Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
Winter is about 6 weeks early.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
sounds late to me... most of my climbing in the Canadian Rockies in the 80's and the 90's, July and August, ended in snow storms...
Icefields Campground in July, 1993
|
|
monolith
climber
SF bay area
|
|
Thanks for the weather report, TGT.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
By the needle-less, grassy ground, i recognize the season. And the light dusting shows a humid, cold, windless day.
But who's the Mountie?
|
|
rick sumner
Trad climber
reno, nevada/ wasilla alaska
|
|
Hell, I remember waking up to six inches of fresh snow in Tahoe in
july of the mid sixties. Of course it was all melted off by noon. Also renember starting up a route at the Leap in july '76 at sunrise with temps in the twenties. Better harden up pals. There is a cold wind a blowin in over the next decade.
|
|
BLUEBLOCR
Social climber
joshua tree
|
|
Snow in the mountains is common any month.
HaHa!
i live in the desert where hopefully, we only get snow once or twice a year!
i am a lizerd king, i can do anything
edit: see it's fun to talk!
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 7, 2014 - 09:18am PT
|
Winter is about 6 weeks early.
Yet we're still doing rain dances in California. The foothills of the Sierra and tinderbox dry...
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
What I mean by that is that we do not have thermometers all over the globe in even intervals (like in some kind of grid),
the RSS data is from a satellite, and the sampling is comprehensive within the orbital region (which doesn't include the polar regions...)
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
you guys are still digging up that stuff on the weather stations?
it has been thoroughly studied and shown not to be an issue...
but you didn't post those studies. Here's one notable one:
http://berkeleyearth.org/papers
http://scitechnol.com/2327-4581/2327-4581-1-107.php
Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1:3. doi:10.4172/2327-4581.1000107.
Earth Atmospheric Land Surface Temperature and Station Quality in the Contiguous United States
Richard A Muller, Jonathan Wurtele, Robert Rohde, Robert Jacobsen, Saul Perlmutter, Arthur Rosenfeld, Judith Curry, Donald Groom, Charlotte Wickham, Steven Mosher
Abstract
A survey organized by A. Watts has thrown doubt on the usefulness of historic thermometer data in analyzing the record of global warming. That survey found that 70% of the USHCN temperature stations had potential temperature biases from 2°C to 5°C, large compared to the estimated global warming (1956 to 2005) of 0.64 ± 0.13°C. In the current paper we study this issue with two approaches. The first is a simple histogram study of temperature trends in groupings of stations based on Watt’s survey of station quality. This approach suffers from uneven sampling of the United States; its main value is in illustrating aspects of the data that are counter-intuitive and surprising. The second approach is more statistically rigorous, and consists of a more detailed temperature reconstruction performed using the Berkeley Earth analysis method indicates that the difference in temperature change rate between Poor (quality groups 4, 5) and OK (quality groups 1, 2, 3) stations is not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The absence of a statistically significant difference indicates that these networks of stations can reliably discern temperature trends even when individual stations have nominally poor quality rankings. This result suggests that the estimates of systematic uncertainty were overly “conservative” and that changes in temperature can be deduced even with poorly rated sites.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
A deja vu fog hangs thick over this thread. A page back it was swirling in confusion around yet another re-posting of a Greenland temperature reconstruction graph.
This page we seem to be on surface temperature records. Even more than ice cores this is well-known scientific ground, the topic of hundreds of studies. (A WUWT press release in 2012, details of which were quickly retracted as even the coauthors realized it was wrong, does not count as a "study.")
There's so much good material on these topics it's hard to know where to start, especially since the real science has been mentioned so many times before and been ignored, folks just go back to their talking points.
Still these are interesting questions. I've been working with surface temperature records a bit lately, and could share some of the science using new examples. Don't have time to do that now but will post one new graph. The UAH satellite temperature index (lower troposphere) was updated last week. Here's year-to-date (Jan-Aug) average temperature over the whole span of their record, 1979-2014. Note that this has nothing to do with surface stations. It aims to cover the globe from 85N to 85S.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
Temperatures vary with local conditions, but temperature anomalies (differences from "normal" or average temperature for that location and date) tend to correlate surprisingly well over some distance. That seems to be even more true for trends based on temperature anomalies, so that different analyses reach similar results -- as with the BEST study Ed has described. The lead BEST investigator started out with the assumption that using new methods his team would get different results, and then was surprised when they ended in such close agreement with other teams. One key aspect is that all of the temperature indexes are constructed by scientists who are systematically testing for biases, and adjusting so these don't affect their results. They each use different methods to do that, but apparently most of these methods work.
Here's a simple illustration I made a few years ago that shows temperature anomalies correlated over distance, using two locations in New Hampshire. One is the summit of Mt. Washington, the other is near sea level, which are the extremes of difference in this state. Contrasting climates (alpine vs. coastal) but similar anomalies, and almost identical trends.
|
|
Chiloe
Trad climber
Lee, NH
|
|
For a continuing project, a colleague and I started several years ago calculating a temperature index for our state. We defined this initially as the average anomaly from all 5 of the state's weather stations that belong to the US Historical Climatology Network (USHCN).
Unfortunately this year, one of our 5 stations dropped out due to budget cuts, so we now have only 4 USHCN stations to continue the series. Analytically the best way for us to adapt was to redefine our temperature index as the average anomaly from the 4 remaining stations, going back to recalculate earlier values using just these 4.
We wondered, of course, Did that make a difference? So we tested, and found out it did not. The graph below compares daily mean temperature anomalies for a sample period (kept short here so you can see individual days) running from July through December 2013. Can you spot the differences between 4-station and 5-station versions?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2014 - 02:27pm PT
|
Many new stations are located in urban environments where the natural heat signature is totally distorted and increased by artificial man made heat emitting units.
You know this how?
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2014 - 02:40pm PT
|
Yes The Chief. Let's see.
I'm talking about your source for this fantastic info you have. Care to share from where you're getting it?
Who's to say your labeled pictures aren't just some random pictures doctored up with a few callouts?
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
They all have GPS coordinates k-man.
Try googling one that is not near a human made heat source.
Beware: this search will endanger your emotional attachment to GW so proceed with caution.
|
|
k-man
Gym climber
SCruz
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Sep 8, 2014 - 03:15pm PT
|
Oh, right. WUWT, the Blog site that was the key in causing the ClimateGate frenzy--an obvious attempt to discredit climate scientists.
Now why would an honest Blog Site publish such info, other than, of course, to discredit climate science? Did you know that all the scientists were eventually exonerated?
At what cost to taxpayers?
Oh yeah, put your trust there...
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
FortMental wants to get on the right side of history.
His is a cry for help like all the catastropharians.
Just like Nat Geo seems to be trying in this report. The human polar populations are exploding and burning tons of wood and fossil fuels to stay warm and darkening the ice causing it to melt faster.
><
Soot and Dirt Is Melting Snow and Ice Around the World
New report highlights increased loss in Greenland ice cap from
dust and soot.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/06/140610-connecting-dots-dust-soot-snow-ice-climate-change-dimick/
...snow and ice is increasingly being darkened by air pollution.
(and so melting much faster than normal even with the cooler temps)
|
|
Splater
climber
Grey Matter
|
|
Here's a better overall look at soot.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_carbon
That Nat. Geographic article does not lead to your conclusion.
It is based on two papers. First this paper: http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v7/n7/full/ngeo2180.html
which particularly points out much of the dust is coming from areas already melted out. Carbon soot is an additional factor.
The point is that soot (which is partly BC=Black Carbon) and dust are only one part of global warming. And soot is highly correlated with burning fossil fuels, so reduction in one will also reduce the other. Also, much of the soot in the arctic is from flaring, which is completely from fossil fuel production. How would you reduce that? In developed countries, we already have many large efforts to reduce soot emissions, so I'm not at all sure what you're proposing that will make a huge difference. Maybe cleaner burning in developing countries that could be their contribution to reducing climate change. Other soot comes from burning forests. How do you propose to reduce those? And much of the warming effect on ice is a positive feedback that combines with the albedo change due to meltwater.
Since most "skeptics" are opposed to big policy to reduce GHGs, why are you in favor of big policy to reduce soot?
"The surface energy balance and mass balance of the Greenland ice sheet depends on the albedo of snow, which governs the amount of solar energy that is absorbed. The observed decline of Greenland’s albedo over the past decade1, 2, 3 has been attributed to an enhanced growth of snow grains as a result of atmospheric warming1, 2. Satellite observations show that, since 2009, albedo values even in springtime at high elevations have been lower than the 2003–2008 average. Here we show, using a numerical snow model, that the decrease in albedo cannot be attributed solely to grain growth enhancement. Instead, our analysis of remote sensing data indicates that the springtime darkening since 2009 stems from a widespread increase in the amount of light-absorbing impurities in snow, as well as in the atmosphere. We suggest that the transport of dust from snow-free areas in the Arctic that are experiencing earlier melting of seasonal snow cover4 as the climate warms may be a contributing source of impurities. In our snow model simulations, a decrease in the albedo of fresh snow by 0.01 leads to a surface mass loss of 27 Gt yr−1, which could induce an acceleration of Greenland’s mass loss twice as large as over the past two decades5. Future trends in light-absorbing impurities should therefore be considered in projections of Greenland mass loss."
Second this 2010 paper:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD013795/full
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=UA&search_mode=CitingArticles&qid=2&SID=4ADakJD5NINFUNI7aFi&page=1&doc=6
Numerous other papers
Of the articles citing that, the most cited itself is from 2013,
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=CitingArticles&qid=6&SID=4ADakJD5NINFUNI7aFi&page=1&doc=1
which I don't quite follow. First it says carbon soot has a big impact and then the abstract seems to end by saying it has overall a very small effect. Additionally, The uncetainty is huge.
More:
https://apps.webofknowledge.com/full_record.do?product=WOS&search_mode=CitingArticles&qid=8&SID=4ADakJD5NINFUNI7aFi&page=1&doc=7
|
|
dave729
Trad climber
Western America
|
|
People who are emotionally invested with CO2 have a difficult time
seeing the truth about soot.
Never have suggested any plan to stop soot melting the ice.
What impossible actions would that involve? Stopping all jet travel over the pole? Evacuating all people north of 60degree latitude? Shutting down
oil/gas production on Alaska's north slope? Your best bet is
changing the jet stream so Chinese air pollution does not drift into the polar regions?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!