower right now...
My area has only had a little bit of rain over the past three months. There's a high fire danger for my county (Lee County) due to the lack of precipitation. We also have 4 more months of the dry season.
Looks like sustained above average temps for almost all of the U.S. east of the rockies starting in a few days and lasting for the foreseeable future. Really liking this one:


As for the sunspotters, well........


Get used to seeing this and seeing global average temperatures continue to rise.
Quoting 151. PedleyCA:

Local TV report on California Drought


Still in zone 4 here, but 3 is creeping in. Whole back yard is a puddle this morning.
The Human induced Global Warming from burning fossil fuels to power a Global Society is quickly terra forming a new Atmosphere .

Never in the past paleo geologic record has the Planet Warmed so much, in such a short time.

We have create a new Geologic Epoch.

Welcome to the Anthropocene,







The Warming continues,,

Un-abated

Current Bakersfield CA Radar showing that rain is poised to enter San Diego County after having traversed past Orange, Riverside and Los Angeles Counties.

Quoting 134. HurricaneHunterJoe:

Good Morning Class! Woke up to a cloudy day to start my day in San Diego County on America's Left Coast with another storm forecast for later today and Friday. It is a sad day for me as the San Diego Chargers are moving to Los Angeles.


Moving "Back" to Los Angeles.....
Ice ages, dark ages, the space age, the computer age, the stupid age, the age of destruction.....
Quoting 133. elioe:

More Arctic warmth ahead:



But, where are all the tropical cyclones? No named storms since Dec 28. No significant tropical cyclogenesis shown by GFS or ECMWF for next 16 or 10 days. Shouldn't even some part of S Hemisphere be active by now?

No can buy that North Pole anomaly.
Lalala, clap ears. I will not accept this will verify. Seriously, it can't, not even in July. Yet.
Quote:


166. washingaway
7:08 PM GMT on January 12, 2017
0 +
Ice ages, dark ages, the space age, the computer age, the stupid age, the age of destruction.....


Reply:

Earth is an interesting Planet...
From the hills of south Salem, Oregon current conditions are 30 degrees and bright and sunny. We got less than 2 inches of heavy wet snow, nothing like the foot of snow they got up in Portland 40 miles north of here. Portland is basically shut down for the 2nd day in a row but they should be able to catch up on the snow removal today. It was warm enough Wednesday that the well traveled roads are clear of snow with some spots of black ice here and there. The temperature will remain below freezing until Saturday and the snow is nice and crunchy now and rather pretty in the bright sunlight. East of the Cascade Mountains they've had a lot of snow. A building collapsed in Bend and there are snow banks up to 8 feet high along the roads in places.

I remember a year back in the later 1970s a year when we had an incredible amount of snow in the Cascades. The ski areas had to remove snow from places under the chair lifts so skiers wouldn't whack their heads on the skis of people riding the lifts. The snow along the road up to Mt. Bachelor was over 20 feet deep with straight up walls and it was like driving through a big hallway. I did a lot of skiing that year into June.

Added: Currently at Mt. Bachelor west of Bend they have 110 inches of packed snow and over 300 inches of snowfall since October 1.
Quoting 168. 1982ExxonPrimate:

Quote:


166. washingaway
7:08 PM GMT on January 12, 2017
0 +
Ice ages, dark ages, the space age, the computer age, the stupid age, the age of destruction.....


Reply:

Earth is an interesting Planet...

Yeah, ain't it though. Never a dull moment.
From Media Matters for America:

Five Key Climate Takeaways From The Rex Tillerson Confirmation Hearing



Secretary of state nominee and former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 11. Tillerson is already under fire for making the seemingly false claim that Exxon has not lobbied against sanctions on Russia and other nations that would affect Exxon’s business dealings, but here are five other climate change-related takeaways that reporters should keep in mind in their coverage of the hearing and Tillerson nomination going forward.

1. Tillerson distorted climate change science … again.

As researchers at Harvard and MIT have documented, Tillerson has falsely claimed in the past that the temperature record “really hadn’t changed” over the previous decade and repeatedly made scientifically inaccurate claims “seeking to sow doubt about the reliability of climate models.”

Tillerson again wrongly cast doubt on climate models during the confirmation hearing. When asked by Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) whether climate change is caused by human activities, Tillerson replied that the “increase in the greenhouse gas concentrations in the atmosphere are having an effect,” but that “our ability to predict that effect is very limited.”

Video Link

In reality, “climate models have proven themselves reliable in predicting long-term global surface temperature changes,” as The Guardian’s Dana Nuccitelli has noted. Indeed, in remarks to Mashable responding to Tillerson’s comments, Pennsylvania State University climate scientist Michael Mann similarly said, "Climate models have proven extremely skillful in predicting the warming that has already been observed.” And David Titley, the former head of the Navy's climate change task force, explained, “The ability of climate scientists to predict the future is significantly more skillful than many other professions (economics, intelligence, political science) who try and predict the future."

As Texas Tech University climate researcher Katherine Hayhoe told Mashable, climate projections of emissions scenarios are “based on physics and chemistry, the fundamentals of which have been understood” since the 1850s.

Click here to read more.

Windstorm Egon on radar (saved), with its windfield now moving inland and approaching Paris. Source and updating loop.

Highest gusts in the last hour (km/h) with 133 kmh at the tip of Britanny and now more than 100 kmh near Paris.
Edit: Now on twitter reports of gusts nearly at 150km in Dieppe (coast of Normandy)!


You can see cold (orange/purple) air in the wake of Egon. There are reports of rare snowfall at the southern coast of England.

Pressure now down to 982mb in the center and falling. Updating map.
Quoting 171. Xandra:

From Media Matters for America:

Five Key Climate Takeaways From The Rex Tillerson Confirmation Hearing



Secretary of state nominee and former ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson testified before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on January 11. Tillerson is already under fire for making the seemingly false claim that Exxon has not lobbied against sanctions on Russia and other nations that would affect Exxon’s business dealings, but here are five other climate change-related takeaways that reporters should keep in mind in their coverage of the hearing and Tillerson nomination going forward.

1. Tillerson distorted climate change science … again.



Well, at least he met our expectations in that regards.
Protests In Mexico Push Country To Brink Of Revolution And Nobody's Talking About It

The U.S. media has remained mostly mute on the situation in Mexico, even as the unfolding civil unrest has closed the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego, California, several times in the past week. Ongoing %u201Cgasolinazo%u201D protests in Mexico over a 20 percent rise is gas prices have led to over 400 arrests, 250 looted stores, and six deaths. Roads are being blockaded, borders closed, and government buildings are being sacked. Protests have remained relatively peaceful overall, except for several isolated violent acts, which activists have blamed on government infiltrators.
Quoting 138. nrtiwlnvragn:

STORM SUMMARY NUMBER 20 FOR WESTERN U.S. HEAVY RAIN AND SNOW
NWS WEATHER PREDICTION CENTER COLLEGE PARK MD
700 AM PST THU JAN 12 2017


Wonder what the record number of storm summaries issued by WPC is?


Holy snowmoly! (just a sampling):

...SELECTED STORM TOTAL SNOWFALL IN INCHES FROM 400 PM PST FRI JAN 06 THROUGH 600 AM PST THU JAN 12...

...CALIFORNIA...
MAMMOTH MOUNTAIN 180.0
HEAVENLY 144.0
SODA SPRINGS 138.0
KIRKWOOD 133.0
NORTH STAR SKI RESORT 122.0
NORTHSTAR 122.0
KINGVALE 101.0

...COLORADO...
CRESTED BUTTE 6.2 N 51.0
PITKIN 1.1 SW 37.0
SILVERTHORNE 2.1 WSW 36.5

...IDAHO...
KETCHUM 22 NW 71.4
PRESTON 20 NE 64.5
LAVA HOT SPRINGS 10 SSE 62.8
STANLEY 28 E 50.2
HAILEY 21 ENE 46.1

...NEVADA...
MOUNT ROSE SKI RESORT 116.0
INCLINE VILLAGE 1 NNW 48.0

...WYOMING...
ENCAMPMENT 10 WSW 70.5
ARLINGTON 5 NW 69.0
JACKSON 8 WNW 58.0
177. bwi
68F or 20C at DCA this hour. Very nice to ride to work in shorts today after last week's cold snap.

Looking forward to some lousy bike weather this weekend. Snow and sleet are fine (even fun!), but freezing rain is a no-go.
Flood Advisory
Flood Advisory
National Weather Service San Diego CA
1102 AM PST THU JAN 12 2017

CAC059-065-071-130000-
/O.NEW.KSGX.FA.Y.0002.170112T1902Z-170113T0000Z/
/00000.N.ER.000000T0000Z.000000T0000Z.000000T0000 Z.OO/
Orange CA-San Bernardino CA-Riverside CA-
1102 AM PST THU JAN 12 2017

The National Weather Service in San Diego has issued a

* Urban and Small Stream Flood Advisory for...
Orange County in southwestern California...
San Bernardino County in southern California...
Riverside County in southern California...

* Until 400 PM PST

* At 1100 AM PST, Doppler radar indicated moderate to heavy rain
that will likely cause urban and small stream flooding in portions
of Orange county, the northwest part of the Inland Empire, the
Cajon Pass and lower coastal slopes of the San Bernardino county
mountains. Rainfall amounts of 2 to 3 tenths of an inch in 30
minutes have been reported under the heavier showers. Moderate to
locally heavy rain will likely continue through the afternoon.

* Some locations that will likely experience flooding include...
Anaheim, Santa Ana, Riverside, Irvine, San Bernardino, Fontana,
Huntington Beach, Garden Grove, Ontario, Corona, Orange, Fullerton,
Costa Mesa, Rialto and Mission Viejo.
Quoting 174. RitaEvac:

Protests In Mexico Push Country To Brink Of Revolution And Nobody's Talking About It

The U.S. media has remained mostly mute on the situation in Mexico, even as the unfolding civil unrest has closed the U.S.-Mexico border in San Diego, California, several times in the past week. Ongoing %u201Cgasolinazo%u201D protests in Mexico over a 20 percent rise is gas prices have led to over 400 arrests, 250 looted stores, and six deaths. Roads are being blockaded, borders closed, and government buildings are being sacked. Protests have remained relatively peaceful overall, except for several isolated violent acts, which activists have blamed on government infiltrators.

This is just the begining. You know who is going to economically destroy Mexico. What he fails to realize is it will spill over to America. People can use ladders, lefts, tunnels, or go around a wall. And don't even get me started on a trade war with China. Nice weather here today.
Quoting 151. PedleyCA:

Local TV report on California Drought

I wonder how that is reflected in the state of the Central Valley aquifer, though -- there isn't much room in it for recharge, since the ground settled about 40 feet to replace the withdrawn water. Where will the water come from for the next drought?
About to drop below freezing in S C IL, pressure up to 30.2" as NW winds push the front further S, avg'ing 8mph & showing 22 gust, but that's been there a while. StL was 71 yesterday, but while warmer than Tues by 3, was short of record by 3. (Tues tied the all time high).

Any newer runs on ice potential? We're on edge of StL & Lincoln forecasts, & so far Lincoln not saying much yet about accumulation to our N. Looks like 1/4" range from previous ones, as we're on NE edge tomorrow & SE edge Sat-Sun, but...doesn't take much to change. Hope for a little snow first, helps traction a little, insulates a little too.

Edit: ask and ye shall receive, thanks Keep!

Edit2: Post-Dispatch just updated StL NWS forecast too. Now in the 1/4-1/2" range and not really on edge as much, little touchier. At least the winds are still forecast to stay at or below 10mph :)
San Diego 2016 Weather in review from NWS San Diego Forecasters and Spotters. Has some interesting stuff and I always thought San Diego was sunny and 77 degrees all year round.

Link
Quoting 183. HurricaneHunterJoe:

San Diego 2016 Weather in review from NWS San Diego Forecasters and Spotters

Link
San Diego has weather? ;)
185. elioe
Quoting 167. cRRKampen:


No can buy that North Pole anomaly.
Lalala, clap ears. I will not accept this will verify. Seriously, it can't, not even in July. Yet.


Actually, it's pretty similar to the setup on December 30, 2015, as seen in this figure from here:



Compare with latest GFS:

Republicans want to fight climate change, but fossil-fuel bullies won’t let them

Talking to my Senate Republican colleagues about climate change is like talking to prisoners about escaping. The conversations are often private, even furtive. One told me, “Let’s keep talking, but you can’t let my staff know.”

So that is how PensacolaDoug really feels ;)
In Brittany and Normandy already 125.000 customers lost power due to windstorm Egon (source).
Still calm at my place Mainz, and I hit the cushions early now to get some sleep before the noise sets in. Unfortunately I've got a meeting early tomorrow - if my collegues will make it to town ;-)
So: good night!
Quote:

87. RobertWC
12:12 PM GMT on January 12, 2017

The filth they breathe in China

Winter has returned to northern China. And so has the country's trademark, deadly smog.

The central government recently declared its first-ever national red alert for air quality, with pollution levels hovering over 12 times the level recommended by the World Health Organization. Indeed, China's unprecedented growth has come at a horrific social cost that is just beginning to get serious attention. The political leadership of China, like Japan and South Korea before it, put economic growth far above environmental protection or health concerns, and the country now faces a catastrophically polluted countryside. Nearly all aspects of China's environment are affected, and the true economic and health effects are only now becoming apparent.

Link

Reply:

From this unintended consequence should the loss of industry from the USA in the Eighty's and Ninety's be reexamined as a social cost: wages vs. pollution...
Don't know how the server migration went but welcome to the "other side"............................................. ....
Quoting 145. JNFlori30A:

Looks like Bakersfield is not cooperating but that's okay, there is no one living there anyway!


History is ironic; many of the folks who populated Bakersfield in the 30's and 40's (and their descendants there today) were folks fleeing the dust bowl in Oklahoma.......................................... ....
Thanks to ScottLincoln for that link in 40, really neat for the little exploring I've done of it so far!

On that note, Quaz, don't forget that even if salt is helping the roads, if its cold enough, your wipers will start freezing too. If you can, I'd get as close as possible today.
Quoting 189. 1982ExxonPrimate:

...wages vs. pollution...


More like jobs vs. pollution. Coal miner's job and those associated with it are more important than the environment. Actually, it's the profits from coal that matter the most. Sad
Quoting 180. CaneFreeCR:

I wonder how that is reflected in the state of the Central Valley aquifer, though -- there isn't much room in it for recharge, since the ground settled about 40 feet to replace the withdrawn water. Where will the water come from for the next drought?


Wherever we can beg, borrow or steal it!
Quoting 191. weathermanwannabe:



History is ironic; many of the folks who populated Bakersfield in the 30's and 40's (and their descendants there today) were folks fleeing the dust bowl in Oklahoma.......................................... ....


Like the Joads
Quoting 115. Patrap:

One can disagree all day, but you're wrong.

Science is above the din of lack of knowledge.


Twentieth century climate and solar variations. ... Thus, although fluctuations in the amount of solar energy reaching our atmosphere do influence our climate, the global warming trend of the past six decades cannot be attributed to changes in the sun (see Figure 2).





Not discounting the C02, just part of the graph.
From the graph it looks like the sun contributes very little energy. As if to say " turn off the sun, the earth will still be warm "
I disagree with that. The Sun does not contribute to global warning as a component but it drives the whole weather system. Not just at 3 watts, not 15 watts per sq meter but "164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day" Source: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html

If the sun puts out less, the climate will cool. This has happened before. Source: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/
Quoting 149. Xyrus2000:



The lack of sunspots is a side effect of a less active sun, not a cause. No, the Maunder and Dalton minimums did not cause the cooler temperatures. The slightly lower insolation did have a minor contribution, but it did not significantly cool the planet.

Both the Maunder Minimum and Dalton Minimum occurred during the Little Ice Age, a period of cooling that ran from 1300-1870. During that time period there were multiple time periods where temperatures dropped even more than the cooling trend, even when there was no solar minimum present. More recent research has linked evidence of increased periods of volcanic activity increasing atmospheric particulates and sulfur emissions to these periods of cooling. Probably one of the starkest example of this is the Tambora eruption of 1816. This resulted in the so called "Year Without Summer" and caused a global drop in temperature that took a number of years to recover from.

The solar minimum hypothesis sounds appealing because it's "just common sense". But on closer inspection it actually doesn't fit the observations. Even just looking at the past century there's practically no correlation between global temperature and solar variation.


Yes other volcanic eruptions did cause the "year without a summer" but NASA disagrees on the maunder minimum and sun spots. "A new NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a "Little Ice Age" in several regions including North America and Europe. Changes in the sun's energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution." (Source:https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20 011206/)

Green house gases have done more to raise earths temprature because the sun has remained constant. Thermal inertia keeps the planet stable between one cycles. However we might miss a cycle.

Missing a cycle will influence temprature and cloud cover. It will not fix green house gases. I doubt it will fix the earth's warming. Its effect will be large - in my opinion.
Quoting 193. washingaway:


More like jobs vs. pollution. Coal miner's job and those associated with it are more important than the environment. Actually, it's the profits from coal that matter the most. Sad


Yeah, even with increased mining, very little jobs will come back. Self-driving trucks and trains anyone?:

Study shows 96% of some mining jobs can be automated

Robotics, driverless tech are taking over mining jobs

Report: Mining a Mirage? Reassessing the shared-value paradigm in light of the technological advances in the mining sector (opens a pdf)

Quoting 180. CaneFreeCR:

I wonder how that is reflected in the state of the Central Valley aquifer, though -- there isn't much room in it for recharge, since the ground settled about 40 feet to replace the withdrawn water. Where will the water come from for the next drought?


Hopefully just by dirt and rock falling/moving underground, there will still be areas with storage capability. There must be a way to add runoff handling capability and use that runoff via pipeline delivery to areas underground to recharge aquifers. You would put a whole lotta drillers to work! Using some kind of radar/sonar type system to find the now dry storage areas that have not dropped or caved in. Don't put the water in too deep so it can still self filter and cleanse using natural material in the ground.
Quoting 189. 1982ExxonPrimate:

Quote:

87. RobertWC
12:12 PM GMT on January 12, 2017

The filth they breathe in China



Reply:

From this unintended consequence should the loss of industry from the USA in the Eighty's and Ninety's be reexamined as a social cost: wages vs. pollution...



More like , China made a very bad bet that 19th century model we used would carry them into 21 st century. Given the numbers they were trying to lift, they had little choice back then . I can remember saying decades ago , " Every morning nearly a Billion people in China get up and ride a bicycle to work ".

It was one thing to spew coal smoke in English midlands in 1850. It was another to spew it into valleys of Penn. in the 1880's. But to pull that rabbit out of the hat one more time with over a Billion people. Well it's looking more and more like they just came up with hand full fur, and no rabbit.
Really enjoying this mild January day. I have been opposed to shipping jobs overseas for cheap labor for decades. But that ship has sailed. Whether we like it or not, we are in a global economy. If we try to just take it all back there will be serious consequences. The days of the mom & pop hardware and retail stores are all but gone. Cheap Chinese goods and Walmarts are (sadly) a part of our economy now (as is low wages here in America). I don't have the answers, but that doesn't mean I can't see the problem.
Storm # 2 this week is inbound to San Diego County.........the wife reports raining in Temecula about 25 miles ENE of the humble abode.




PS...........Just started raining on the olde homestead!....... Bring it on and for many hours! Forecasters/Models calling for about a 1 week break to dry out and then a possible good sized/strong storm next week/weekend.
Quoting 200. HurricaneHunterJoe:



Hopefully just by dirt and rock falling/moving underground, there will still be areas with storage capability. There must be a way to add runoff handling capability and use that runoff via pipeline delivery to areas underground to recharge aquifers. You would put a whole lotta drillers to work! Using some kind of radar/sonar type system to find the now dry storage areas that have not dropped or caved in.


That's not how it works . Think of the dough in a loaf of yeast bread , and all those tiny holes filled with Co2 , now think of them filled with water . Once the water is removed , the voids are gone , the sponge loses volume. It's not coming back.

Quoting 200. HurricaneHunterJoe:



Hopefully just by dirt and rock falling/moving underground, there will still be areas with storage capability. There must be a way to add runoff handling capability and use that runoff via pipeline delivery to areas underground to recharge aquifers. You would put a whole lotta drillers to work! Using some kind of radar/sonar type system to find the now dry storage areas that have not dropped or caved in.


Subsidence hasn't been ubiquitous and where it has been occurring it isn't uniform. I haven't heard of 40 feet of subsidence as a result of the recent drought? The worst areas have been around 1ft/yr over the last 5 years. Mendota experienced dramatic subsidence in the 70's but there is a maximum limit to how much subsidence can even occur. Subsidence only occurs when removing the water filled pore space from clay layers, other soil layers do not compress as a result of groundwater pumping and therefore can be recharged. One reason why the mendota area hasn't been subsiding in the recent drought is because it has effectively reached the limits of its subsidence for current pumping depths.

As for getting water back in the ground many ground water banks are in existence and are currently being designed (in fact i am working on developing 5 new ones) to recharge the shallow aquifer and because there are so many wells drilled there really isn't a such thing as a confining layer anymore i.e. the corcoran clay layer, so deep percolation can be achieved by surface recharge in most cases. Injection wells are also utilized to aid in deep recharge. There are millions of acre-feet of storage potential in the shallow aquifers alone.
206. bwi
Another big storm progged for the Atlantic side of the Arctic






Quoting 204. RobertWC:



That's not how it works . Think of the dough in a loaf of yeast bread , and all those tiny holes filled with Co2 , now think of them filled with water . Once the water is removed , the voids are gone , the sponge loses volume. It's not coming back.




This statement is accurate for clay soils only.
Lets just say, not exactly what I was hoping for - up to 1 inch now in the graphic, 0.5 inch in the statement. Which is it gonna be? :O



URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NORMAN OK
256 PM CST THU JAN 12 2017

OKZ004>020-131115-
/O.UPG.KOUN.WS.A.0001.170113T1200Z-170115T1200Z/
/O.NEW.KOUN.IS.W.0001.170113T1200Z-170115T1200Z/
HARPER-WOODS-ALFALFA-GRANT-KAY-ELLIS-WOODWARD-MAJ OR-GARFIELD-NOBLE-ROGER MILLS-DEWEY-CUSTER-BLAINE-KINGFISHER-LOGAN-PAYNE-I NCLUDING THE CITIES OF...BUFFALO...LAVERNE...ALVA...CHEROKEE...
HELENA...CARMEN...MEDFORD...POND CREEK...LAMONT...WAKITA...PONCA CITY...BLACKWELL...SHATTUCK...ARNETT... GAGE...FARGO...WOODWARD...FAIRVIEW...ENID...PERRY. ..CHEYENNE...HAMMON...SEILING...VICI...TALOGA...LE EDEY...WEATHERFORD...CLINTON...WATONGA...GEARY...O KEENE...KINGFISHER...HENNESSEY...OKARCHE...GUTHRIE ...STILLWATER

256 PM CST THU JAN 12 2017

...ICE STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM FRIDAY TO 6 AM CST SUNDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN NORMAN HAS ISSUED AN ICE STORM WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM FRIDAY TO 6 AM CST SUNDAY.

THE WINTER STORM WATCH IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.

* TIMING...EARLY FRIDAY MORNING THROUGH EARLY SUNDAY

* ICE ACCUMULATIONS...ICE ACCUMULATIONS OF ONE-QUARTER TO ONE-HALF INCH. THE HEAVIEST ACCUMULATIONS ARE EXPECTED SATURDAY.

* WINDS...NORTH WIND AROUND 10 MPH

* OTHER IMPACTS...ICE ACCUMULATIONS BY SATURDAY MAY BE ENOUGH TO CAUSE POWER OUTAGES. BRIDGES...
OVERPASSES... AND SECONDARY ROADS MAY BECOME SLICK AND HAZARDOUS... ESPECIALLY ON FRIDAY
INTO EARLY SATURDAY.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

BE CAREFUL IF YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL. EVEN SMALL AMOUNTS OF ICE CAN MAKE ROADS AND SIDEWALKS SLICK.
Quoting 205. civEngineer:



Subsidence hasn't been ubiquitous and where it has been occurring it isn't uniform. I haven't heard of 40 feet of subsidence as a result of the recent drought? The worst areas have been around 1ft/yr over the last 5 years. Mendota experienced dramatic subsidence in the 70's but there is a maximum limit to how much subsidence can even occur. Subsidence only occurs when removing the water filled pore space from clay layers, other soil layers do not compress as a result of groundwater pumping and therefore can be recharged. One reason why the mendota area hasn't been subsiding in the recent drought is because it has effectively reached the limits of its subsidence for current pumping depths.

As for getting water back in the ground many ground water banks are in existence and are currently being designed (in fact i am working on developing 5 new ones) to recharge the shallow aquifer and because there are so many wells drilled there really isn't a such thing as a confining layer anymore i.e. the corcoran clay layer, so deep percolation can be achieved by surface recharge in most cases. Injection wells are also utilized to aid in deep recharge. There are millions of acre-feet of storage potential in the shallow aquifers alone.


Great info! Thank you!
Quoting 208. daddyjames:

Lets just say, not exactly what I was hoping for - up to 1 inch now in the graphic, 0.5 inch in the statement. Which is it gonna be? :O



URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NORMAN OK
256 PM CST THU JAN 12 2017

OKZ004>020-131115-
/O.UPG.KOUN.WS.A.0001.170113T1200Z-170115T1200Z/
/O.NEW.KOUN.IS.W.0001.170113T1200Z-170115T1200Z/
HARPER-WOODS-ALFALFA-GRANT-KAY-ELLIS-WOODWARD-MAJ OR-GARFIELD-NOBLE-ROGER MILLS-DEWEY-CUSTER-BLAINE-KINGFISHER-LOGAN-PAYNE-I NCLUDING THE CITIES OF...BUFFALO...LAVERNE...ALVA...CHEROKEE...
HELENA...CARMEN...MEDFORD...POND CREEK...LAMONT...WAKITA...PONCA CITY...BLACKWELL...SHATTUCK...ARNETT... GAGE...FARGO...WOODWARD...FAIRVIEW...ENID...PERRY. ..CHEYENNE...HAMMON...SEILING...VICI...TALOGA...LE EDEY...WEATHERFORD...CLINTON...WATONGA...GEARY...O KEENE...KINGFISHER...HENNESSEY...OKARCHE...GUTHRIE ...STILLWATER

256 PM CST THU JAN 12 2017

...ICE STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM FRIDAY TO 6 AM CST SUNDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN NORMAN HAS ISSUED AN ICE STORM WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM FRIDAY TO 6 AM CST SUNDAY.

THE WINTER STORM WATCH IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.

* TIMING...EARLY FRIDAY MORNING THROUGH EARLY SUNDAY

* ICE ACCUMULATIONS...ICE ACCUMULATIONS OF ONE-QUARTER TO ONE-HALF INCH. THE HEAVIEST ACCUMULATIONS ARE EXPECTED SATURDAY.

* WINDS...NORTH WIND AROUND 10 MPH

* OTHER IMPACTS...ICE ACCUMULATIONS BY SATURDAY MAY BE ENOUGH TO CAUSE POWER OUTAGES. BRIDGES...
OVERPASSES... AND SECONDARY ROADS MAY BECOME SLICK AND HAZARDOUS... ESPECIALLY ON FRIDAY
INTO EARLY SATURDAY.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

BE CAREFUL IF YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL. EVEN SMALL AMOUNTS OF ICE CAN MAKE ROADS AND SIDEWALKS SLICK.



The only good news there is that they have lowered the amounts down from 1" possible? Don't want to even think about that possibility, 1/4-1/2 will be BAD ENOUGH!
Quoting 207. civEngineer:



This statement is accurate for clay soils only.
I'm not a soils scientist but I'm not sure that's true. The water does support the ground above it when it has nowhere to go under pressure, as when it is essentially a former lake bottom with deposited mountain debris on top of it. While the water is there the debris in it is supported partially by the displacement of water, and when that water is removed the support goes with it. Unless the particles are hard enough to resist crushing and are fully in contact with each other, the "sponge" is going to compress and the interstices won't expand again when recharge occurs, if it even does.
205. civEngineer

Thanks for posting a clearly superior answer right after me. This is a big topic, and since your are working on this, I have question .
I have read that the land North of Lake Okeechobee , has dropped by about 8 ft. Because it was so "spongey" from all the organic matter before modern Ag. started pumping there.

I was born over Ogallala, Many years ago I got a contract to print stickers for center pivots going to Saudi Arabia. They ran through that plan pretty fast . I'm no expert, but that's not my turnip truck parked out front either.
213. OKsky
Quoting 191. weathermanwannabe:



History is ironic; many of the folks who populated Bakersfield in the 30's and 40's (and their descendants there today) were folks fleeing the dust bowl in Oklahoma.......................................... ....


My 90+ year old grandma still has a twin that lives in Bakersfield, so at least one of the originals are still there. ;)
Quoting 207. civEngineer:



This statement is accurate for clay soils only.


And that would be the subsurface of the Central Valley in California ? And not the formations in Nebraska, or Plainview , Texas ?
Quoting 211. CaneFreeCR:

I'm not a soils scientist but I'm not sure that's true. The water does support the ground above it when it has nowhere to go under pressure, as when it is essentially a former lake bottom with deposited mountain debris on top of it. While the water is there the debris in it is supported partially by the displacement of water, and when that water is removed the support goes with it. Unless the particles are hard enough to resist crushing and are fully in contact with each other, the "sponge" is going to compress and the interstices won't expand again when recharge occurs, if it even does.


Correct water will support loading, as you state, when it has no where to go. When it is not in a confined clay layer it has somewhere to go. Only clays are sealed off tightly enough that it will become impermeable to water molecules other soils will allow the water to move and it will find its way around and fluctuate with the water table. If this wasn't the case you would not be able to pump groundwater at all, it must flow through the soil to get to the pump.
As the geologists say ................ "The formations are discontinuous :.

From a Scribbler -

Six years ago, Don Cameron, the general manager of Terranova Ranch, southwest of Fresno, Calif., did something that seemed kind of crazy.

He went out to a nearby river, which was running high because of recent rains, and he opened an irrigation gate. Water rushed down a canal and flooded hundreds of acres of vineyards — even though it was wintertime. The vineyards were quiet. Nothing was growing.

“We started in February, and we flooded grapes continuously, for the most part, until May,” Cameron says.

Cameron was doing this because for years, he and his neighbors have been using digging wells and pumping water out of the ground to irrigate their crops. That groundwater supply has been running low. “I became really concerned about it,” Cameron says.

So his idea was pretty simple: Flood his fields and let gravity do the rest. Water would seep into the ground all the way to the aquifer.


Link
Quoting 212. RobertWC:

205. civEngineer

Thanks for posting a clearly superior answer right after me. This is a big topic, and since your are working on this, I have question .
I have read that the land North of Lake Okeechobee , has dropped by about 8 ft. Because it was so "spongey" from all the organic matter before modern Ag. started pumping there.

I was born over Ogallala, Many years ago I got a contract to print stickers for center pivots going to Saudi Arabia. They ran through that plan pretty fast . I'm no expert, but that's not my turnip truck parked out front either.

I am not certain or familiar with Florida but I could reason that the spongey organic peat-like material is probably compressing under its own weight and because it is drying out due in the lack of water like a sponge when it dries, but subsidence occurs in non expansive soils.

It is true that some clays are expansive and shrink when they get wet/dry but subsidence is cause by a different process.
Quoting 199. daddyjames:



Yeah, even with increased mining, very little jobs will come back. Self-driving trucks and trains anyone?:

Study shows 96% of some mining jobs can be automated

Robotics, driverless tech are taking over mining jobs

Report: Mining a Mirage? Reassessing the shared-value paradigm in light of the technological advances in the mining sector (opens a pdf)



Yeah, we seem to be making ourselves obsolete. But without jobs, no one will have money to buy stuff. Not sure how that will pan out? Hungry people will take extreme measures. And, machines don't pay taxes, people do.
Quoting 210. HurricaneHunterJoe:



The only good news there is that they have lowered the amounts down from 1" possible? Don't want to even think about that possibility, 1/4-1/2 will be BAD ENOUGH!


Actually, the graphic raised it to 1". :D.

The forecast has always been around 0.5 more or less. Hoping or less . . . ;)
Quoting 214. RobertWC:



And that would be the subsurface of the Central Valley in California ? And not the formations in Nebraska, or Plainview , Texas ?


It would be anywhere that you were pumping water out of confined clay layers. The geological process that have formed the central valley are very different than the great plains. Essentially the valley has been a bowl filling in over the eons with sediment eroded from the mountains. Over the course of time depending on whether it was a wet year or dry year the valley itself may have been like a slow moving lake dropping silt or it had relatively fast moving meandering streams dropping sand layers criss-crossing it. So we have alternating layers of sandy material and clayey material resulting in confined aquifers and trapped water. Not to many areas in the world have been formed this way and perhaps none on the same scale.
Quoting 218. civEngineer:


I am not certain or familiar with Florida but I could reason that the spongey organic peat-like material is probably compressing under its own weight and because it is drying out due in the lack of water like a sponge when it dries, but subsidence occurs in non expansive soils.

It is true that some clays are expansive and shrink when they get wet/dry but subsidence is cause by a different process.


Its a combination of physical and chemical processes. The organic material also decomposes - essentially it rots away. While saturated, under water, the process is anaerobic and does not happen very fast. Draining of the organic soil exposes it to oxygen which ramps up the degradation of the organic material - often measured by the release of, you guessed it, CO2.
Snow Acts as a Magical Balm in an Anxious Turkey Many beautiful photographs inside. Snow fell in different events from January 6-10. The heaviest in Istanbul since 2009. The New York Times article says over a foot--a different article from a British news site said 46" (117 cm). That seems awfully high--46 cm (18") seems more reasonable, but I don't know. There was one roof collapse that was fatal--with 46" of snow I'd expect to see a lot of roof collapses in a metropolis that doesn't get heavy snow often.

I just asked Christopher Burt on his weatherhistorian blog about Istanbul snows--if anyone can find out, he can!
Quoting 208. daddyjames:

Lets just say, not exactly what I was hoping for - up to 1 inch now in the graphic, 0.5 inch in the statement. Which is it gonna be? :O



URGENT - WINTER WEATHER MESSAGE
NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE NORMAN OK
256 PM CST THU JAN 12 2017

OKZ004>020-131115-
/O.UPG.KOUN.WS.A.0001.170113T1200Z-170115T1200Z/
/O.NEW.KOUN.IS.W.0001.170113T1200Z-170115T1200Z/
HARPER-WOODS-ALFALFA-GRANT-KAY-ELLIS-WOODWARD-MAJ OR-GARFIELD-NOBLE-ROGER MILLS-DEWEY-CUSTER-BLAINE-KINGFISHER-LOGAN-PAYNE-I NCLUDING THE CITIES OF...BUFFALO...LAVERNE...ALVA...CHEROKEE...
HELENA...CARMEN...MEDFORD...POND CREEK...LAMONT...WAKITA...PONCA CITY...BLACKWELL...SHATTUCK...ARNETT... GAGE...FARGO...WOODWARD...FAIRVIEW...ENID...PERRY. ..CHEYENNE...HAMMON...SEILING...VICI...TALOGA...LE EDEY...WEATHERFORD...CLINTON...WATONGA...GEARY...O KEENE...KINGFISHER...HENNESSEY...OKARCHE...GUTHRIE ...STILLWATER

256 PM CST THU JAN 12 2017

...ICE STORM WARNING IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM FRIDAY TO 6 AM CST SUNDAY...

THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE IN NORMAN HAS ISSUED AN ICE STORM WARNING...WHICH IS IN EFFECT FROM 6 AM FRIDAY TO 6 AM CST SUNDAY.

THE WINTER STORM WATCH IS NO LONGER IN EFFECT.

* TIMING...EARLY FRIDAY MORNING THROUGH EARLY SUNDAY

* ICE ACCUMULATIONS...ICE ACCUMULATIONS OF ONE-QUARTER TO ONE-HALF INCH. THE HEAVIEST ACCUMULATIONS ARE EXPECTED SATURDAY.

* WINDS...NORTH WIND AROUND 10 MPH

* OTHER IMPACTS...ICE ACCUMULATIONS BY SATURDAY MAY BE ENOUGH TO CAUSE POWER OUTAGES. BRIDGES...
OVERPASSES... AND SECONDARY ROADS MAY BECOME SLICK AND HAZARDOUS... ESPECIALLY ON FRIDAY
INTO EARLY SATURDAY.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...

BE CAREFUL IF YOU HAVE TO TRAVEL. EVEN SMALL AMOUNTS OF ICE CAN MAKE ROADS AND SIDEWALKS SLICK.

Ice storm warning! (unpublishable word)
This morning's graphic for comparison to the one you posted...


dj,
I have taken this blog off ignore to post this comment.

As you can see, Stillwater (is) in line for a half inch of ice, and maybe more. Good part is it will melt by Sunday. Bad part is power lines, even mainlines across N OK will be down by then. Gonna weather Mom you again: If there's anything you need before Sunday eve, best get it by this evening. And please prepare for a prolonged power outage.
Thank you
:)
(edit: redundancy and bold)
Great discussion on groundwater and subsidence. In case anyone's interested, here are some easy-to-understand links on the subject:

USGS - Groundwater Depletion (basic intro from the USGS Water Science School webpage - loads of other info there too, including their page Land Subsidence, which also has loads of links on groundwater pumping and subsidence)

Land Subsidence in California (also USGS, California Water Science Center)

New NASA data show how the world is running out of water (Washington Post, from 2015)

Groundwater resources around the world could be depleted by 2050s (from phys.org, December 2016)

BTW, anyone remember the GOP efforts in the mid-90s to do away with the USGS? Kasich, if I recall correctly.
And I will WeatherAunt you too- meds! first aid kit! toilet paper! Kitty litter!
aqua, you left out chocolate bars, coffee and ice cream.
;)
Quoting 228. BaltimoreBrian:

Snow Acts as a Magical Balm in an Anxious Turkey Many beautiful photographs inside. Snow fell in different events from January 6-10. The heaviest in Istanbul since 2009. The New York Times article says over a foot--a different article from a British news site said 46" (117 cm). That seems awfully high--46 cm (18") seems more reasonable, but I don't know.


BB ......... Hills, winds, and mountains. Topography ................ it really matters with snow , it floats . I've seen other comments today about numbers and snow.
Example :
*86 inches on top, and 110 inches in the valley " ????

On top of the mountain the wind speeds are blowing this very . very light form of water . When wind speeds drop , it finally falls out of the sky.

By the way , it snowed an inch here last week , some of the most light fluffy stuff I've seen in years.
It took me back to the Unitas , where a snow flake was an 1 inch across.

There are fifty grades of snow. At least that's what the Inuit say. They have words for snow. They have zero word for Robins.
I haven't checked their graphics since this morning, but by WPC probs then, this ice swath depicted across N OK could end up very bad as it stretches on into SE KS and MO.

One more Norman graphic, deeje, along with hopes you don't see more than 0.25". Take care!
I always liked the "Bro Man".
Quoting 103. weathermanwannabe:

Down to exceptional drought for that area means that they still need more "steady" rains at some point in the future, without one massive rain/flood event at one time, to overcome the extreme drought deficits over a span of the last five years but this will help with the short-term water needs in the Spring as the snow pack in the Sierras melts back into the reservoirs for this first half of this year.

U.S. Drought Monitor forWest






Beautiful sight, that graphic.
Quoting 197. TechnoCaveman:



Not discounting the C02, just part of the graph.
From the graph it looks like the sun contributes very little energy. As if to say " turn off the sun, the earth will still be warm "
I disagree with that. The Sun does not contribute to global warning as a component but it drives the whole weather system. Not just at 3 watts, not 15 watts per sq meter but "164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day" Source: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html

If the sun puts out less, the climate will cool. This has happened before. Source: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/


This isn't about total energy, this is about climate forcing. It's talking about changes to the energy balance over time. Solar changes have been quite small compared to other forcings, even with the total energy provided being much higher.
@riverat544 - yeah, looks like all of us who responded had our comments removed. Understand your sentiment completely.
Quoting 243. Barefootontherocks:

Beautiful sight, that graphic.


Visine time...
RobertWC - "It took me back to the Unitas , where a snow flake was an 1 inch across."

Do you mean the Uintas?
Quoting 233. Barefootontherocks:

Ice storm warning! (unpublishable word)
This morning's graphic for comparison to the one you posted...


dj,
I have taken this blog off ignore to post this comment.

As you can see, Stillwater (is) in line for a half inch of ice, and maybe more. Good part is it will melt by Sunday. Bad part is power lines, even mainlines across N OK will be down by then. Gonna weather Mom you again: If there's anything you need before Sunday eve, best get it by this evening. And please prepare for a prolonged power outage.
Thank you
:)
(edit: redundancy and bold)


Bf - best to you and yours. We've done everything that we can, keeping our fingers crossed if the power goes out. Hopefully not.
Quoting 198. TechnoCaveman:



Yes other volcanic eruptions did cause the "year without a summer" but NASA disagrees on the maunder minimum and sun spots. "A new NASA computer climate model reinforces the long-standing theory that low solar activity could have changed the atmospheric circulation in the Northern Hemisphere from the 1400s to the 1700s and triggered a "Little Ice Age" in several regions including North America and Europe. Changes in the sun's energy was one of the biggest factors influencing climate change during this period, but have since been superceded by greenhouse gases due to the industrial revolution." (Source:https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20 011206/)

Green house gases have done more to raise earths temprature because the sun has remained constant. Thermal inertia keeps the planet stable between one cycles. However we might miss a cycle.

Missing a cycle will influence temprature and cloud cover. It will not fix green house gases. I doubt it will fix the earth's warming. Its effect will be large - in my opinion.


The key word in that paper is "regional". Neither the original paper nor several more recent papers on the subject indicate a major impact on global temperatures.

Furthermore, the mechanism by which the regional cooling occurs has little to do with visible/IR energy from the sun, but rather UV irradiance. This impacts stratospheric temperatures which in turn affect weather/climate patterns creating similar effects to NAO/AO patterns. This brings cooler temperatures to the Eastern US and Europe.

However, a new minimum won't have the same sort of impact. Thanks to global warming the stratosphere has cooled (less heat escaping the troposphere). A minimum may not be enough to trigger the formation of similar patterns to the previous minimums, and certainly not the same magnitude even if they did form. For example, this paper from 2015 quantifies the impact of such an extended solar grand minimum to be .12C-.13C globally, about the same mentioned in the blog post. That has no real impact on global warming and would be hard to discern given the error bounds of the expected warming scenarios.

"Thermal inertia" isn't needed to keep the planet stable between typical solar cycles because, again, the variance in insolation is almost nothing over the course of a typical cycle. Furthermore, thermal inertia works both ways. You would still see a temperature cycle comparable to the solar cycle, it would just be offset like our seasonal mins and maxes are offset. There would be a significant correlation as a result, but there isn't one.

The .12C mentioned before is a "grand" minimum over the period of century, not a period of a year. An 11 year cycle would be completely lost in the noise. Only when there a long sustained periods of activity/inactivity does even the slightest of trends show up.

No matter how you look at it, even if we enter a new grand solar minimum that lasts for a century it will not have any significant impact on global average temperatures.
Quoting 238. Barefootontherocks:

aqua, you left out chocolate bars, coffee and ice cream.
;)


Stocked up on those as well.
Quoting 247. LAbonbon:

RobertWC - "It took me back to the Unitas , where a snow flake was an 1 inch across."

Do you mean the Unitas?


I got hit in the head on the Wasatch with a 4 foot pipe wrech, after that I could never spell Unitas, and I still have trouble with Utah.

Smiley face here.
253. beell
Quoting 251. daddyjames:



Stocked up on those as well.

Don't forget the Spam in case you want to go ice fishing. It's the best bait for catfish and perch in da world.
Was looking up info on the pending ice storm for my sister in Springfield, MO, when I realized Qazu's travel path and timing would put him directly in the path of the icing event.

Qazu, if you're checking WU, NWS-Springfield has the event starting on your travel route around midnight tonight. Here is a link to their briefing, in PDF form: Briefing - Ice Storm Expected Across the Ozarks

From the briefing: "Confidence is high that most, if not all, of southern Missouri and
southeastern Kansas will experience freezing rain starting late tonight."


From NWS-Springfield's Ice Storm Warning issued this afternoon:

TIMING...FREEZING RAIN IS EXPECTED TO DEVELOP ACROSS SOUTHERN
MISSOURI AROUND OR JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT TONIGHT AND THEN EXPAND
ACROSS THE REMAINDER OF THE AREA ON FRIDAY MORNING.

If you can't access these links on your phone, let us know and I'm sure someone here can post the info for you.

Safe travels, Qazu. Check in with us if you can!

A low pressure system will bring rain and mountain snow today. Heaviest precipitation amounts will be along southwest facing slopes with locally 2 to 4 inches of rain. Precipitation will decrease tonight, but scattered showers are expected to continue mainly in the mountains and deserts through Friday night. Give yourself extra time for commuting today
and be extra careful on the roads.

It will be over the county/Soo Cal for some time....still raining hard at my place. We may need a week to dry out....lol



Some Soo Cal rain totals from NWS San Diego thru 3pm local:
Link


Flood Advisory
Flood Advisory
National Weather Service San Diego CA
405 PM PST THU JAN 12 2017

CAC059-065-071-073-130300-
/O.NEW.KSGX.FA.Y.0006.170113T0005Z-170113T0300Z/
/00000.N.ER.000000T0000Z.000000T0000Z.000000T0000 Z.OO/
Orange CA-San Bernardino CA-Riverside CA-San Diego CA-
405 PM PST THU JAN 12 2017

The National Weather Service in San Diego has issued a

* Urban and Small Stream Flood Advisory for...
Southeastern Orange County in southwestern California...
San Bernardino County in southern California...
Riverside County in southern California...
Northwestern San Diego County in southwestern California...

* Until 700 PM PST

* At 404 PM PST, Doppler radar and automated rain gauges indicated
heavy showers which will likely cause urban and small stream
flooding in the advisory area.

* Some locations that will likely experience flooding include...
Moreno Valley, Oceanside, Carlsbad, Temecula, Vista, Redlands,
Encinitas, Lake Elsinore, Yucaipa, Fallbrook, Camp Pendleton,
Hemet, Valley Center, Murrieta, San Marcos, Perris, Highland,
Colton, San Jacinto and Beaumont.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS...
Turn around, don`t drown when encountering flooded roads. Most flood
deaths occur in vehicles.

Do not drive your vehicle into areas where the water covers the
roadway. The water depth may be too great to allow your car to cross
safely. Move to higher ground.
Quoting 255. washingaway:

Study finds more extreme storms ahead for California


I used to be on a list serve with John Daly. He was a self claimed skeptic of CO2 as a green house gas. He had a web site in the early days of the debate on climate change that had over 6 million views, and he invited various writers on his site to write papers. John was fascinated by El Nino, and held strong views that CO2 could not be a part of climate change and that El Nino showed why. He argued that CO2 concentrations would go down the warmer the oceans were. That an El Nino produced warm oceans and the CO2 would come out and instead of warming even more as the CO2 came out of the oceans, the El Nino ended. He certainly had a number of discussions about saturation of light waves as the concentration of CO2 went up, and I am not sure what he would think about a logarithmic relationship, but it would still be the same problem--instead of warming during an El Nino the earth cools and kinetic expressions of climate are seen. In contrast during La Nina like we have now, CO2 is retained by the oceans more yet it warms until the oceans heat again to an El Nino. This is very much behavior like a cyclical function which would have mathematically basically a minus the sine acceleration, certainly not logarithmic or linear. El Nino clearly impacts California, and we went from a dry El Nino to a wet La Nina--in a greater extreme.

I asked John Daly on that list serve about gaia. What about gaia, John? He said he would rather leave the planet with fossil fuels. I asked him what about the people who have to stay with the planet we have? Two months after we had this back and forth discussion involving living earth feedbacks and an electrical forcing on clouds, with surface lows removing carbonation and an electrical impact on cloud microphysics, including how it predicted ENSO behaviors, he was dead of a heart attack. His daughter keeps his web site still active, from what someone on that list serve said. Anyway, it is not just warmers who are set on their position so that they are not able to deal with other perspectives, so called skeptics are stressed out even more by the truth of what I am speaking, I believe. What John's skeptical position as he thought it was that the back and forth of El Nino and the other teleconnections were in stark contrast to a hockey stick or any other formulation of long term model, and my view confronted him in that I showed him through another mechanism that this would be the predicted behavior and that cO2 had a direct dependent relationship with the cloud behaviors that is not only consistent with this blog entry about greater storms to California along with greater dry periods, but also with greater and greater El Nino events.

I would take it a step farther and talk about severe weather as well. What we have noticed on some of the storm chaser sites I post is that unlike Twister which was a story of scientists looking inside of a storm with balls that were released from a truck, we were looking at the SOI index and noticing that extreme severe weather events coincided with a sharply rising SOI index. It would be like walking across the carpet and then touching someone. What happens is the clouds containing large charges move from the west to the east in tropics, in the Pacific, and bring charges along the warm conductive waters in capacitive form and they discharge over the CONUS. Similar things are observed in terms of La Nina and shear and tropical storms in the Atlantic, as well as severe weather in general.
Quoting 197. TechnoCaveman:



Not discounting the C02, just part of the graph.
From the graph it looks like the sun contributes very little energy. As if to say " turn off the sun, the earth will still be warm "
I disagree with that. The Sun does not contribute to global warning as a component but it drives the whole weather system. Not just at 3 watts, not 15 watts per sq meter but "164 Watts per square meter over a 24 hour day" Source: http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html

If the sun puts out less, the climate will cool. This has happened before. Source: https://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/news/20011206/




The sun provides the Earth with around 341 w/m2 of energy accounting for geometry. The earth's albedo is about 30% so that means the Earth absorbs about 238 w/m2. I have seen this estimate as high as 240 w/m2. It depends on the solar "constant" which has been measured from 1361 w/m2 to 1366 w/m2. In any event, the total downwelled IR radiation from greenhouse gases is estimated to be around 333 w/m2. The increase from GHGs you see in the graph you showed is about 2-3 w/m2 which is barely a 1% change. That's very small and hard to imagine how such a small forcing to our climate system can cause such large changes. The sun was very active in the 1900s, especially the late 1900s. This heat accumulates in the oceans which have a large lag time, a very large lag time given the total amount of water we are talking about. So if the sun goes quiet or weakens its output by a little bit as it has, its not going to cool for a long time. I think this article is flawed in that regard. We are still riding the strong sun of the late 20th century which can easily explain that there is natural warming too along with greenhouse gas warming. Computer models can not decipher how much is natural warming and how much is GHGs at this point (although they claim too). The climate system is just too complex. I suspect most of the warming is natural because a 1% increase in the Greenhouse effect is very small. Low Cloud cover is known to vary by a few percent via satellite data. If you run through the calculations of what an increased(decreased) albedo would do of a few percent, it easily swamps the 2-3 w/2 of extra greenhouse gas forcing. I am with Dr. Judith Curry in that we need to learn more about the natural climate system too. By doing this, we can put the increasing GHGs effects into better context.
Sorry, I slipped up. While the Central Valley is subsiding fast too, the largest amount was in the San Joaquin Valley. And the photo posted by RobertWC (comment 204) shows the amount between 1927 and 1977, the latter 40 years ago. The fellow standing next to the pole looks to me average height and the 1927 placard is 5.17 times his height above ground. I sort of doubt if the subsidence stopped in 1977. If it continued at the same rate it now adds up to 53 feet,so my 40 feet is in the ball park. But the absolutes aren't as important as the statement in the recent article in the Sacramento BEE: "Experts say subsidence will make it harder to replenish the aquifers once the rains come. That’s because subsidence effectively compacts the soil, making it harder to store water underground." The other consideration is that it is getting uneconomic to remove much more water because the depth of the wells to do so is very costly. And folks who can't afford to drill multiple hundreds of feet deep are out of water and out of luck -- the big rich agribusinesses have stolen their water. This is the problem that will not go away. And recharging those aquifers, if it happens at all, will provide much less available water due to reduced aquifer capacity.
Quoting 256. LAbonbon:

Was looking up info on the pending ice storm for my sister in Springfield, MO, when I realized Qazu's travel path and timing would put him directly in the path of the icing event.

Qazu, if you're checking WU, NWS-Springfield has the event starting on your travel route around midnight tonight. Here is a link to their briefing, in PDF form: Briefing - Ice Storm Expected Across the Ozarks

From the briefing: "Confidence is high that most, if not all, of southern Missouri and
southeastern Kansas will experience freezing rain starting late tonight."


From NWS-Springfield's Ice Storm Warning issued this afternoon:

TIMING...FREEZING RAIN IS EXPECTED TO DEVELOP ACROSS SOUTHERN
MISSOURI AROUND OR JUST AFTER MIDNIGHT TONIGHT AND THEN EXPAND
ACROSS THE REMAINDER OF THE AREA ON FRIDAY MORNING.

If you can't access these links on your phone, let us know and I'm sure someone here can post the info for you.

Safe travels, Qazu. Check in with us if you can!


I am not going to try and beat it. I will leave here around 7 and hit Kansas City between 9 and 11. If the traffic isn't completely snarled in Kansas City, the dangerous part will be south of Kansas City to Joplin. All interstate. At 29 to 32 degrees the big rigs should keep the black ice down.

I will keep you posted.

Cheers
Qazulight
blizzard1024, if the earth retains 1% more heat then shouldn't the temperature rise by 1%? And by a 1% temperature increase, I mean 1% further from absolute zero, which means a little over a 5F rise to reach equilibrium.

Incidentally, the projected forcing by greenhouse gases is forecast to rise to 9 watts/meter squared by 2050. What would the impact on temperature be then? 9/240 watts represents 3.75%, and a global temperature rise of 19F to reach equilibrium. I don't see why you're so nonchalant about it (ask 999Ai2016 why I used that word in this context).

Note, with the adjustment for the Stefan-Boltzman law, the equilibrium temperature would be 17F warmer. Not a figure reached right away in 2050, but eventually.
Quoting 252. RobertWC:



I got hit in the head on the Wasatch with a 4 foot pipe wrech, after that I could never spell Unitas, and I still have trouble with Utah.

Smiley face here.

Hey, you changed my post so it's misspelled there too?

Hmmm...bet there's a story behind the hit on the head...
Quoting 262. BaltimoreBrian:

blizzard1024, if the earth retains 1% more heat then shouldn't the temperature rise by 1%? And by a 1% temperature increase, I mean 1% further from absolute zero, which means a little over a 5F rise to reach equilibrium.

Incidentally, the projected forcing by greenhouse gases is forecast to rise to 9 watts/meter squared by 2050. What would the impact on temperature be then? 9/240 watts represents 3.75%, and a global temperature rise of 19F to reach equilibrium. I don't see why you're so nonchalant about it (ask 999Ai2016 why I used that word in this context).


Your logic assumes linearity in the climate system which is completely false. The climate system is highly non-linear. A doubling of CO2 leads to 3.7 w/m2 of extra downwelling radiation which is well known. This translates into 1.2C of warming (also well known) which is small and within the range of the Holocene's climate fluctuations. You need a strong positive feedback, like the water vapor feedback, to truly cause problems with the climate system. There is conflicting evidence that this feedback is negative, neutral or positive. Looking at how slow the temperature trends have been with increased GHGs it looks like the feedback is closer to neutral since the temperatures trends are running on the lower envelope of the climate model projections.
blizzard1024 your comment #265 is complete nonsense. Temperature increases are linear according to the forcing. 9 watts of energy creates 3 times the temperature increase compared to 3 watts. While heating water, it does not take more energy to increase water temperature from 50°C to 51°C than it did to increase water temperature from 10°C to 11°C as you imply. Also, your figure for climate sensitivity is completely incorrect. From the 1890s through today it has been known to be near 3°C for a doubling of CO2, and no estimate in recent years has it at 1.2°C, as you state, even in the error bars. You're completely wrong.

Furthermore, the water vapor feedback has been demonstrated to be strongly positive, and this has been known since the 1980s. CO2 increased by ~50% between the ice ages and the interglacial periods. CO2 sensitivity would put the increase in global temperature near or a little less than 2°C. Yet in actuality temperatures rose ~10°C. Increases in water vapor explain almost all the additional temperature increase.

blizzard1024 appears to have no scientific education and gets his talking points spoon-fed to him from WattsUpWithThat and Breitbart.
Quoting 90. RobertWC:



Before-and-after photos show California storm's insane impact on water levels


This is a great collection of photos. Love it when they show sites this way.
269. elioe
Quoting 267. BaltimoreBrian:



Assuming a surface in equilibrium with the combination of absorbed sunlight (increasing due to ice-albedo effect) and descending infrared flux (increasing due to higher carbon dioxide and water vapor levels, among others), the fourth power of absolute temperature is proportional to the combination. But for small changes, a linear approximation is such, that the relative change of absolute temperature is one quarter of the relative change in the combined heat flux.
Quoting 267. BaltimoreBrian:

blizzard1024 your comment #265 is complete nonsense. Temperature increases are linear according to the forcing. 9 watts of energy creates 3 times the temperature increase compared to 3 watts. While heating water, it does not take more energy to increase water temperature from 50C to 51C than it did to increase water temperature from 10C to 11C as you imply. Also, your figure for climate sensitivity is completely incorrect. From the 1890s through today it has been known to be near 3C for a doubling of CO2, and no estimate in recent years has it at 1.2C, as you state, even in the error bars. You're completely wrong.

Furthermore, the water vapor feedback has been demonstrated to be strongly positive, and this has been known since the 1980s. CO2 increased by ~50% between the ice ages and the interglacial periods. CO2 sensitivity would put the increase in global temperature near or a little less than 2C. Yet in actuality temperatures rose ~10C. Increases in water vapor explain almost all the additional temperature increase.

blizzard1024 appears to have no scientific education and gets his talking points spoon-fed to him from WattsUpWithThat and Breitbart.


Have you ever heard of the Stefan-Boltzman Law? Total Power/area = sigma(constant) times Temperature raised to the 4th power(assuming a blackbody)??
It's not linear. It is well known in radiative transfer coding from the late 1970s and updated several times that doubling CO2 leads to an extra 3.7 watts/m2 of downwelled IR radiation. This equation is dF = 5.35 ln(C/Co) That is pure science. That is equivalent to 1.2C of warming which can be found by using the S-F equation which is well established physics. The water vapor feedback is only important in the upper troposphere which has shown a declining trend in water vapor or at least a neutral trend. You can't compare glacial cycles to the present state because those were totally different boundary conditions, you had much higher albedo, a drier climate and more dust. And yes I have extensive science training. I am a scientist with a B.S and M.S in atmospheric science. Are you sure you want to debate me on this? I really don't want to embarrass you....
Quoting 233. Barefootontherocks:

Ice storm warning! (unpublishable word)
This morning's graphic for comparison to the one you posted...

dj,
I have taken this blog off ignore to post this comment.

As you can see, Stillwater (is) in line for a half inch of ice, and maybe more. Good part is it will melt by Sunday. Bad part is power lines, even mainlines across N OK will be down by then. Gonna weather Mom you again: If there's anything you need before Sunday eve, best get it by this evening. And please prepare for a prolonged power outage.
Thank you
:)
(edit: redundancy and bold)


You put a blog on ignore?


blizzard1024 is continuing to peddle pure nonsense. CO2 sensitivity for doubling is 3C, and that has been known for more than 100 years. No estimate in the past 40 years has CO2 sensitivity of 1.2C even within the error bars. You were not talking about radiative flux. You claim that increasing energy trapped does not increase the temperature of the earth in a linear way--that 9 watts increases temperature less than 3 times as much as three watts. Which is false. Increasing temperature from 10C to 11C does not take more energy than increasing water temperature from 50C to 51C. When the energy imbalance triples, so does the temperature increase relative to absolute zero. The energy imbalance is what is forecast from increased greenhouse gases, which already takes into consideration the greenhouse gasses' sensitivities. Even at the 4th power, the effect is nearly linear over temperature increases of a few degrees, as we have experienced so far. I note that you give no calculations regarding the slope of the energy required to increase a temperature from 290K to 291K at the 4th power, compared to the energy required to increase temperature of the radiating earth from 291K to 292K. What is the percentage difference the energy required to raise the temperature in those intervals? You throw out expressions you've read like Stefan-Boltzman Law, but you don't use the law to solve the equations.

So use it. Solve the problem I provided above? What is the percentage difference in energy required to raise a radiating body from 290K to 291K compared to between 291K and 292K. You toss out a lot fancy scientific and mathematical expressions, but you don't use them. You also continue to post complete falsehoods.
The answer is that to increase temperature of a radiating body from 291K to 292K required 1.04% more energy that it required to increase it from 290K to 291K. Over the temperature increase we will experience this century, the increase in temperature will vary almost linearly with the increase in energy retained.

290(4th) = 7,072,810,000
291(4th) = 7,170,871,761 ( 98,061,761)
292(4th) = 7,269,949,696 ( 99,077,935)

99,077,935 / 98,061,761 = 1.01036

Or 1.04% more. 1.036% more if you want to be more accurate. Not the dramatic change you imply, blizzard1024. elioe is correct, but you are not.
Quoting 270. blizzard1024:



Quoting 267. BaltimoreBrian:


You both are saying different (but the same) things. You both are correct.

BB - the change in forcing is linearly related to the change in temperature, multiplied by a constant, %u03BB (lambda):
ΔT = λΔF

blizzard - you are correct as the change in forcing, ΔF = 5.35*ln[C/Co] W*m^-2 where C = CO2 concentration and Co = preindustrial CO2 concentration, usually 280 ppm.

thus, the change in temperature ΔT= λ*(5.35*ln{C\Co} W*m^-2.
Quoting 271. kestrel68:



You put a blog on ignore?





If you ignore Jeff masters (the user) you will ignore the blog.
Link
Illinois snowmobile crashes through ice, Forest Preserve Police Officer is safe.
Don't go out on thin ice, folks!
WPC Probabilities for 0.25" or more ice accumulation from 6am Friday through 6am Sunday issued 2 pm cst Thursday.


(Sometimes I find it better to read here only when I am signed out and to ignore when signed in.)
Quoting 278. Barefootontherocks:

WPC Probabilities for 0.25" or more ice accumulation from 6am Friday through 6am Sunday issued 2 pm cst Thursday.


(Sometimes I find it better to read here only when I am signed out and to ignore when signed in.)


Right on the edge of not-so-bad to bad :D
DaddyJames we were not quite saying the same thing. I was referring to estimates that the degree of greenhouse forcing would increase to 9 watts per meter squared by 2050, and blizzard1024 confused the effect from the increase in retained heat with the increasing CO2. Each additional unit of CO2 in the atmosphere does have a decreasing effect on temperature, and the effect is noticeable because CO2 concentrations have risen by more than 40% since preindustrial times. However, the absolute temperature of the surface of the earth has risen by less than 1% so far, and the increase in energy required from one degree to the next to raise our temperature successive degrees is trivial, varying by barely 1% per degree Celsius (or Kelvin). Also, bilzzard1024 has been repeating his false claim that CO2 climate sensitivity is only 1.2C. No scientific paper claims that. The most googled paper gives a mean of 3.0C as I said, with 1.2C outside the error bar, as it is in all the most googled papers on climate sensitivity.
Quoting 253. beell:


Funny how the purple (up to .99") ends at the OK border. When I last checked, Amarillo only issued a freezing rain advisory for OK panhandle. To the east, most of The "pan" is under an ice storm warning.
Quoting 279. daddyjames:



Right on the edge of not-so-bad to bad :D
Yes. Kind of like a severe outlook. lol. We'll know for sure who gets what when the warm nose meets up with the wet bulb. As I recall, the WPC forecast in 2010 was pretty good.
Quoting 277. ChiThom:

Don't go out on thin ice, folks!


And don't blog on it either, here nor there.

Quoting 281. Barefootontherocks:

Funny how the purple (up to .99") ends at the OK border. When I last checked, Amarillo only issued a freezing rain advisory for OK panhandle. To the east, most of The "pan" is under an ice storm warning.
Oops. Wrong. Now OK panhandle and Northern TX panhandle are both under Ice Storm Warnings.

Good night, peoples of the wu.
Quoting 275. daddyjames:



If you ignore Jeff masters (the user) you will ignore the blog.

So you're telling me that she put Jeff Masters on her ignore list? Talk about hard core.

With all the ice in Oklahoma--is Oklahoma OK? ;)

Anyway, after a lovely high of 71 today reality will return. Although I wonder if the temperature really will fall below freezing during the precipitation--the ground and the harbor water are warm. I'm in the northern part of the green square, within walking distance of Camden Yards, M&T stadium and the Inner Harbor. Click the plus in the map in second link to focus in.
Quoting 285. kestrel68:


So you're telling me that she put Jeff Masters on her ignore list? Talk about hard core.




No apparently not, but you can.
Quoting 286. BaltimoreBrian:

With all the ice in Oklahoma--is Oklahoma OK? ;)

Anyway, after a lovely high of 71 today reality will return. Although I wonder if the temperature really will fall below freezing during the precipitation--the ground and the harbor water are warm. I'm in the northern part of the green square, within walking distance of Camden Yards, M&T stadium and the Inner Harbor.


We are always OK, even when not. Has to do with living on the plains I suppose.

Soak up that heat as long as you can!
Quoting 272. BaltimoreBrian:

blizzard1024 is continuing to pure nonsense. CO2 sensitivity for doubling is 3C, and that has been known for more than 100 years. No estimate in the past 40 years has CO2 sensitivity of 1.2C even within the error bars. You were not talking about radiative flux. You claim that increasing energy trapped does not increase the temperature of the earth in a linear way--that 9 watts increases temperature less than 3 times as much as three watts. Which is false. Increasing temperature from 10C to 11C does not take more energy than increasing water temperature from 50C to 51C. When the energy imbalance triples, so does the temperature increase relative to absolute zero. The energy imbalance is what is forecast from increased greenhouse gases, which already takes into consideration the greenhouse gasses' sensitivities. Even at the 4th power, the effect is nearly linear over temperature increases of a few degrees, as we have experienced so far. I note that you give no calculations regarding the slope of the energy required to increase a temperature from 290K to 291K at the 4th power, compared to the energy required to increase temperature of the radiating earth from 291K to 292K. What is the percentage difference the energy required to raise the temperature in those intervals? You throw out expressions you've read like Stefan-Boltzman Law, but you don't use the law to solve the equations.

So use it. Solve the problem I provided above? What is the percentage difference in energy required to raise a radiating body from 290K to 291K compared to between 291K and 292K. You toss out a lot fancy scientific and mathematical expressions, but you don't use them. You also continue to post complete falsehoods.


You are obvlious of basic science. Read a basic physics textbook....
Quoting 289. blizzard1024:

Can't we all just get along?

(not picking sides here)
Quoting 290. daddyjames:



No.



@BB, check your gmail.
blizzard1024, you continue to post falsehoods, wild accusations, and no science.

You claim that climate sensitivity for CO2 is 1.2C. False.

You invoke the Stefan-Boltzman Law but won't apply it. An expression you read somewhere but don't understand.

You don't even address my math. You can't claim I made an error because there is none.

Obviously blizzard1024 has no background or knowledge in climate science or physics whatsoever. A reminder: WattsUpWithThat and Breitbart are not legitimate science sources.

Another troll to add to the ban, block and ignore lists.
Quoting 291. Astrometeor:

No.



@BB, check your gmail.


Quoting 259. blizzard1024:




The sun provides the Earth with around 341 w/m2 of energy accounting for geometry. The earth's albedo is about 30% so that means the Earth absorbs about 238 w/m2. I have seen this estimate as high as 240 w/m2. It depends on the solar "constant" which has been measured from 1361 w/m2 to 1366 w/m2. In any event, the total downwelled IR radiation from greenhouse gases is estimated to be around 333 w/m2. The increase from GHGs you see in the graph you showed is about 2-3 w/m2 which is barely a 1% change. That's very small and hard to imagine how such a small forcing to our climate system can cause such large changes. The sun was very active in the 1900s, especially the late 1900s. This heat accumulates in the oceans which have a large lag time, a very large lag time given the total amount of water we are talking about. So if the sun goes quiet or weakens its output by a little bit as it has, its not going to cool for a long time. I think this article is flawed in that regard. We are still riding the strong sun of the late 20th century which can easily explain that there is natural warming too along with greenhouse gas warming. Computer models can not decipher how much is natural warming and how much is GHGs at this point (although they claim too). The climate system is just too complex. I suspect most of the warming is natural because a 1% increase in the Greenhouse effect is very small. Low Cloud cover is known to vary by a few percent via satellite data. If you run through the calculations of what an increased(decreased) albedo would do of a few percent, it easily swamps the 2-3 w/2 of extra greenhouse gas forcing. I am with Dr. Judith Curry in that we need to learn more about the natural climate system too. By doing this, we can put the increasing GHGs effects into better context.


It's true that CO2 has caused the earth to warm and the signal from the sun hasn't been significant in producing what is observed. I don't agree with your 1 percent because CO2 gets DIRECTLY to the cloud behaviors electrically. It's yet another example of where so called skeptics attack the green house gas theory but fail to take their own arguments and fly in the face of clear observations. It produces more heat than light, and everyone gets mad at each other, the warmers at the so called skeptics for ignoring the clear climate changes that correlate with cO2 and the skeptics for ignoring simple thermodynamics.

There is a great essay by Carl Sagan about the Ever Luminous Sun. Sagan was an astronomer, and so he studied the stars, and the sun like other stars is becoming a red giant, slowly becoming ever luminous over time. Sagan asked in his famous essay, how come the earth when life first formed was not a giant block of ice? Why isn't it a giant gas ball now? Changes in solar luminosity are tiny in the short term, but over longer timescales the changes are enormous. The sun is 25% more luminous that when life first formed, according to Sagan. This to me is the best introduction of the implausible complexity problem in BIOLOGY there is, where life sciences meet cosmology. The fundamental gaia problem--how has life prevailed as the sun has grown more intense to the earth? There is little different about the basic overall chemistry that would alter albedo. Sagan doesn't answer his own question.

I think there is an answer to this essay question in our own blood. When the creature that begat us crawled out of the oceans long ago, the oceans were less saline. Our blood is less saline than the current oceans. I think that the earth has responded to the increases and changes in the sun's luminosity by providing cloud feedbacks, local to rivers and hydrology, which makes the oceans just the right salinity to modulate the earth's temperature. Over time, the oceans have become more saline, so that excess heat is allowed to be thrown off with kinetic expressions of energy like tropical storms, or albedo changes from glacier laying storms. The only way salinity is meaningful is if there is an electrical connection to cloud behaviors.
Warm and rainy here. Glad I'm not getting an ice storm.

Quoting 293. BaltimoreBrian:



No.


*goes and cries in corner*
Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
The sun provides the Earth with around 341 w/m2 of energy accounting for geometry.The earth's albedo is about 30% so that means the Earth absorbs about 238 w/m2. I have seen this estimate as high as 240 w/m2. It depends on the solar "constant" which has been measured from 1361 w/m2 to 1366 w/m2.In any event, the total downwelled IR radiation from greenhouse gases is estimated to be around 333 w/m2. The increase from GHGs you see in the graph you showed is about 2-3 w/m2 which is barely a 1% change.


It's always a little amusing with someone with only a vague idea of how things work attempt to smash a bunch of random information together. It makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.

Emitted radiance per unit area is given by:

P = s*T^4

where P is the power per area (W/m^2), s is the Stefan-Boltman constant, and T is the effective temperature.

Working backwards from you claim of 333 W/m^2:

T = (P/s)^1/4
T = 278K

That's a good 11 K off from the actual of about 289K. The total effective power including greenhouse effects is:

P=s*T^4 = 390 W/m^2

of which approximately 240 W/m^2 is from the sun by itself. The surplus 150 W/m^2 is from additional factors, of which the largest is greenhouse gases.

Your attempt at using percentages to bias opinion is childish at best. The additional 2 to 3 watts of forcing is CUMULATIVE. Once again you fail to grasp exactly what that means. If you fill a bucket faster than you drain it, it doesn't matter how little extra you add, IT WILL OVERFLOW. That's exactly what's happening in global warming. More energy is being retained than is being emitted, and this in turn raises global temperatures over time.

Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
That's very small and hard to imagine how such a small forcing to our climate system can cause such large changes.


That's because of your general ignorance of the climate system and how it operates. Historically, changes of a couple degrees up or down have resulted in large global climate shifts, often resulting in extinction events.

Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
The sun was very active in the 1900s, especially the late 1900s. This heat accumulates in the oceans which have a large lag time, a very large lag time given the total amount of water we are talking about.


So you start off talking about the Stefan-Boltzman law, downwelling radiation, etc. and here you just throw it all out the window because it doesn't fit your narrative? What kind of argument are you trying to make here? That physics woks only when you want it to?

The TOA variation from solar cycles is a few watts. The difference by the time it makes it to the planet's surface is a vanishingly small fraction of a watt. The previous paper I linked to showed extended periods of maxes and mins MIGHT impact global temperatures by a .1K over the course of a century. The warming we've seen far exceeds this over the past century. So the observations do not even remotely support your hypothesis.

Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
So if the sun goes quiet or weakens its output by a little bit as it has, its not going to cool for a long time. I think this article is flawed in that regard. We are still riding the strong sun of the late 20th century which can easily explain that there is natural warming too along with greenhouse gas warming.


Neither the science nor observations substantiate any such hypothesis. The amount of additional energy needed to raise ocean temperatures by the amount we've measured far exceeds any excess provided by solar variation. You also seem to simply gloss over the fact that a solar cycle is just that: a cycle. Maxes and mins that on average cancel out to the value of the long term solar constant. The sun wasn't sitting at max 10 out of 11 years per cycle, nor would it make any significant difference even if it was.

Or perhaps your insinuating another climate conspiracy involving solar scientists and measurement so fthe suns output?

Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
Computer models can not decipher how much is natural warming and how much is GHGs at this point (although they claim too).


Yes, they very much can considering Arrhenius originally figured it out using nothing more than pen and paper almost 120 years ago. The IPCC has an entire section dedicated to modeling. There are whole books and thousands of research articles on the subject, and they all contradict what you're saying.

Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
The climate system is just too complex.


No, it really isn't. Just like an aerodynamic model doesn't need to model every micro-turbulent vortex to determine whether or not a wing will provide lift, a climate model doesn't need to model every atom of the atmosphere to make accurate climate predictions. Again, many source provide plenty of information, data, and research on climate models and how they operate.

Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
I suspect most of the warming is natural because a 1% increase in the Greenhouse effect is very small.


No, it really isn't. That "small" effect represents an enormous amount of excess energy being added to the system at a pace usually only encountered during catastrophic events. That excess accumulates, and if paleoclimatological records are any indication, tipping points can further accelerate the rate of warming.

In addition, there are plenty of examples where small percentages can disrupt/destroy much larger systems. For example, a 1% change is enough to turn what's simply a hot chunk of plutonium into a mushroom cloud.

Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
Low Cloud cover is known to vary by a few percent via satellite data. If you run through the calculations of what an increased(decreased) albedo would do of a few percent, it easily swamps the 2-3 w/2 of extra greenhouse gas forcing.


No it doesn't, and several papers on this subject show increased water vapor is a net positive forcing. Just because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere does not mean there will be more clouds. But more importantly, cloud cover would have to persistently increase by much more than "a few percent" to counteract CO2 forcing, and it would have to increase lower level clouds (cooling) as opposed to higher level clouds(warming). On average, 52% of earth is cloud covered at any given time, and yet we still have a very strong greenhouse effect keeping us all warm.

You're going to have to do better than that.

Quoting 259. blizzard1024:
I am with Dr. Judith Curry in that we need to learn more about the natural climate system too. By doing this, we can put the increasing GHGs effects into better context.


Or perhaps you actually need to learn about the physics and science behind climate so you can put your rather erratic arguments into a better more coherent context. Ignorance is a poor crutch to rely on when it comes to establishing a scientific position. At least try to be consistent for a start, and not trash the very same physics you use to open your argument with.
Quoting 289. blizzard1024:



You are obvlious of basic science. Read a basic physics textbook....


Did you get any electromagnetism or specifically chemistry that taught about van der waals forces in electrical fields?

The problem with the so called skeptics is they only take their text book science the way that it refutes the green house theory and then ignore what their own evidence shows. I don't think these kinds of comments are helpful. Make your argument but don't accuse people who are seeing strong correlations that they don't read text books. You certainly have me in agreement about the small forcing of CO2 in relation to clouds, and the problem with cloud amplification and that there may be a way for you to show that there is retained heat in the ocean from warmer solar periods. The fundamental problem I have, thinking about your view, and I will admit it is somewhat circular, but life has to have a way to modulate temperature and chemistry, and if a heating process is slow like you are describing where the oceans warm up slowly by the sun then find expression much later in the atmosphere, or in other words a slow coupling between ocean and air, how is life supposed to dampen that??? Electrical feedbacks to cloud behaviors are both fast and strong enough to do the job, which rules out your warm ocean theory from when the sun was year ago hotter theory.
Quoting 290. daddyjames:


No! We cannot all just get along. That would be contrary to the natural order of things. There has always been war and so there will always be war. And!, If you disagree with me, well, that's ok too, cause I really prefer we all just get along.
Quoting 295. Astrometeor:

Warm and rainy here. Glad I'm not getting an ice storm.

*goes and cries in corner*
Gives Nathan a hug :)
Quoting 277. ChiThom:

Don't go out on thin ice, folks!

We are all on thin ice.
Quoting 289. blizzard1024:



You are obvlious of basic science. Read a basic physics textbook....


This coming from someone who starts off using Stefan-Boltzman as justification then trashes it when it no longer says what he wants it to say. Right.

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy? Do you understand that the laws of physics don't suddenly stop working just because they disagree with what you're saying? You do understand that when you post outright lies that it does nothing to help your credibility?

Hypothesis. Evidence. Analysis. Conclusion. Appeals to emotion, personal opinion, unsubstantiated nonsense, etc. have no place in a scientific discussion. All you've put forward is rambling, semi-coherent, incorrect, misleading, and often contradictory statements that at best demonstrate you only have the vaguest notion of what you're talking about, especially in regards to climate models.

Meanwhile, just about the entire scientific community contradicts what your trying to claim with plenty of freely available resources on a wide range of subjects in regards to climate science. You can even access research journals for free just by heading down to your local college/university campus.

It's clear from your postings that you haven't given more than passing thought to the subject of climate science, while the researchers in the science community have spent decades on the subject. You're going to have to do a lot better if you want your arguments to stand up to the scrutiny of even a high school student.
Quoting 296. Xyrus2000:


The TOA variation from solar cycles is a few watts. The difference by the time it makes it to the planet's surface is a vanishingly small fraction of a watt.


Yet by observation the solar cycles have shown pronounced impact on climate. Even recently when there was little sun spot activity in 2013 the Atlantic season was incredibly quiet. Link

So what caused the SUN to be associated with such a quiet tropical storm season. I believe it's not just about energy but about IONS, solar winds (ion wind) and UV light that creates ions in the upper atmosphere that are organized over storms and help determine how they vent. In other words, it becomes in large part not just what the inputs from the sun are but how the earth takes what those inputs, including the electrical portions of the solar cycle.

And by the way, he's right about the low percentage of heat trapped by green house gas character of CO2 in relation to low clouds, but then both of you miss how electrically CO2 impacts cloud behaviors directly. This debate between you two ends up producing more heat than light.
I'm exhausted.

It snowed all day, pretty much. Heavy and wet, with temps around 34 all it took was to hit something - anything - not made of plant fibers to melt. And I was out behind the pole barn building a buck pen to keep Mr. Ninja and his two boys (who I never got around to banding, thus my fault) from harassing the new moms. Three hours. A down vest and two coats, soaked almost all the way through (my fencing was primarily me standing under the barn roof dripline).

The pigpens are 2 inches of mud. I dug a seep pit in each one, piling dirt high so they'd have someplace less muddy to hang out.

And to add to the excitement, my 97 year old mom is in the hospital for the second time this week. 500 miles south, on the other side of the lovely weather from me. My brother's being understanding, but I hope she can at least make it past my birthday next week.

I wish Maalox lemon chewables were still on the shelves.

Oh look. It's snowing again.
Quoting 304. nonblanche:

I'm exhausted.

It snowed all day, pretty much. Heavy and wet, with temps around 34 all it took was to hit something - anything - not made of plant fibers to melt. And I was out behind the pole barn building a buck pen to keep Mr. Ninja and his two boys (who I never got around to banding, thus my fault) from harassing the new moms. Three hours. A down vest and two coats, soaked almost all the way through (my fencing was primarily me standing under the barn roof dripline).

The pigpens are 2 inches of mud. I dug a seep pit in each one, piling dirt high so they'd have someplace less muddy to hang out.

And to add to the excitement, my 97 year old mom is in the hospital for the second time this week. 500 miles south, on the other side of the lovely weather from me. My brother's being understanding, but I hope she can at least make it past my birthday next week.

I wish Maalox lemon chewables were still on the shelves.

Oh look. It's snowing again.


Hang in there!
Blizzard1024, this is the one and only time I will engage you on this subject, but only because your dispute with BaltimoreBrian is proceeding from false assertions.

You stated in #265:
Quoting 265. blizzard1024:

...There is conflicting evidence that this feedback is negative, neutral or positive. Looking at how slow the temperature trends have been with increased GHGs it looks like the feedback is closer to neutral since the temperatures trends are running on the lower envelope of the climate model projections.

This is incorrect. The total average anthropogenic radiative forcings are averaging +2.29 W/m2, with the uncertainty ranging between +1.13 and +3.33 W/m2:



According to the 2014 IPCC, the confidence in this value is high, with confidence that CO2 for an average of +1.63 W/m2 (uncertainty range +1.33 to +2.03 W/m2) rated as very high. The lowest confidence is found in the negative feedbacks of clouds and aerosols, which is listed as an average of -0.55 (uncertainty range -1.33 to -0.06 W/m2).

Therefore, your assertion that "there is conflicting evidence that this feedback is negative, neutral or positive" is wrong. Whatever conflicting evidence you're referring to, either (1) it is too small to be of any consequence to the climate models, (2) you are overstating their effects for reasons unknown, or (3) the rest of the well-known, well-established, and well-documented positive feedback effects overwhelm this evidence.

The upshot is that the feedback is most certainly not "closer to neutral", and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous to the spirit of Dr. Masters' blog entry, as well as a misrepresentation of atmospheric science and climate science overall.

Yes, unless I want to plus or make a comment, I do keep this blog on ignore most of the time. When I am signed out, I read the blog header and, depending what's going on weather-wise, sometimes I skim through the comments quickly looking for weather. Works well for me.

Also, I want to note you quoted only part of what I posted at 233, and the bolding in the part you quoted is not my bolding, it is yours.
Who's Mr. Ninja?
First real cold front of the winter getting ready to hit Alaska. Fairbanks could see -50F, here in Anchorage the predicted low is -31F with a high of -21F on Monday... I don't care who you are, that's cold.

Quoting 310. Dakster:




Quoting 309. LAbonbon:

Who's Mr. Ninja?


Our daddy buck goat. He was born black, so the kids named him Ninja. He's rusty brown now. Polled, and rather well behaved for a buck. Also, if he would let me brush him, he'd be gorgeous. His dad (our neighbor's papered purebread Toggenberg fence-jumper) was actually really ratty looking. But Ninja - who's 3/4 Tog, 1/4 Boer - is gorgeous, and all the does he's sired are equally beautiful and decent (not prize winning) milkers. Which is fine, because a pure papered Tog doe pumps out way more milk than we can use.

He was doing a great job keeping the other bucks away from Dancer last week while she was kidding, about three weeks earlier than we expected. Once we got the two bad boys out of the pen and in the pasture, he was so riled up he was trying to mount her too - so into the pasture with him. The buck pen is so we can keep everyone calm and sheltered.
Quoting 280. BaltimoreBrian:

DaddyJames we were not quite saying the same thing.


True that. I did not read the previous post of blizzard.
Quoting 310. Dakster:

First real cold front of the winter getting ready to hit Alaska. Fairbanks could see -50F, here in Anchorage the predicted low is -31F with a high of -21F on Monday... I don't care who you are, that's cold.


Sure is! Sounds like the Alaska I remember. Take care.
@nonblanche - thanks for the explanation. Now I fully understand your previous post :)

Prayers and good wishes for your mom.
In honor of Friday the 13th, as always, I present Belphegor's Prime--a palindromic prime of 1s at the ends, 13 zeros on each side and 666 in the center.

Belphegor is the demon of innovation--he whispers inventions in your ear that will make you rich---but it is easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, so the Book of Matthew says. In medieval times, Belphegor was said to be Hell's ambassador to France.

1000000000000066600000000000001
Surface Front coming thru Soo Cal appears to be weakening as the parent ULL has slowed down SW of Monterey CA. Front appeared to just lose some juice.All in all not a bad storm, just the usual of late a quick hitting 4 hour front that has dropped .58" of rain. More showers are heading in off the Pacific from the SW to NE. So maybe more showers inbound and some wraparound showers from the SE/E when the ULL get's SE of San Diego County, supposedly tomorrow.

Quoting 317. HurricaneHunterJoe:

Surface Front coming thru Soo Cal appears to be weakening as the parent ULL has slowed down SW of Monterey CA. Front appeared to just lose some juice.All in all not a bad storm, just the usual of late a quick hitting 4 hour front that has dropped .58" of rain. More showers are heading in off the Pacific from the SW to NE. So maybe more showers inbound and some wraparound showers from the SE/E when the ULL get's SE of San Diego County, supposedly tomorrow.




Got .63 at Indian Hills PWS...
From the WV Loop you can see where the ULL is and it appears to be getting some energy back into the the tail end of the front the last couple of frames.

320. vis0
Quoting 316. BaltimoreBrian:

In honor of Friday the 13th, as always, I present Belphegor's Prime--a palindromic prime of 1s at the ends, 13 zeros on each side and 666 in the center.

Belphegor is the demon of innovation--he whispers inventions in your ear that will make you rich---but it is easier to thread a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven, so the Book of Matthew says. In medieval times, Belphegor was said to be Hell's ambassador to France.

1000000000000066600000000000001
i'm doing a headstand as i read 316 LOO999OOOL - aka laffng out loud while chugging 999 %uFFFDbeers %uFFFDsoderpop%uFFFD as to science don't ferget many taboos where created so Kings stayed away from them thus the numbers stayed clean of being changed as 13 the 13 clusters of energy at a specific degrees that opens windows to n from physics and Galacsics (hence ~11.125 if the optimum as to building a complex sphere double that to create a pos/neg passageway for energy to recycle but being it can become magnetized over time thus lose its "purity" influence we need a control from interference as those ceramic beads on electrical wires so we have moses the 13th zodiac (after Libra only lasts ~14 days) that moves around the coil of zodiacs clusters NOT with them maintains a higher level of thought (Galacsics, so to speak)

oh darn carried away again skip it we have more important things going on with nonblance ...
Have the same problem here. Pygmy goats though. The older male was "fixed" but the 9 month old male is like a teenager at a girls only party. Understand your situation completely!!!

Quoting 312. nonblanche:



Our daddy buck goat. He was born black, so the kids named him Ninja. He's rusty brown now. Polled, and rather well behaved for a buck. Also, if he would let me brush him, he'd be gorgeous. His dad (our neighbor's papered purebread Toggenberg fence-jumper) was actually really ratty looking. But Ninja - who's 3/4 Tog, 1/4 Boer - is gorgeous, and all the does he's sired are equally beautiful and decent (not prize winning) milkers. Which is fine, because a pure papered Tog doe pumps out way more milk than we can use.

He was doing a great job keeping the other bucks away from Dancer last week while she was kidding, about three weeks earlier than we expected. Once we got the two bad boys out of the pen and in the pasture, he was so riled up he was trying to mount her too - so into the pasture with him. The buck pen is so we can keep everyone calm and sheltered.
Quoting 307. Daisyworld:


The upshot is that the feedback is most certainly not "closer to neutral", and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous to the spirit of Dr. Masters' blog entry, as well as a misrepresentation of atmospheric science and climate science overall.



Again this kind of debate brings more heat than light.

What Blizz wrote about low clouds has a lot of merit, when they will reflect 100 watts/meter2 and the forcing of CO2 as a GHG is close as he suggests to 1 percent of that. Consider how cirrus can trap 200 watts/meter2. Then this is only statics--what about energy that a storm expresses in terms of its winds and waves, and not increases in temperature. This is a real topic of debate starting with Lindzen's iris paper then Hartmann/Fu's papers. These papers all get to teleconnections as well, and while they find warming the problem is CO2 as a direct dependent changer of cloud behaviors could do the same net thing. I have a serious problem with all of these papers (INCLUDING the Lindzen 'iris' paper. They all look to 'grid squares' to try to determine what the cloud feedback is. But if you consider an electrical complexity, as I do, electrical currents don't flow by grids--they can flow along a small 'wire'. In the tropics, where the main observations are made about clouds in these papers, there are narrow bands of warm and therefore conductive 'wires' of ocean that defy 'grid square' measures a proxy. The problem is the same as with el nino for me--there is reason to consider super storms and glacial laying storms as the other side of the warming.

Blizz is unwilling as I am to attribute as a cause green house gases for the behavior of clouds like you are. From that graphic, I would also add that a recent Hanson paper on the question of why the MSU data shows more warming in the northern hemisphere--he blamed soot. The problem with that theory is while the northern hemisphere has more soot production, it also has more lightning because 90 percent of lightning occurs over land and the northern hemisphere has more land. This is a much more reasonable explanation (lightning is) because of another observation--the warming takes place during peak lightning, which is NOT when the most soot is produced. The most soot is produced now and in the early spring for heating. There is a long way to go and real scientific skepticism should be welcome. Progressives and alarmists like myself really have been hurt by the closed mindedness on both the so called skeptics and warmers parts. Ideas don't have to be mean.
Quoting 322. vanderwaalselectrics:
Again this kind of debate brings more heat than light. What Blizz wrote about low clouds has a lot of merit, when they will reflect 100 watts/meter2 and the forcing of CO2 as a GHG is close as he suggests to 1 percent of that. Consider how cirrus can trap 200 watts/meter2. Then this is only statics--what about energy that a storm expresses in terms of its winds and waves, and not increases in temperature. This is a real topic of debate starting with Lindzen's iris paper then Hartmann/Fu's papers... There is a long way to go and real scientific skepticism should be welcome. Progressives and alarmists like myself really have been hurt but the closed mindedness on both the so called skeptics and warmers parts.


The only current "debate" that exists is in political and ideological circles, and it yields little to no merit.

There is no reasonable scientific debate today on the causes of human-induced climate change.

To invoke Richard Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis from 2001 is a perfect example of this. His hypothesis on the supposed negative feedback of high cirrus clouds never got any traction in the scientific community. As explained in Skeptical Science:

"… much research has focused on Lindzen's iris hypothesis, but very little supporting evidence has been uncovered. On the contrary, studies have consistenly shown that Lindzen dramatically overestimated the iris effect in his initial study, and that if the effect exists, it may even amplify warming as opposed to dampening it. There certainly isn't any evidence that the infrared iris will result in enough of a negative feedback to significantly slow down global warming."

What you've invoked is not skepticism, as it does not represent reasonable scientific debate.
Quoting 303. vanderwaalselectrics:



Yet by observation the solar cycles have shown pronounced impact on climate. Even recently when there was little sun spot activity in 2013 the Atlantic season was incredibly quiet. Link




What are you even talking about? The work by Elsner shows the EXACT OPPOSITE of what your claiming. In other words, when there are fewer sunspots the likelihood for hurricane impacts goes up, not down. Elsner's work ties this effect to stratospheric heating as a result of UV flux.

Regardless, solar cycles do not have a strong impact on overall global climate. Regional variations happen in extended minimums and maximums, but global averages remain intact. In other words, there is evidence that it influences where energy gets moved around, but neither increases no decreases the amount of energy in a significant way.

Quoting 303. vanderwaalselectrics:
So what caused the SUN to be associated with such a quiet tropical storm season. I believe it's not just about energy but about IONS, solar winds (ion wind) and UV light that creates ions in the upper atmosphere that are organized over storms and help determine how they vent.


Your belief is based of an unsubstantiated assumption where other research demonstrates the opposite.

Furthermore, outside of extreme flares, solar winds do not have the necessary strength to penetrate the magnetic field. When they do they get trapped in the Ionosphere and give us the auroras, or in cases of strong events, geomagnetic storms. This is well above where UV radiation begins to significantly interact with the atmosphere (stratosphere).

UV is non-ionizing radiation. It doesn't produce ions as it encounters matter, but it can excite it. In the case of the stratosphere, it splits O3 into O2 O, and splits O2 into 2O which can then recombine with other O2 molecules to reform O3 in a constant cycle. This process also produces heat, so stronger UV fluxes end up heating the stratosphere (as noted in several papers).

In either case, there is no shower of ions making it down to the troposphere.

Quoting 303. vanderwaalselectrics:
In other words, it becomes in large part not just what the inputs from the sun are but how the earth takes what those inputs, including the electrical portions of the solar cycle.


Which of course simply isn't true and is countered by existing research.

Quoting 303. vanderwaalselectrics:
And by the way, he's right about the low percentage of heat trapped by green house gas character of CO2 in relation to low clouds


No, he isn't. The subject of clouds has been researched quite extensively, and to date there are no observations that substantiate that claim that a warmer world will only allow magically larger and longer lasting low cloud cover. In fact, in spite of the warming cloud cover has remained relatively constant, however the additional moisture in the atmosphere acts as minor positive feedback.

Clouds, and other related phenomena are discussed at length in the IPCC and other research articles.

Quoting 303. vanderwaalselectrics:
, but then both of you miss how electrically CO2 impacts cloud behaviors directly. This debate between you two ends up producing more heat than light.


CO2 doesn't affect clouds electrically. Your premise for claiming so violates basic quantum mechanics (as well as chemistry and physics). You've yet to even put forth a basic model demonstrating your claim, let alone one that doesn't violate well tested and well supported science. You've offered nothing to substantiate your claim other than inane ramblings and other nonsense often contradicted by known science.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Put up or shut up.
Record heat despite a cold sun
Nov 2016 - RealClimate.org - Climate Science From Climate Scientists.

For a while, 2010 was the hottest year on record globally. But then it got overtopped by 2014. And 2014 was beaten again by 2015. And now 2016 is so warm that it is certain to be once again a record year*. Three record years in a row - that is unprecedented even in all those decades of global warming. (...) As climate scientists we are by no means surprised at this development, as there has been clear evidence that the variations of the sun's activity have played a completely subordinate role in climate change over the last 65 years. We've covered this issue many times (...).
Global warming is driven by greenhouse gases, which is a long-standing consensus in science.


*2016 was warmest year on record - The Economic Times / Times of India - Jan 2017.
Quoting 324. Daisyworld:



The only current "debate" that exists is in political and ideological circles, and it yields little to no merit.


He just expects everyone to wonder after his dizzying intellect after spouting the equivalent of "If we re-route power through the main deflector dish and reconfigure the hyper-plasma substructure...".

His type show up regularly on science boards though. Every Tom, Tina, and Ted who's had a science class and maybe one too many knocks on the head (or one too many marathon runs of Star Trek) come up with all kinds of crazy nuttery, and cover it a nice helping of psuedo-scientific babble. There are some priceless ones out there, along with the occasional scam. I'm kind of surprised we don't see more on here (though we've certainly had a few).

Maybe weather and climate just isn't cool enough when compared time travel and perpetual motion machines people have "built" in their garages. :P
Raining hard again at the olde homestead!



Good morning. Pretty wild night with windstorm "Egon" in western Europe! Although my town Mainz City escaped from the worst there are early reports of widespread wind damage and traffic problems ... I'll collect some news as the day goes on and Egon will clear Germany.

For now there are severe news from England as very strong winds from the north will race over the North Sea at the rear side of Egon and the northern low "Caius":

Storm surge flood threat to coastal areas in UK
BBC, 22 minutes ago
Severe flood warnings are in place along the eastern coast of England, amid fears homes and properties are at risk from a three-metre (10ft) storm surge.
The Environment Agency has issued 13 severe flood warnings - meaning danger to life - for the lunchtime high tide at 12:30 GMT and Friday night.
People have been urged to leave their homes, including in Jaywick, Essex, where an evacuation is under way. ...
The Environment Agency's severe flood warnings - its highest possible alert - are in place for coastal areas of Essex and Suffolk.
There is a risk of "significant" flooding in some areas from the lunchtime high tide, which is expected at about 12:30 GMT, with further warnings issued in Suffolk from 21:45 GMT.
Dozens more flood warnings have been issued along the east coast, which is braced for a storm surge brought on by gale-force winds and high tides. ...





Surface winds at noon local time today (model Euro 4). Afterwards winds will hit the coasts of continental Europe.


Surface analysis from midnight last night. (Click to enlarge)
Quoting 259. blizzard1024:




The sun provides the Earth with around 341 w/m2 of energy accounting for geometry. The earth's albedo is about 30% so that means the Earth absorbs about 238 w/m2. I have seen this estimate as high as 240 w/m2. It depends on the solar "constant" which has been measured from 1361 w/m2 to 1366 w/m2. In any event, the total downwelled IR radiation from greenhouse gases is estimated to be around 333 w/m2. The increase from GHGs you see in the graph you showed is about 2-3 w/m2 which is barely a 1% change. That's very small and hard to imagine how such a small forcing to our climate system can cause such large changes. The sun was very active in the 1900s, especially the late 1900s. This heat accumulates in the oceans which have a large lag time, a very large lag time given the total amount of water we are talking about. So if the sun goes quiet or weakens its output by a little bit as it has, its not going to cool for a long time. I think this article is flawed in that regard. We are still riding the strong sun of the late 20th century which can easily explain that there is natural warming too along with greenhouse gas warming. Computer models can not decipher how much is natural warming and how much is GHGs at this point (although they claim too). The climate system is just too complex. I suspect most of the warming is natural because a 1% increase in the Greenhouse effect is very small. Low Cloud cover is known to vary by a few percent via satellite data. If you run through the calculations of what an increased(decreased) albedo would do of a few percent, it easily swamps the 2-3 w/2 of extra greenhouse gas forcing. I am with Dr. Judith Curry in that we need to learn more about the natural climate system too. By doing this, we can put the increasing GHGs effects into better context.
When you talk about percentages in terms of temperature you have to use an absolute temperature scale such as the Kelvin scale. The average temperature of the Earth is about 15 degrees C which is equivalent to 288 Kelvins. So a 1% change in temperature would be about 2.88 centigrade degrees.
Quoting 329. barbamz:


Good morning! I just saw that 24h loop on meteo-ciel and it made me wonder how you had coped with the winds, glad to know your city escaped from the worst. Thanks for that update, I'll be waiting for the next one :-)

Here's the latest from The Local.fr:
240,000 homes without power as winter storm lashes France - 1 hour ago.

Regarding that coastal event in UK, I guess I was a bit early when I posted that link a few days ago on the blog; still worth a look when it comes to storm surge damages that go under the radar of most people:

Research Aims to Support Farmers to Bring Back Saltwater-Damaged Land After Coastal Flooding
Dr Gary Bosworth said: "The threat posed to British agriculture by climate change and rising sea levels cannot be underestimated. Three years ago storm surges breached some of the coastal defences along England's east coast. Thankfully the damage to life and property was not comparable to earlier floods in 1953, but the hidden impact on the quality of our prime agricultural soils is still being felt by farmers today. One of the primary climate change forecasts is that sea levels may well rise and this, combined with potential changes in storm intensity, may increase flood risk. (...)"

You bet it will...
Quoting 324. Daisyworld:



The only current "debate" that exists is in political and ideological circles, and it yields little to no merit.

There is no reasonable scientific debate today on the causes of human-induced climate change.

To invoke Richard Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis from 2001 is a perfect example of this. His hypothesis on the supposed negative feedback of high cirrus clouds never got any traction in the scientific community. As explained in Skeptical Science:

"… much research has focused on Lindzen's iris hypothesis, but very little supporting evidence has been uncovered. On the contrary, studies have consistenly shown that Lindzen dramatically overestimated the iris effect in his initial study, and that if the effect exists, it may even amplify warming as opposed to dampening it. There certainly isn't any evidence that the infrared iris will result in enough of a negative feedback to significantly slow down global warming."

What you've invoked is not skepticism, as it does not represent reasonable scientific debate.


It's really hard to debate someone who takes out parts of your comments then comments on only part of them, and, of course as a warmer attacks the skeptic part of the comment. Plus you clearly didn't read the Hartmann/Fu papers. Which sadly I have. Those papers are similar studies on grid squares. That's the problem. Electrical couplings over tropical storms will leak in narrower areas than grid squares, so if there is an electrical complexity to cloud behaviors (lightning is most common in the tropics which is where these studies center), than grid squares are not going to capture the issue, which again is about how the oceans couple with the air and how heat is either captured or released. ALL of the papers cannot meaningfully address an electrical complexity.
Quoting 265. blizzard1024:


...

Looking at how slow the temperature trends have been with increased GHGs it looks like the feedback is closer to neutral since the temperatures trends are running on the lower envelope of the climate model projections.

Until the past 3 record years where the observations are solidly in the middle of the climate model averages.
Quoting 325. Xyrus2000:



The work by Elsner shows the EXACT OPPOSITE of what your claiming. In other words, when there are fewer sunspots the likelihood for hurricane impacts goes up, not down. Elsner's work ties this effect to stratospheric heating as a result of UV flux.



That's something probably I have seen too over time if you are talking about globally all storms and over the entire min to max. What I think this does is really, and I realize it's WAY out there, is demonstrate just how highly TUNED a living earth is. Modulations work best when tropical storms are sensitive to carbonation levels. But as far as talking about solar mins in the Atlantic, which has its own peculiar electrical dynamics, the impact of low solar electrical particles, either from UV light or from solar winds, also produced another quiet year in the Atlantic--1914, and cannot be a co in a dink. JMHO: Link
335. MahFL
Wow the D4 shrunk a lot :

Quoting 331. 999Ai2016:

Good morning! I just saw that 24h loop on meteo-ciel and it made me wonder how you had coped with the winds, glad to know your city escaped from the worst. Thanks for that update, I'll be waiting for the next one :-)



Loop of Egon's development in the last 12 hours.

Highest gusts in Germany in the last 6 hours: Link
On mountain "Weinbiet" in our southwest there was a reading of 148kmh (92mph). A guy in a German weather blog has posted a reading from Mainz University (a mile away from my flat but more exposed) of 100 kmh (62 mph).


Windmap for Jan 13 so far in Beaufort.

Lowest pressure readings I could detect in Germany last night: 979mb.
HRRR High Resolution Model has this band of showers training over San Diego County until almost noon tomorrow!





http://www.tropicaltidbits.com/analysis/models/hr rr/2017011307/hrrr_ref_frzn_swus_9.png



And total rain during that timeframe:

The Local (Germany) now has started a live blog about the aftermath of "Egon":
LIVE: Germany braces as storm Egon brings heavy snow, travel woes

Icy storm lashes France and Germany causing hardship
BBC, 41 minutes ago

Storm 'Egon' brings chaotic winter weather to Europe
DW, Jan 13, 2017

Meanwhile on twitter:
Organ of medieval cathedral in Soissons (northern France) was destroyed by "Egon" :-(



Edit: the damage seen from outside:

Tweet.
Quoting 339. barbamz:

Organ of medieval cathedral in Soissons (northern France) was destroyed by "Egon" :-(

:-) Best thing is that apparently nobody died in France (Edit : one fatality confirmed , and at least three in Germany unfortunately, see articles in 339. barbamz) from the storm (although dozens of people have been lightly wounded). Meteo-France warnings for last night have been very accurate, the area under red alert was indeed the area most impacted by strong winds.
Down south in the Mediterranean sea, Cap Corse station (Corsica Island) never fails to impress: it recorded a wind gust at 167 kmh / 103mph around 9am local time today.

I hope UK will dodge the worst when it comes to the storm surge.
Thanks, 999. Yeah, I noticed the measurement of very high winds in northern Corsica already yesterday evening, too. Impressive numbers this morning!
Meanwhile I saw a report of one storm related fatality in Germany, unfortunately.

Most dire conditions for the migrants and homeless in eastern and southeastern parts of Europe, though:
Heavy snow brings more misery, deaths in Europe
By FPJ Bureau | Jan 13, 2017 08:15 am
Bucharest : Authorities dug out stranded residents as heavy snow blanketed Eastern Europe today and people struggled with travel delays, power outages and subzero temperatures. Homeless people and migrants were among those most at risk, reports AP. The recent cold snap has now been blamed for at least 69 deaths, and seen the lowest temperatures for decades in some parts. ...

More cold weather on the way to southern Europe:
'Ten days of snow and ice' on the way for Italy

Edit (poor animal!):
Black Forest: Fox freezes to ice cube
Published on Friday, 13 January, 2017 at 11:48
(vb/sth) A fox had a very unlucky encounter with winter conditions in Germany's Black Forest region. It fell through the ice on the Danube and froze into a big ice cube. ...
Photos see link above.
Global Warming ???
It got down to 68F here early this morning.
Where's my blanket ??
BRRRRRR !

Oh, and Happy Friday 13th.
Quoting 330. riverat544:

When you talk about percentages in terms of temperature you have to use an absolute temperature scale such as the Kelvin scale. The average temperature of the Earth is about 15 degrees C which is equivalent to 288 Kelvins. So a 1% change in temperature would be about 2.88 centigrade degrees.


That was the reason I used the Stefan-Boltzman Law in the first place. Its not a linear function. Power/Unit Area = a constant times T^4 assuming a blackbody (which is a pretty good assumption). So I degree change from 1K to 2K is not the same as 288K to 289K! You can do the math and you will see... Assume the constant is 1 for simplicity (it's something like 5.67 and 10^-7.)
Europe is really delivering notable weather news right now. Mind, the Baltic Sea is a quite flat body of water:
Monster Baltic Sea wave sets new record
The Local (Sweden), 12 January 2017, 16:01 CET 01:00
A wave measuring almost 15 metres (49ft) has smashed previous Baltic Sea records. ... The figure has not yet been confirmed as accurate, but it could be the highest wave ever measured in the Baltic Sea. The previous record is from December 22nd 2004, when one wave reached a height of 14 metres. The significant wave height then was 8.2 metres, just as last night. ...

Update on the storm surge in East England with links to live reports:
Flood warnings: Evacuations continue in Essex and Suffolk
BBC, 27 minutes ago
Quoting 307. Daisyworld:

Blizzard1024, this is the one and only time I will engage you on this subject, but only because your dispute with BaltimoreBrian is proceeding from false assertions.

You stated in #265:

This is incorrect. The total average anthropogenic radiative forcings are averaging +2.29 W/m2, with the uncertainty ranging between +1.13 and +3.33 W/m2:



According to the 2014 IPCC, the confidence in this value is high, with confidence that CO2 for an average of +1.63 W/m2 (uncertainty range +1.33 to +2.03 W/m2) rated as very high. The lowest confidence is found in the negative feedbacks of clouds and aerosols, which is listed as an average of -0.55 (uncertainty range -1.33 to -0.06 W/m2).

Therefore, your assertion that "there is conflicting evidence that this feedback is negative, neutral or positive" is wrong. Whatever conflicting evidence you're referring to, either (1) it is too small to be of any consequence to the climate models, (2) you are overstating their effects for reasons unknown, or (3) the rest of the well-known, well-established, and well-documented positive feedback effects overwhelm this evidence.

The upshot is that the feedback is most certainly not "closer to neutral", and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous to the spirit of Dr. Masters' blog entry, as well as a misrepresentation of atmospheric science and climate science overall.



I am talking about the water vapor feedback. Just because the Earth warms, it doesn't necessarily mean that the total effect of water vapor will enhance the warming. The claim is that CO2, CH4 and O3 are non-condensable greenhouse gases meaning they don't cycle through the atmosphere as quickly. This is especially true of CO2.
So the increase in GHGs increases the IR downwelling by the amounts you quoted "+2.29 W/m2, with the uncertainty ranging between +1.13 and +3.33 W/m2". So if you increase the Earth's temperature you increase surface evaporation which increases the amount of water vapor. H20 is the primary greenhouse gas and amplifies a modest amount of warming from increased GHGs. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that it is the upper troposphere where water vapor increases are important. Through precipitation processes especially tropical convection, we don't know if water vapor truly is increasing up there, decreasing or remaining neutral. There are several papers that conclude that water vapor is increasing but there are papers that say its being declining! Hence there is uncertainty in this crucial feedback. Without it, a CO2 doubling leads to 1.2C of warming. The IPCC which is a political organization claims the feedback is positive but gives a range of 1.5C to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2.
Quoting 307. Daisyworld:

Blizzard1024, this is the one and only time I will engage you on this subject, but only because your dispute with BaltimoreBrian is proceeding from false assertions.

You stated in #265:

This is incorrect. The total average anthropogenic radiative forcings are averaging +2.29 W/m2, with the uncertainty ranging between +1.13 and +3.33 W/m2:



According to the 2014 IPCC, the confidence in this value is high, with confidence that CO2 for an average of +1.63 W/m2 (uncertainty range +1.33 to +2.03 W/m2) rated as very high. The lowest confidence is found in the negative feedbacks of clouds and aerosols, which is listed as an average of -0.55 (uncertainty range -1.33 to -0.06 W/m2).

Therefore, your assertion that "there is conflicting evidence that this feedback is negative, neutral or positive" is wrong. Whatever conflicting evidence you're referring to, either (1) it is too small to be of any consequence to the climate models, (2) you are overstating their effects for reasons unknown, or (3) the rest of the well-known, well-established, and well-documented positive feedback effects overwhelm this evidence.

The upshot is that the feedback is most certainly not "closer to neutral", and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous to the spirit of Dr. Masters' blog entry, as well as a misrepresentation of atmospheric science and climate science overall.



I am talking about the water vapor feedback. Just because the Earth warms, it doesn't necessarily mean that the total effect of water vapor will enhance the warming. The claim is that CO2, CH4 and O3 are non-condensable greenhouse gases meaning they don't cycle through the atmosphere as quickly. This is especially true of CO2.
So the increase in GHGs increases the IR downwelling by the amounts you quoted "+2.29 W/m2, with the uncertainty ranging between +1.13 and +3.33 W/m2". So if you increase the Earth's temperature you increase surface evaporation which increases the amount of water vapor. H20 is the primary greenhouse gas and amplifies a modest amount of warming from increased GHGs. However, the flaw in this reasoning is that it is the upper troposphere where water vapor increases are important. Through precipitation processes especially tropical convection, we don't know if water vapor truly is increasing up there, decreasing or remaining neutral. There are several papers that conclude that water vapor is increasing but there are papers that say its been declining! Hence there is uncertainty in this crucial feedback. Without it, a CO2 doubling leads to 1.2C of warming. The IPCC which is a political organization claims the feedback is positive but gives a range of 1.5C to 4.5C for a doubling of CO2.
Quoting 296. Xyrus2000:



It's always a little amusing with someone with only a vague idea of how things work attempt to smash a bunch of random information together. It makes them sound like they know what they're talking about.

Emitted radiance per unit area is given by:

P = s*T^4

where P is the power per area (W/m^2), s is the Stefan-Boltman constant, and T is the effective temperature.

Working backwards from you claim of 333 W/m^2:

T = (P/s)^1/4
T = 278K

That's a good 11 K off from the actual of about 289K. The total effective power including greenhouse effects is:

P=s*T^4 = 390 W/m^2

of which approximately 240 W/m^2 is from the sun by itself. The surplus 150 W/m^2 is from additional factors, of which the largest is greenhouse gases.

Your attempt at using percentages to bias opinion is childish at best. The additional 2 to 3 watts of forcing is CUMULATIVE. Once again you fail to grasp exactly what that means. If you fill a bucket faster than you drain it, it doesn't matter how little extra you add, IT WILL OVERFLOW. That's exactly what's happening in global warming. More energy is being retained than is being emitted, and this in turn raises global temperatures over time.



That's because of your general ignorance of the climate system and how it operates. Historically, changes of a couple degrees up or down have resulted in large global climate shifts, often resulting in extinction events.



So you start off talking about the Stefan-Boltzman law, downwelling radiation, etc. and here you just throw it all out the window because it doesn't fit your narrative? What kind of argument are you trying to make here? That physics woks only when you want it to?

The TOA variation from solar cycles is a few watts. The difference by the time it makes it to the planet's surface is a vanishingly small fraction of a watt. The previous paper I linked to showed extended periods of maxes and mins MIGHT impact global temperatures by a .1K over the course of a century. The warming we've seen far exceeds this over the past century. So the observations do not even remotely support your hypothesis.



Neither the science nor observations substantiate any such hypothesis. The amount of additional energy needed to raise ocean temperatures by the amount we've measured far exceeds any excess provided by solar variation. You also seem to simply gloss over the fact that a solar cycle is just that: a cycle. Maxes and mins that on average cancel out to the value of the long term solar constant. The sun wasn't sitting at max 10 out of 11 years per cycle, nor would it make any significant difference even if it was.

Or perhaps your insinuating another climate conspiracy involving solar scientists and measurement so fthe suns output?



Yes, they very much can considering Arrhenius originally figured it out using nothing more than pen and paper almost 120 years ago. The IPCC has an entire section dedicated to modeling. There are whole books and thousands of research articles on the subject, and they all contradict what you're saying.



No, it really isn't. Just like an aerodynamic model doesn't need to model every micro-turbulent vortex to determine whether or not a wing will provide lift, a climate model doesn't need to model every atom of the atmosphere to make accurate climate predictions. Again, many source provide plenty of information, data, and research on climate models and how they operate.



No, it really isn't. That "small" effect represents an enormous amount of excess energy being added to the system at a pace usually only encountered during catastrophic events. That excess accumulates, and if paleoclimatological records are any indication, tipping points can further accelerate the rate of warming.

In addition, there are plenty of examples where small percentages can disrupt/destroy much larger systems. For example, a 1% change is enough to turn what's simply a hot chunk of plutonium into a mushroom cloud.



No it doesn't, and several papers on this subject show increased water vapor is a net positive forcing. Just because there is more water vapor in the atmosphere does not mean there will be more clouds. But more importantly, cloud cover would have to persistently increase by much more than "a few percent" to counteract CO2 forcing, and it would have to increase lower level clouds (cooling) as opposed to higher level clouds(warming). On average, 52% of earth is cloud covered at any given time, and yet we still have a very strong greenhouse effect keeping us all warm.

You're going to have to do better than that.



Or perhaps you actually need to learn about the physics and science behind climate so you can put your rather erratic arguments into a better more coherent context. Ignorance is a poor crutch to rely on when it comes to establishing a scientific position. At least try to be consistent for a start, and not trash the very same physics you use to open your argument with.
Quoting 302. Xyrus2000:



This coming from someone who starts off using Stefan-Boltzman as justification then trashes it when it no longer says what he wants it to say. Right.

Do you understand the laws of thermodynamics and conservation of energy? Do you understand that the laws of physics don't suddenly stop working just because they disagree with what you're saying? You do understand that when you post outright lies that it does nothing to help your credibility?

Hypothesis. Evidence. Analysis. Conclusion. Appeals to emotion, personal opinion, unsubstantiated nonsense, etc. have no place in a scientific discussion. All you've put forward is rambling, semi-coherent, incorrect, misleading, and often contradictory statements that at best demonstrate you only have the vaguest notion of what you're talking about, especially in regards to climate models.

Meanwhile, just about the entire scientific community contradicts what your trying to claim with plenty of freely available resources on a wide range of subjects in regards to climate science. You can even access research journals for free just by heading down to your local college/university campus.

It's clear from your postings that you haven't given more than passing thought to the subject of climate science, while the researchers in the science community have spent decades on the subject. You're going to have to do a lot better if you want your arguments to stand up to the scrutiny of even a high school student.


You are misrepresenting my comments. Where did I trash the S-F equation?? Anyway, let me be very clear here, everything I am stating comes from a 30 year background in atmospheric science. I have used and worked on computer models of the atmosphere for weather prediction to climate for 25 years. It comes down to how much warming will CO2 cause. Using dF= 5.35 ln (CO2/CO2i) where i is pre-industrial CO2 levels, you get 3.7 watts/m2 extra forcing from doubling CO2. Using the S-F equation that equals 1.2C. What is wrong with this logic?

It takes feedbacks to make increases in CO2 significant. The water vapor feedback is thought to be the primary amplifier and is the most problematic in computer model simulations. The atmosphere is extremely complex and computer models don't do it justice. To say its pretty easy to model the atmosphere shows a lot of ignorance as someone on this forum stated. Its a very complex problem. The warming and all the fuss over increasing GHGs is from the assumed positive feedbacks. The water vapor feedback may not even be positive! Measurements from radiosondes show declining water vapor in the upper troposphere! That is where is counts. So total precipitable water can go up, but if the upper troposphere shows declines or even a neutral trend in water vapor, the feedback is negative or neutral. Climate "science" has descended into politics so that something that is peered reviewed any more doesn't mean much. Hence my reference to Dr Judith Curry. She is 100% correct that free and open debate about this very complex problem, the Earth's climate system, has been hijacked by politics which stifles learning and creativity. As soon as I get on any forum, I get viciously attacked. Everything I say including the uncertainty in clouds, tropical convection, ocean currents etc is legitimate but it doesn't go along with the IPCC's narrative or Texas A and M's climate change statement that they force professors to sign!!! This is dogma. see http://www.met.tamu.edu/about/weather-climate/clim ate-change-statement/index.html So of course your research will be biased!! If you go against the CO2 narrative as a climate scientist your career is over. How can we learn anything about the Earth's natural climate system? We still don't know exactly how the ice ages flow and ebb? The Milankovictch cycles are part of it but there is a lot that is uncertain. We don't know how clouds exactly affect the radiation budget of the atmosphere or how they respond to increasing low-level water vapor. There was a NASA satellite study between 1983-2009 that showed an inverse relationship between low cloud cover and global temperatures suggesting clouds strongly regulate the Earth's temperatures. But, this was ignored by the climate "scientists / activists". There are so many unknowns. Yet the science is settled?? If you question this you get attacked. This is not science anymore, its politics. Your attacks on me clearly show you are an activist.

Quoting 347. blizzard1024:



[...] There was a NASA satellite study between 1983-2009 that showed an inverse relationship between low cloud cover and global temperatures suggesting clouds strongly regulate the Earth's temperatures. [...]

There's no NASA satellite study suggesting clouds strongly regulate the Earth's temperatures.
Quoting 298. BaltimoreBrian:

Obama administration to pay billions to Marines affected by toxic water who were at Camp Lejune for at least 30 days between August 1, 1953, and Dec. 31, 1987.

I finally got around to clicking your link. One of the things that jump out at me; "The Marine Corps has said the contamination was unintentional, occurring when federal law didn't limit toxins in drinking water". (emphasis added)

My point; regulations and environmental laws protect us. The incoming Admin. wants to cut back on regulations and environmental laws to benifit businesses. So, at what and who's cost?
Quoting 321. swflurker:

Have the same problem here. Pygmy goats though. The older male was "fixed" but the 9 month old male is like a teenager at a girls only party. Understand your situation completely!!!




Oh, pygmy bucks are the WORST. When we had one, I was thankful for my hapkido training - it took front heel kicks between the horns to get him to re-think his attitude.
Good Morning Folks; here is the current forecast and look across Conus: rain is finally tapering off across Southern California as the jet dips further to their South.






Quoting 328. HurricaneHunterJoe:

Raining hard again at the olde homestead!






Yeah, can see that - my brother Dave drove from Vegas to Mom's house, arrived around 8pm, said it rained the whole way down.
Good day!

It's 78, partly cloudy and very windy (as it has been for days now). Winds have been causing a lot of problems over here and we are under the following warnings:

"... Coastal Flood Advisory now in effect until 6 am AST Sunday...
... High surf advisory now in effect until 6 am AST Sunday...
... High rip current risk remains in effect through Sunday
evening...

* breaking waves... up to 14 feet.

* Coastal flooding... high tides combined with onshore winds and
swell action will result in coastal flooding... mainly around
high tides.

* Location... northwest through north facing beaches of Saint
Thomas.

* Timing... coastal flooding through early Sunday morning. High
risk of rip currents and high surf through Sunday."

The following is a quote from StormCarib from Haiti:

"In this part of the Caribbean there is certainly something unusual going on meteorologically. Very stormy weather, gusts that likely exceed 50mph off and on for the past 48 hours, accompanied by periodic rain."

And from the British Virgin Islands:

"Long Bay on Beef Island has been red flagged and therefore closed as a result of the ongoing hazardous sea conditions affecting the Territory.

This follows the previously announced closures of Smugglers Cove, Long Bay West End Tortola, Capoons Bay, Brewers Bay, Trunk Bay, Rogues Bay, Josiah%u2019s Bay, Lambert Beach, Little Bay, the Baths, Cane Garden Bay, North Shore of Anegada, the Bubbly Pool on Jost Van Dyke and Savannah Bay on Virgin Gorda.

All beaches under the management of the National Parks Trust are also closed to bathers, swimmers, snorkelers and paddle boarders until further notice. The Mooring field is also closed, therefore no access to the beaches is permitted.

The beach closures are as a result of a huge low pressure system which is pushing large dangerous swells into the region."

Needless to say, beach trips to any of the north sides of any of our islands is a dangerous endeavor and hoping that visiting tourists are taking heed of all warnings. I know that personally I'm not going anywhere near those beaches. The handliners are taking a beating with fishing (us included). Grateful that we have other jobs we can fall back on when these weather systems come in!

Hoping life is treating all of you the right way this early new year!

Lindy


Quoting 348. Xandra:


There's no NASA satellite study suggesting clouds strongly regulate the Earth's temperatures.


You are not correct here. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project was run by NASA 1983-2009.

Data sources: NASA's International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. You can see there is an inverse relationship during the study period between low cloud cover and global average temperatures as calculated by the Hadley Centre's temperature dataset. This suggests variations in global low cloud cover regulates global temperatures. So increasing low-level water vapor from surface warming could simply lead to more low clouds and reflect solar radiation back to space cooling the planet. Again, the complexities are so enormous, even computer models can't handle the problem adequately.
Quoting 333. riverat544:


Until the past 3 record years where the observations are solidly in the middle of the climate model averages.


This is after they added .12C to the SSTs post 1998... Karl et al 2015...
Quoting 354. blizzard1024:



You are not correct here. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project was run by NASA 1983-2009.

Data sources: NASA's International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. You can see there is an inverse relationship during the study period between low cloud cover and global average temperatures as calculated by the Hadley Centre's temperature dataset. This suggests variations in global low cloud cover regulates global temperatures. So increasing low-level water vapor from surface warming could simply lead to more low clouds and reflect solar radiation back to space cooling the planet. Again, the complexities are so enormous, even computer models can't handle the problem adequately.

Of course, high cloud cover does the opposite, no?
Quoting 324. Daisyworld:



The only current "debate" that exists is in political and ideological circles, and it yields little to no merit.

There is no reasonable scientific debate today on the causes of human-induced climate change.

To invoke Richard Lindzen's Iris Hypothesis from 2001 is a perfect example of this. His hypothesis on the supposed negative feedback of high cirrus clouds never got any traction in the scientific community. As explained in Skeptical Science:

"… much research has focused on Lindzen's iris hypothesis, but very little supporting evidence has been uncovered. On the contrary, studies have consistenly shown that Lindzen dramatically overestimated the iris effect in his initial study, and that if the effect exists, it may even amplify warming as opposed to dampening it. There certainly isn't any evidence that the infrared iris will result in enough of a negative feedback to significantly slow down global warming."

What you've invoked is not skepticism, as it does not represent reasonable scientific debate.


Linzden's IRIS study and the Svensmark's study on cosmic rays and cloud cover and Paltridge's study on declining water vapor in the upper troposphere ALL get dismissed because they don't support catastrophic climate change and hence funding! But studies that tamper with surface temperature data which warm the present and cool the past skate by peer review and become accepted. There is not an equal level playing field in climate studies. It is dominated by political activists who are supposed to be scientists. Look at Dr Jim Hansen! He's been arrested for protesting at coal plants! He used to head up NASA's climate research!!!
Quoting 308. Barefootontherocks:


Yes, unless I want to plus or make a comment, I do keep this blog on ignore most of the time. When I am signed out, I read the blog header and, depending what's going on weather-wise, sometimes I skim through the comments quickly looking for weather. Works well for me.

Also, I want to note you quoted only part of what I posted at 233, and the bolding in the part you quoted is not my bolding, it is yours.

There is nothing wrong with what the member did. He, or she, bolded the text because it was "in pertinent part" to his question. It's called "emphasis added". A lot of us do it. This is because there is no reason to re-post somone's entire text when there is only a small portion, like a sentence or two, that is being commented on. Or, the commentator wants to "highlight" the portion that is relevant to his comment. As you may have noticed, I bolded your text because it's the pertinent part (emphasis added).
Quoting 356. Misanthroptimist:


Of course, high cloud cover does the opposite, no?


It does but look at total cloud cover vs global temperature. It is basically the same result suggesting high clouds are not making as much impact as low clouds...


Quoting 355. blizzard1024:



This is after they added .12C to the SSTs post 1998... Karl et al 2015...

That, of course, didn't happen. They homogenized two different data sets. Denialists would make hay no matter how the data were homogenized. One way and it's, "They adjusted the current temperature up!"; the other way and "They adjusted the old data down! In truth, the resulting trend after SST homogenization of ship and buoy data was precisely the same as the trend had been prior to homogenization. Please quit posting disinformation.
Quoting 355. blizzard1024:

This is after they added .12C to the SSTs post 1998... Karl et al 2015...

?

what-you-need-to-know-about-karl-2015.html - SkepticalScience
Quoting 356. Misanthroptimist:


Of course, high cloud cover does the opposite, no?


Possibly dumb question - don't low clouds reflect IR radiation?

They reflect explosive shock waves. (Yes, weather is part of munitions cleanup and efficiency of nuclear assets during an exchange. Weather is part of everything. )
Quoting 359. blizzard1024:



It does but look at total cloud cover vs global temperature. It is basically the same result suggesting high clouds are not making as much impact as low clouds...




Why, in the name of all that's scientific, would I trust a graph from that website? Short answer: I won't. No one should if they are interested in science. Show me a similar graph from a reputable source or I will simply disregard the graph in your post as a cartoon, for entertainment purposes only.
Quoting 354. blizzard1024:



You are not correct here. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project was run by NASA 1983-2009.

Data sources: NASA's International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. You can see there is an inverse relationship during the study period between low cloud cover and global average temperatures as calculated by the Hadley Centre's temperature dataset. This suggests variations in global low cloud cover regulates global temperatures. So increasing low-level water vapor from surface warming could simply lead to more low clouds and reflect solar radiation back to space cooling the planet. Again, the complexities are so enormous, even computer models can't handle the problem adequately.

There's no study by NASA suggesting clouds strongly regulate the Earth's temperatures.

Source: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project
Quoting 364. Xandra:


There's no study by NASA suggesting clouds strongly regulate the Earth's temperatures.

Source: International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project

The graph comes from climate4you...
More on this there:
Misrepresentation from Lindzen - RealClimate.org
Quoting 357. blizzard1024:



Linzden's IRIS study and the Svensmark's study on cosmic rays and cloud cover and Paltridge's study on declining water vapor in the upper troposphere ALL get dismissed because they don't support catastrophic climate change and hence funding! But studies that tamper with surface temperature data which warm the present and cool the past skate by peer review and become accepted. There is not an equal level playing field in climate studies. It is dominated by political activists who are supposed to be scientists. Look at Dr Jim Hansen! He's been arrested for protesting at coal plants! He used to head up NASA's climate research!!!

No, Svensmark's and Lindzen's are dismissed because they aren't supported by the available evidence.

Here are four refutations of Lindzen's work: Link Link Link Link

You'll note that none of those papers dismiss Lindzen's work on its relationship to climate change, but upon the fact that the data rule out Lindzen's assertions.

The same is true of Svensmark's dubious junk: Link Link Link

Peddle conspiracy theories elsewhere, please.
Blizzard -

Ok, so your argument is that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing amounts of CO2 is low, am I correct?
Quoting 367. daddyjames:

Blizzard -

Ok, so your argument is that the sensitivity of the climate to increasing amounts of CO2 is low, am I correct?


While Blizzard is well able to answer for himself/herself, here's what it looks like to me. Blizzard pointed out that climate sensitivity is 1.2C for a doubling of CO2. That is, of course, a fact. However, it is not inclusive since there will be feedbacks from the rise caused by atmospheric CO2, to the tune of around 3C/doubling -which you and many, perhaps most, of the readers here know. Blizzard, for whatever reason(s), omitted this fact.

So, while Blizzard didn't directly claim low sensitivity, s/he left that impression. Very similar to Lindzen's party trick of not quite saying something but leading people in a certain direction and allowing them to make an incorrect inference based upon partial and/or faulty information. Such tricks wouldn't be necessary if Blizzard's position had merit.
Temperatures in the twenties today will give way to temperatures in the forties for the rest of the month! This is shaping-up to be a very warm January for Illinois.




Quoting 369. ChiThom:

Temperatures in the twenties today will give way to temperatures in the forties for the rest of the month! This is shaping-up to be a very warm January for Illinois.


After this weekend we're looking at a full week in the 70s in much of the Carolinas.
Quoting 370. nrtiwlnvragn:








Light glaze here. Nothing appreciable on the ground yet(?) as it still is too warm . . . intermittent showers - some pretty steady rain, for the moment.
373. elioe
Quoting 344. barbamz:

Europe is really delivering notable weather news right now. Mind, the Baltic Sea is a quite flat body of water:
Monster Baltic Sea wave sets new record
The Local (Sweden), 12 January 2017, 16:01 CET 01:00
A wave measuring almost 15 metres (49ft) has smashed previous Baltic Sea records. ... The figure has not yet been confirmed as accurate, but it could be the highest wave ever measured in the Baltic Sea. The previous record is from December 22nd 2004, when one wave reached a height of 14 metres. The significant wave height then was 8.2 metres, just as last night. ...


Unlike the article states, the buoy is in the bulk of Baltic Sea, not Gulf of Bothnia. And the horses have died.
Quoting 373. elioe: And the horses have died.

That's sad :-(

Here some happy animals:

First snow day of 2017 at the Oregon Zoo
Quoting 347. blizzard1024:



You are misrepresenting my comments. Where did I trash the S-F equation?? Anyway, let me be very clear here, everything I am stating comes from a 30 year background in atmospheric science. I have used and worked on computer models of the atmosphere for weather prediction to climate for 25 years. It comes down to how much warming will CO2 cause. Using dF= 5.35 ln (CO2/CO2i) where i is pre-industrial CO2 levels, you get 3.7 watts/m2 extra forcing from doubling CO2. Using the S-F equation that equals 1.2C. What is wrong with this logic?




You can't use the S-F equation to calculate warming from increased green house gases. On one hand you say the climate system is too complicated for models to handle, then on the other hand you use an overly simplistic equation used to calculate power radiated from black bodies to prove your point.

And then you go on saying that current global temperature increases are due to past solar activity, but if you use the S-B equation, which you seem to hold in high esteem, you'll see that the change in solar output cycle to cycle has an even smaller effect on temperatures than greenhouse gases.

You're heavily contradicting yourself.
Quoting 347. blizzard1024:



As soon as I get on any forum, I get viciously attacked. .




That's what happens when one goes down the conspiracy rabbit hole and peddles the garbage around. Alleging conspiracy and fraud on a massive scale and then painting yourself as the persecuted victim doesn't win any sympathy.

On the above average temperature forecast:

A little warmer than a few runs ago. No complaints here.
Deep Dish Denial Derp for a Friday morning ?


Ummm,.....the Fried Fish Friday will be Lemonized and cuddled for its taste, rather than substance seems.


December CO2, 404.48ppm

December 2015: 401.85 ppm
Quoting 342. pottery:

Global Warming ???
It got down to 68F here early this morning.
Where's my blanket ??
BRRRRRR !

Oh, and Happy Friday 13th.


It got down to at least 5 below here this morning. Global warming seems a fickle lover at that!
Now we're getting the mesoscale reality.


Mesoscale Discussion 0038
NWS Storm Prediction Center Norman OK
0339 AM CST Fri Jan 13 2017

Areas affected...for portions of northeast OK...southeast KS...much
of southern MO...and southern IL

Concerning...Freezing rain

Valid 130939Z - 131545Z

SUMMARY...Freezing rain rates of at or above 0.05 inch per 3 hours are probable this morning over the MO Ozarks into southern IL. Farther west over portions of southeastern KS into northeastern OK, precipitation coverage is forecast to be less widespread but rates in localized areas may reach 0.05 inch per 3 hours.

DISCUSSION...Radar-mosaic imagery around 0930 UTC shows isolated to widely scattered showers from south-central OK northeastward into the MO Ozarks. The 06 UTC LMN raob over north-central OK showed a sub-freezing layer from the surface to 1 km AGL beneath a warm layer with an 850 mb temperature around 8.5 deg C. Also noted, the 800-500 mb layer was not saturated but additional moistening in this layer is forecast and will support 1) a freezing rain thermal profile and 2) an increase in shower coverage during the valid period. Lightning was detected over southwestern MO near KSGF beginning around 09 UTC. Further moistening/lift will combine to promote development of additional isolated thunderstorms--where rates will be locally enhanced.

The greatest coverage of 0.05-0.15 inch per 3 hour rates is expected over southern MO/IL. Lower rates and amounts are forecast across the OK/KS portion of the discussion area where localized rates of 0.05 inch per 3 hours may occur, primarily after 12 UTC /6AM CST/.

..Smith.. 01/13/2017
Quoting 372. daddyjames:



Light glaze here. Nothing appreciable on the ground yet(?) as it still is too warm . . . intermittent showers - some pretty steady rain, for the moment.
dj, Did you see Norman has adjusted N OK forecast downward and Stillwater is on the edge of 0.25-.0.5" through Sunday a.m.? Still a significant amount. Anything on elevated surfaces? Power is underground, so maybe tree branches?

Missouri's getting some heavy stuff at present.
Here in Birmingham we've seen over a dozen record highs (zero record lows) in the past 400 days. Virtually all of them have occurred in the fall/winter time frame. Currently we're running over 20 degrees above average and this streak is supposed to last at least 14 days.

Anyone have any clue why we're seeing so much warming in these seasons, but not in the summer? Not that I'm complaining... it's just interesting.
Quoting 381. pipelines:

Here in Birmingham we've seen over a dozen record highs (zero record lows) in the past 400 days. Virtually all of them have occurred in the fall/winter time frame. Currently we're running over 20 degrees above average and this streak is supposed to last at least 14 days.

Anyone have any clue why we're seeing so much warming in these seasons, but not in the summer? Not that I'm complaining... it's just interesting.



December CO2, 404.48ppm
NWS-Springfield has an excellent briefing (in PDF) on the freezing rain/icing event for their area. It includes an expected ice accumulation graphic, graphics showing risks today and Saturday, and graphics showing the movement of the forecast freezing line's movement northward.



Enjoying all the weather news in between the derp! Ok, also enjoying powerful refutations of said derp (Xyrus in particular is a rock star).
Just remember folks:
Peace On Earth= Purity of Essence
Lol
Quoting 380. Barefootontherocks:

dj, Did you see Norman has adjusted N OK forecast downward and Stillwater is on the edge of 0.25-.0.5' through Sunday a.m.? Still a significant amount. Anything on elevated surfaces? Power is underground, so maybe tree branches?

Missouri's getting some heavy stuff at present.



We have maybe 1/8 of an inch at most - and that would be generous. Understand that most of it is supposed to come tomorrow, so was not expecting much today.

Yes, accumulation of branches, cars, and other surfaces off the ground.

Thanks for the heads up, I had not checked the forecast from NWS. Glad they lowered it for my neck of the woods. Feeling for those in KS and NW OK, as it looks as if they'll get the worst of it..
The big picture... from our sister site, WSI/Intellicast, good radar for winter weather.


Ps. WSI site also has regional views.
Quoting 354. blizzard1024:



You are not correct here. The International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project was run by NASA 1983-2009.

Data sources: NASA's International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project and University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit. You can see there is an inverse relationship during the study period between low cloud cover and global average temperatures as calculated by the Hadley Centre's temperature dataset. This suggests variations in global low cloud cover regulates global temperatures. So increasing low-level water vapor from surface warming could simply lead to more low clouds and reflect solar radiation back to space cooling the planet. Again, the complexities are so enormous, even computer models can't handle the problem adequately.


Here in California weather is particularly impacted by the Pacific high and then that wheel of air is what produces the fog or the low clouds into the Bay Area. Is the high blocking storms? Unlike green house gas theory, an electrical complexity suggests a dependent relationship of clouds that produce the Pacific high directly, not as the result of warming. This dependent relationship requires the global electrical circuit to power it. It's like you don't know you have a higher wattage bulb until you flip the switch. This is why in my view most of the temperature extremes have been found in the fall and early winter. Peak lightning occurs about 8/15-10/15, then changes to carbonation levels in the near shore ocean where this would matter in terms of surface lows bringing that carbonation to clouds above them, would be sensitive to dams, farming with fossil fuels, and other changes to hydrology. The carbonation levels are also sensitive to methane hydrates, which are plentiful along the west coast, as they unform and the microbial biosphere quickly metabolizes the hydrates from methane to CO2. All this tends to occur later in the year. As global temperatures have cooled following the el nino, the Pacific high isn't in blocking mode and we are getting record rains. Large scale electrical currents don't leak along the conductive pathway in the Nino 1,2 region back to the central and western Pacific. That is because colder oceans are less conductive, 1 deg F for each percent of conductivity. California goes from drought to flooding. It's extremes. The extremes show a failure to dampen, defects in feedback loops that are natural that help regulate ocean temperature and chemistry and ultimately the earth's magnetic field that keeps the atmosphere here in the first place. The extremes will ultimately lead to vast methane hydrate fields unforming in the Arctic along with ice sheet less body of water that goes from being highly insulated to highly conductive salt water.
This is the mechanism of neo glacial storms. Once they start, water removed from the oceans to be placed on the teresphere or land makes the remaining oceans more saline and hence more conductive and markedly changes albedo. Lower oceans melt the hydrates and cause similar coastal decabonation events around the world. This changes the equilibriums involved and by geo history the storms rage for about 10 years until the ice is laid, which is then followed by thousands of years of colder drier climate. The scientific community continues to miss the electrical complexity and its alarming significance.
Sunny with temperatures in the 80s for at least the next week here in S.W. Florida. Definitely not going to be much of a Winter this year across the southern half of Florida.

We had temperatures in the 80s almost everyday in December, with the exception of just a few days.
And in North Florida, closer to the equator relative to the rest of Conus and bounded by the warm Gulf SSTs to the South, the highs today (in mid-January) are close to 80.
Quoting 388. vanderwaalselectrics:



.


I would love if you could provide links to some references about this topic. Could you provide some?

And I see that you still are Twitter challenged.


Click on image to read article!
New record low global sea ice area, a month ahead of the normal minimum.
Speaking of 'unintentional geoengineering'...from AGU:

River's Rise Linked to Oklahoma's Largest Earthquake
As human-induced earthquakes increase in frequency and magnitude, researchers race to uncover their effects on surface water and groundwater.

SOURCE: Geophysical Research Letters By Sarah Witman 2 hours ago

Earthquakes do much more than literally make the earth quake. The shifting of massive sheets of rock has an effect on all sorts of hydrogeological processes, affecting groundwater and surface water like rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.

Some of this activity, however, is not natural. For example, geologists have extensively documented that when wastewater is injected deep into the Earth, as a means of disposal, it can induce seismic activity, which could, in turn, have hydrogeological effects. As overall induced seismic activity has increased in frequency in recent years, scientists seek to learn more about the secondary and potentially residual impacts of human-induced quakes.

A recent study by Manga et al. is the first documented instance in which an earthquake that was most likely induced by wastewater injection had a visible effect on surface water.
Full article

The research paper is fully and freely available here:

Increased stream discharge after the 3 September 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma earthquake
Quoting 390. weathermanwannabe:

And in North Florida, closer to the equator relative to the rest of Conus and bounded by the warm Gulf SSTs to the South, the highs today (in mid-January) are close to 80.


Clue, the SSTS have Zero to do with the warmth today and the weekend.

Thanks
Quoting 396. Patrap:



Clue, the SSTS have Zero to do with the warmth today and the weekend.

Thanks


The SST in the Panhandle region would actually make it cooler on or near the coast due to the relatively cool water temperatures (in the 60s) in that area.
Quoting 383. 999Ai2016:

James Warner / @MetmanJames on Twitter:

"The atmosphere in 2016; visualised using precipitable water. Featuring hurricanes, monsoons, tropical convection and much more." (click for video)

Yeah that's pretty darn cool. Kind of mesmerizing, really.
Quoting 381. pipelines:

[...] Anyone have any clue why we're seeing so much warming in these seasons, but not in the summer? Not that I'm complaining... it's just interesting.

The human fingerprint in the seasons

Sorry for the double post
Quoting 363. Misanthroptimist:


Why, in the name of all that's scientific, would I trust a graph from that website? Short answer: I won't. No one should if they are interested in science. Show me a similar graph from a reputable source or I will simply disregard the graph in your post as a cartoon, for entertainment purposes only.


Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.
I was always under the impression that one of the reasons that coastal temps (in Florida as the example) in cities on the Atlantic or Gulf, as opposed to locations further inland, during the day in the Winter, are often several degrees warmer was because of the moderating influence of the water/ocean relative to the preveilling  winds coming in from over the water.
Quoting 361. 999Ai2016:


?

what-you-need-to-know-about-karl-2015.html - SkepticalScience



again a left wing propaganda site not to be trusted...
.
Quoting 400. weathermanwannabe:


I was always under the impression that one of the reasons that coastal temps (in Florida as the example) in cities on the Atlantic or Gulf, as opposed to locations further inland, during the day, including in the Winter, are often several degrees warmer was because of the moderating influence of the water/ocean relative to the preveilling winds coming in from over the water.


The GOM and Atlantic have a Warming effect along the coast especially during the Winter (when it's cold outside - like after a cold front). But with SST around 60 degrees (Panhandle area), that would actually keep the beaches cooler than areas inland from the coast during warm weather like we are expecting.

In the Summer, the GOM and Atlantic keep the coastal areas a little cooler during the day. The GOM and Atlantic usually keep the coastal areas warmer at night though.
In my area, the beaches are usually about 5-10 degrees cooler during the afternoon than areas say 15 miles inland during the summer.
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.


Ole Humlum runs the blog Climate4you which mixes climate data from a number of sources with his own graphs. Link far left wing propaganda? Lmao. Now you went off on the deep end.

Skeptical Science and Real Climate properly cite their sources and are backed up by numerous papers and the IPCC.
Quoting 376. wartsttocs:



That's what happens when one goes down the conspiracy rabbit hole and peddles the garbage around. Alleging conspiracy and fraud on a massive scale and then painting yourself as the persecuted victim doesn't win any sympathy.

On the above average temperature forecast:

A little warmer than a few runs ago. No complaints here.


What? Stating factual information on the climate system and what is going on in academia of which I know first hand from people in the field is not a "conspiracy theory". Its fact. Either publish papers that support CO2 climate change or find another profession. Its true unless you are a tenured older prof of which most do not buy into all this. My position on global warming (and many other PHDs and Meteorologists alike) is that there will be some warming from increased GHGs. I think between 1 and 1.5C and many others do too. My scientific understanding leads me to a lower sensitivity. That is close to the lower end of the IPCCs sensitivity of 1.5C. How am I such a radical??? I show evidence that there is a lot more going on in the climate system and I get blasted. CO2 is a component of the climate system, yes, but is it the primary driver of the Earth's temperature? I doubt it. The geological record does not support it and that's a fact!!! The ice core data proves that CO2 does not drive the climate. The arguments on skeptical science and real climate in this area are full of holes and don't make scientific sense or even hold up to common sense!! Just read them.
409. OKsky
Quoting 403. blizzard1024:



again a left wing propaganda site not to be trusted...


I looked at their "about us" and "team" pages, didn't see any of the usual indicators of this being a political PR site........they look like an international group of scientists pushing science.

Im curious...what sites do you trust?

Astro, I give you credit for responding in a more professional manner than I did. I went to remove my post when I saw it was quoted...sigh...

I shouldn't respond when someone's post sets me off like that.
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.


I am sure that NASA shows it too. Science is science.

What's your point? Spewing all this nonsense serves what purpose?

All honesty, I don't care. If we can generate even a fraction of energy from renewable sources, and remove the generation of energy away from the control of large corporate entities what is the harm in that?
Quoting 410. LAbonbon:

Astro, I give you credit for responding in a more professional manner than I did. I went to remove my post when I saw it was quoted...sigh...

I shouldn't respond when someone's post sets me off like that.


Happens to the best of us, LA. :-) Posts like those irritate me as well...calling science "left wing propaganda" smh.
414. elioe
Quoting 374. barbamz:
First snow day of 2017 at the Oregon Zoo


Lol... the elephant is so happy, perhaps it thinks it is a mammoth :)
I'm just south of Kansas City, I should be in the ice in an hour and a half
Quoting 415. Qazulight:

I'm just south of Kansas City, I should be in the ice in an hour and a half


Texting while driving? :O

Take care.
Quoting 109. CaneFreeCR:

And you would say that intentionally digging up, and pumping out, fossil fuels in enormous quantities and burning them to overheat homes and overcharge cell phones and drive inefficient vehicles too fast isn't engineering?


It's engineering, but not geo-engineering - because the latter means a planned forcing with the aim to change the environment, whereas with the "normal" engineering you get the unintended side effects which eventually cause our era to be the anthropocene.
There has been a lot of science and math thrown around the last couple of days. Let me quantify, exemplify, and simplify:

This is bad

This is good

Get rid of this

And you get this

Now, where is my Nobel Prize and doesn't it come with a million bucks?





Either publish papers that support CO2 climate change or find another profession.

*Astro goes to the Journal of Climate and searches "CO2 climate change" Ping! 4000 responses of research papers. 4000 papers on the backbone of CO2 is causing climate change.

>.>
Quoting 410. LAbonbon:

Astro, I give you credit for responding in a more professional manner than I did. I went to remove my post when I saw it was quoted...sigh...

I shouldn't respond when someone's post sets me off like that.
Bon, I plussed your post because I think you made the right response earlier, not because I think you were right to apologize (I don't). But I agree a hasty reply may go astray. :-)
Quoting 415. Qazulight:

I'm just south of Kansas City, I should be in the ice in an hour and a half

MoDOT reporting I-49 as 'clear' until Nevada, then it's 'mostly clear' until Joplin. Be safe!

MoDOT Traveler Information
JeffMasters has created a new entry.
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.

That's nonsense and irrelevant to my post since I neither linked to nor quoted SkS. I linked to published science in peer-reviewed journals and in one case NASA. Your assurances of the fidelity of the graph is of no interest to me. I want to see the source material from a reputable source. Otherwise, you've posted a denialist cartoon, which is what I suspect.
Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.


And there goes any hope of you establishing any sort of credibility.

The information provided by those sites are well cited with extensive references to data sources and research articles. Actual peer reviewed research, as opposed to your crackpot nonsense that has nothing but your dubious claims to support it.

So now you've gone to the last bastion of the denier: conspiracy. You can't support your arguments. The science disagrees with every aspect of your claims. But an ego like yours simply can't accept that. No! They're all wrong! They're all out to get you! It's a conspiracy I tell you! A massive global worldwide conspiracy of climate scientists trying to...make the environment cleaner and...preserve the environment and...come up with long term sustainable plans for the future...hey where is everybody going?

Go find some other blog to troll.
Quoting 395. LAbonbon:

Speaking of 'unintentional geoengineering'...from AGU:

River's Rise Linked to Oklahoma's Largest Earthquake
As human-induced earthquakes increase in frequency and magnitude, researchers race to uncover their effects on surface water and groundwater.

SOURCE: Geophysical Research Letters By Sarah Witman 2 hours ago

Earthquakes do much more than literally make the earth quake. The shifting of massive sheets of rock has an effect on all sorts of hydrogeological processes, affecting groundwater and surface water like rivers, lakes, and reservoirs.

Some of this activity, however, is not natural. For example, geologists have extensively documented that when wastewater is injected deep into the Earth, as a means of disposal, it can induce seismic activity, which could, in turn, have hydrogeological effects. As overall induced seismic activity has increased in frequency in recent years, scientists seek to learn more about the secondary and potentially residual impacts of human-induced quakes.

A recent study by Manga et al. is the first documented instance in which an earthquake that was most likely induced by wastewater injection had a visible effect on surface water.
Full article

The research paper is fully and freely available here:

Increased stream discharge after the 3 September 2016 Mw 5.8 Pawnee, Oklahoma earthquake
For you and your plussers, I am just out to keep the facts straight, ma'am, something the writer of your linked article did not quite do.

First of all, let's keep science, i.e. facts, straight and separate from speculation, even "Most likelys"...Okay?

The linked site says it presents "science news." News requires good journalism. Science requires good science. This story presents neither good science nor good journalism.

While she may be well-intentioned, that "freelance writer" wrote a story that concludes with a false statement revealing her bias. She ends up drawing the conclusion "... the Black Bear Creek case is important in that it proves that this method of wastewater disposal has an impact on groundwater systems." Sorry. That is true only if the quake was caused by an injection well or wells. So, let's see....

1. Headline. Black Bear Creek flows into the Arkansas but is not itself a river.

2. By her own words, and the study she cites, this writer terms the Pawnee quake has not been "proven" to be injection-well caused beyond "most likely". The study she cites means nothing unless that causality becomes established.

3. For a strong earthquake centered near Shawnee, OK in 2011, USGS and Oklahoma geophysical people proved injection well causality. In the Pawnee quake case, have they not? What made the difference? Interesting and bears further search for actual USGS and Oklahoma geophysical Pawnee studies.

4. History shows us earthquakes from any cause can bring dramatic changes in surface water.

New Madrid, 1811 quake artist rendering
image credit: Smithsonian Magazine Click image to read the accompanying article.

5. I see in the online AGU journal, Research Letters', about link the "letters are subject to an editor's review, BUT are these "letters" actually peer-reviewed and published in print as such? If so where was this one published? Maybe it was just a conference presentation.

6. I need more information before accepting as "science" a "science news" story presented in the way this writer presented the Pawnee study and her conclusions about it.
426. vis0
 (i t s   a   F O R T R A N  I B M  C A R D )
 .                 .                                    .
...   .     .
427. vis0
Quoting 414. elioe:



Lol... the elephant is so happy, perhaps it thinks it is a mammoth :)

reply at my zilly blog

see what i did
La.   i'm much worse but place it where only 3 see it today


...million much later when its 'ol newz cause what is more important is the latest tabloid news.

... which makes me think (as others have posted) maybe some real scientists should create a seasonal tabloid type salacious headline enquirer type tabloid (.com and on cheap recyclable pages sold for a dime at supermarkets ) BUT WITH REAL SCIENCE info inside to compete with alt-rght pho news - pho science pages supported by globe ravaging greed and sold to people by creative headlines to grab ones attention.. 

HEADLINE :: Your property will become worthless if the globe keeps warming.

Inside an article iMAGES/GRAPHICS showing how more warmth means more energy for LOWS to form and stay put., adding more rain in that area under the LOW/storms.

In turn since the LOW stays put over one area the HIGH (generally means cloudless skies)  behind the LOW also stays put over an area for longer than the normal and presto change-OH! we have too much water next (700 miles apart) to too little water. 

Both extremes lower property values.

add comments of REAL PEOPLE with REAL IMAGES of such weather extremes and the cost of cleaning up.

TMZ should have a 10- min segment (once a week) with 1 guest presenting aGW proof and 1 guest presenting that aGw if made up.  TMZ keeps score of when one repeats the same story/url versus new updates backed by science/physics.  When one repeats the same proven to be unreliable report a horn sounds (watch $keptics use this) Example Trump repeated for the 8th time in 3 months that 96 million w?o jobs (you'd here a loud horn w/red screen then explanation that Trump's numbers are well Trumped up as Trump is counting the retired, those that don't desire to work, some disabled that recently can't work due to debilitating injuries, that recently (within year) moved to another country

...like when Trump said 45% of Americans are unemployed when the real number is from ~4.5% to 7%...remember THE GREAT DEPRESSION (1930s with hundreds on dozens of long lines) had ~35% unemployed yet Trump says today its 45% .

 where are today's  hundreds on hundreds of long lines??? ... at Bars and sporting events not at food handouts.
Quoting 381. pipelines:

Here in Birmingham we've seen over a dozen record highs (zero record lows) in the past 400 days. Virtually all of them have occurred in the fall/winter time frame. Currently we're running over 20 degrees above average and this streak is supposed to last at least 14 days.

Anyone have any clue why we're seeing so much warming in these seasons, but not in the summer? Not that I'm complaining... it's just interesting.


It certainly does not lend any credence to those that are in denial and will claim that "it's the SUN!". This is similar to their saying that it's the UHI that is showing a warm bias in the temperature data and then omits the fact that the Arctic region is warming at ~ twice the rate as the rest of the planet, where very little urbanization has been taking place.

Quoting 401. blizzard1024:



Why would someone trust anything from skeptical science or real climate? Far left wing propaganda sites. Its the same both ways. The science is too politicized. Climate4you shows the data from The NASA study. No one else does because it is contrary to the CO2 thermostat narrative.


Is this your admission that you base your views on the scientific evidence far more on your political preferences than you do on the scientific observations being made?
I am going to have to quit hanging out at the bar. I look up and the party has moved to next door. sigh
Quoting 425. Barefootontherocks:

For you and your plussers, I am just out to keep the facts straight, ma'am, something the writer of your linked article did not quite do.

First of all, let's keep science, i.e. facts, straight and separate from speculation, even "Most likelys"...Okay?

The linked site says it presents "science news." News requires good journalism. Science requires good science. This story presents neither good science nor good journalism.

While she may be well-intentioned, that "freelance writer" wrote a story that concludes with a false statement revealing her bias. She ends up drawing the conclusion "... the Black Bear Creek case is important in that it proves that this method of wastewater disposal has an impact on groundwater systems." Sorry. That is true only if the quake was caused by an injection well or wells. So, let's see....

1. Headline. Black Bear Creek flows into the Arkansas but is not itself a river.

2. By her own words, and the study she cites, this writer terms the Pawnee quake has not been "proven" to be injection-well caused beyond "most likely". The study she cites means nothing unless that causality becomes established.

3. For a strong earthquake centered near Shawnee, OK in 2011, USGS and Oklahoma geophysical people proved injection well causality. In the Pawnee quake case, have they not? What made the difference? Interesting and bears further search for actual USGS and Oklahoma geophysical Pawnee studies.

4. History shows us earthquakes from any cause can bring dramatic changes in surface water.

New Madrid, 1811 quake artist rendering
image credit: Smithsonian Magazine Click image to read the accompanying article.

5. I see in the online AGU journal, Research Letters', about link the "letters are subject to an editor's review, BUT are these "letters" actually peer-reviewed and published in print as such? If so where was this one published? Maybe it was just a conference presentation.

6. I need more information before accepting as "science" a "science news" story presented in the way this writer presented the Pawnee study and her conclusions about it.

You seem to take issue with articles posted on the AGU site, particularly when they involve OK. I'm getting deja vu. Did you actually read the paper, or did you dismiss it out of hand?

The research was published in Geophysical Research Letters. The link was provided in the article. As it was behind a paywall, I searched Google Scholar, and obtained the full article freely available from Berkeley. In their paper, the authors gave the following acknowledgments:

Acknowledgments
This paper is supported by NSF grant
EAR1344424 to M.M., C.Y.W., and M.S.
We thank the U.S. Geological Survey for
operating the network on gauging stations
and making the hydrological and
seismic data and data products readily
available and in real time. We thank
Jason Lewis, William Andrews, Brad
Sewell, and staff in the city of Pawnee
for answering queries about the
responses and possible confounding
processes, and Estella Atekwana for
sharing the locations where liquefaction
occurred. We thank the reviewers and
Editor for constructive comments and
suggestions.
Data used to generate the
figures are available from the authors
upon request. The USGS discharge and
precipitation data are available from
http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis.


Additional information about the process for GRL publication can be found here.

When I post an article written for a layperson about scientific research, I almost always post a link to the original research if there's one available. In this case I linked the non-paywalled one from Berkeley's website. The link to the GRL publication is in the article, but there it is paywalled.

From the research I linked there's this excerpt:

"The occurrence of earthquakes with magnitude > 3 in Oklahoma has now exceeded that in California [e.g.,
McGarr et al., 2015]. Most of the larger events with M > 5 are caused by the deep injection disposal of contaminated
water produced during hydrocarbon extraction [e.g., Ellsworth, 2013]. Similar to many other
induced events in Oklahoma [McNamara et al., 2015], it was a strike-slip earthquake on a NW-SE trending
fault. Given the focal mechanism and fault orientation of the Pawnee event and other induced earthquakes
in Oklahoma, it is reasonable to assume that increases in pore pressure may induce earthquakes on critically
stressed faults. At the present time, however, it is not confirmed by detailed modeling that this particular
earthquake was induced by the 26 wastewater disposal wells in the vicinity, within 20 km (Figure 1).
Nevertheless, the Oklahoma Corporation Commission responded immediately and wells that inject into formations
in contact with basement ceased operations and others were required to reduce disposal volumes. If
the 3 September event is induced, it is the largest earthquake caused by wastewater injection to date, greater
than the 2011 Mw 5.7 Prague, Oklahoma earthquake, though it is smaller than some earthquakes attributed to
water impoundment in reservoirs [e.g., Gupta, 1992; Ge et al., 2009]."

The researchers acknowledge that "it is not confirmed by detailed modeling that this particular
earthquake was induced by the 26 wastewater disposal wells in the vicinity, within 20 km
".

Your statement that the 'study she cites means nothing unless that causality becomes established' is your opinion.

You seem to take issue with the research, the publication GRL, the review process, and the writer who summed up the research for AGU. Perhaps you should take it up with AGU, GRL or the researchers themselves?

Quoting 423. Misanthroptimist:


That's nonsense and irrelevant to my post since I neither linked to nor quoted SkS. I linked to published science in peer-reviewed journals and in one case NASA. Your assurances of the fidelity of the graph is of no interest to me. I want to see the source material from a reputable source. Otherwise, you've posted a denialist cartoon, which is what I suspect.


Ah... but who decides who is a reputable source? I say it is folks like Dr Christy, Dr Spencer, Dr Curry, Dr. Gray, and Dr Lindzen, Dr Soon etc. All high level PHDs with solid understanding of radiative transfer and thermodynamics. So you are saying these award winning scientists are not reputable? I agree with these "luke" warmers... How am I so radical??? Cheap energy is important for a high standard of living. I agree we should go to renewables when the market supports it. Big oil and fossil fuel companies that block this I totally disagree with. But right now, carbon taxes would decimate our economy and the lower and middle classes. Look at Canada, 30-40 cents/per KWhr??? we pay less than 10 cents per KWhr. If you want a high standard of living we need fossil fuels until renewables are more efficient. Solar is looking promising...heck... if the cost comes down enough I am getting panels or solar shingles...I hate paying the local utility!
Quoting 432. blizzard1024:



Ah... but who decides who is a reputable source? I say it is folks like Dr Christy, Dr Spencer, Dr Curry, Dr. Gray, and Dr Lindzen, Dr Soon etc. All high level PHDs with solid understanding of radiative transfer and thermodynamics. So you are saying these award winning scientists are not reputable? I agree with these "luke" warmers... How am I so radical??? Cheap energy is important for a high standard of living. I agree we should go to renewables when the market supports it. Big oil and fossil fuel companies that block this I totally disagree with. But right now, carbon taxes would decimate our economy and the lower and middle classes. Look at Canada, 30-40 cents/per KWhr??? we pay less than 10 cents per KWhr. If you want a high standard of living we need fossil fuels until renewables are more efficient. Solar is looking promising...heck... if the cost comes down enough I am getting panels or solar shingles...I hate paying the local utility!

Peer-reviewed papers and data published in reputable journals are credible sources...always.

Those award winning scientists are not a reputable source if they are going against the data and the published literature. They got nothing. They tried. Their hypotheses (when they made any) uniformly failed. They didn't fail because of some nefarious world-wide plot by evil, commie scientists. They failed because their hypotheses were in conflict with observation, physics, or were otherwise scientifically deficient.

As a courtesy I am informing you that I'm placing you on my ignore list. That way, you don't have to answer me...or you can lob your last substance-free grenade or whatever. I have no more time to waste on CTs. Have a good 'un!