Costa Rica powered by 100 percent renewable energy for over 75 days
Oops. No it didn't.
Friday, March 27, 2015
What global warming looks like for the past two decades
The so called "pause" in global warming is actually a cooling of the Northern hemisphere winters (NH winter or boreal winter), specifically the NH land temperatures have changed to a cooling trend, and it is this cooling that has caused the annual global mean to be "flat", slightly cooler, or a slight warming, depending on which data and analysis you choose to believe.
But even surface station data shows the same thing as satellite data. NH winters are cooling, and it's effecting the entire years average.
You can see it using GISS maps, the NCDC global data, as well as global snowfall data, and especially using the high quality NCDC US climate data.
But even surface station data shows the same thing as satellite data. NH winters are cooling, and it's effecting the entire years average.
You can see it using GISS maps, the NCDC global data, as well as global snowfall data, and especially using the high quality NCDC US climate data.
NH winter land so negative, it makes the global winter trend negative.
All the other seasons are warming, and the NH winter trend for the ocean is warming.
US winter data
The idea that the tides are two bulges following the moon is wrong
The old primitive model of how the tides work, in the oceans, is wrong.
Satellite data has confirmed that the new model is correct, and tides behave in a manner consistent with the new model.
The old idea (which as always, is taking a very long time to die), is that the ocean has two bulges, and the earth rotates under them and this is why there are two high tides and two low tides a day. (all tide theories assume the energy for the tides comes from the gravity of the sun and moon)
The two bulge theory never matched up with observations, especially the following.
The bulges are gravity waves travelling along the ocean's surface, so they must follow the laws for waves. For a wave to travel along the equator of 40,000 km in 25 hours, requires a speed of around 1600 km/hr, which is impossible, as the depth of the ocean is around 3800m. 800 km/hr would be the maximum speed a tide could move.
As the bulges reach a continent, most of it will be bounced back off the continental shelf, or the land itself, causing a bulge of almost equal height to run in the opposite direction. This is not observed, it just doesn't happen.
As the bulge reached a continent (where it would have to stop) it would have to go back the other way. This is never observed.
There are either one and two tides each day: there are places without tides at all, and places where it's a mixture. This cannot be explained by bulges. Nor can the tides at the poles be explained by bulges.
The height of the tide, the difference between high and low tide, does not follow the two-bulge idea which suggests that the tide should be maximal around the equator or on opposite sides of a large ocean. Near the equator one can find places without tides and places with near-maximal tides. The poles can also have large tides.
High (and low) tide occurs at different times of the lunar cycle, depending more on one's place on Earth than on the position of the moon. In fact, there can be both high and low tide at the same time, like New Zealand experiences every day.
The balancing bulge on the other side is missing, and nowhere is there any evidence for it.
The new model is that tide waves run in ways to prevent loss of energy. Instead of running east to west, tide waves run around in circles (clockwise and CCW on both hemispheres) around islands, and certain points in the sea, called nodes.
This new model does away with the objections mentioned for the bulge model
Tide waves follow shorter paths in twelve hour rotations, never exceeding the maximum wave speed of about 800 km/hr.
Tide waves do not bounce off continents by hitting them squarely. Instead, they follow along their coasts.
There is no starting and stopping but a continuous motion. The standing waves absorb minimal energy.
There is no balancing bulge. Instead, tide waves run in twelve hour circles.
There can be none, one or two tides per day. Looking at the animation of how tides actually behave shows why.
The time of high tide depends both on the lunar cycle and the place on Earth. The high and low tides at the same time (New Zealand) makes sense.
Tide waves are standing waves, expending the least energy.
Computer models, and later satellite data has shown the new model matches with reality.
The two bulge model does not.
Satellite data has confirmed that the new model is correct, and tides behave in a manner consistent with the new model.
The old idea (which as always, is taking a very long time to die), is that the ocean has two bulges, and the earth rotates under them and this is why there are two high tides and two low tides a day. (all tide theories assume the energy for the tides comes from the gravity of the sun and moon)
The two bulge theory never matched up with observations, especially the following.
The bulges are gravity waves travelling along the ocean's surface, so they must follow the laws for waves. For a wave to travel along the equator of 40,000 km in 25 hours, requires a speed of around 1600 km/hr, which is impossible, as the depth of the ocean is around 3800m. 800 km/hr would be the maximum speed a tide could move.
As the bulges reach a continent, most of it will be bounced back off the continental shelf, or the land itself, causing a bulge of almost equal height to run in the opposite direction. This is not observed, it just doesn't happen.
As the bulge reached a continent (where it would have to stop) it would have to go back the other way. This is never observed.
There are either one and two tides each day: there are places without tides at all, and places where it's a mixture. This cannot be explained by bulges. Nor can the tides at the poles be explained by bulges.
The height of the tide, the difference between high and low tide, does not follow the two-bulge idea which suggests that the tide should be maximal around the equator or on opposite sides of a large ocean. Near the equator one can find places without tides and places with near-maximal tides. The poles can also have large tides.
High (and low) tide occurs at different times of the lunar cycle, depending more on one's place on Earth than on the position of the moon. In fact, there can be both high and low tide at the same time, like New Zealand experiences every day.
The balancing bulge on the other side is missing, and nowhere is there any evidence for it.
The new model is that tide waves run in ways to prevent loss of energy. Instead of running east to west, tide waves run around in circles (clockwise and CCW on both hemispheres) around islands, and certain points in the sea, called nodes.
This new model does away with the objections mentioned for the bulge model
Tide waves follow shorter paths in twelve hour rotations, never exceeding the maximum wave speed of about 800 km/hr.
Tide waves do not bounce off continents by hitting them squarely. Instead, they follow along their coasts.
There is no starting and stopping but a continuous motion. The standing waves absorb minimal energy.
There is no balancing bulge. Instead, tide waves run in twelve hour circles.
There can be none, one or two tides per day. Looking at the animation of how tides actually behave shows why.
The time of high tide depends both on the lunar cycle and the place on Earth. The high and low tides at the same time (New Zealand) makes sense.
Tide waves are standing waves, expending the least energy.
Computer models, and later satellite data has shown the new model matches with reality.
The two bulge model does not.
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
Ohio Valley winter cooling and precipitation data
The Ohio Valley climate region is both cooling for winters (30 year trend), but also showing an increase in annual precipitation, using a 45 year or 15 year trend data. Even the 100 year trend show more rain/snow for the region.
Meanwhile winters show a continuing trend of colder.
Friday, March 20, 2015
"Warmer means more snow"
Oh my, this is actually the latest nonsense. Somebody actually said "It snows more when it's warm"
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Does it snow more when it's cold? Or when it's warm?
I know it sounds like a joke question. It's not.
It snows more when it's cold. The very idea that warmer winter temperatures would mean more snow is based on something other than science.
It snows more when it's cold. The very idea that warmer winter temperatures would mean more snow is based on something other than science.
Saturday, March 14, 2015
"It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data"
From James Randi Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's 1891 A Scandal in Bohemia, I quote:
Watson: "This is indeed a mystery," I remarked. "What do you imagine that it means?"
Holmes: I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts...
SkepticalScience forum comments
And this isn't about science or personal careers and reputations any more. This is a fight for survival. Our civilisations survival. .. We need our own anonymous (or not so anonymous) donors, our own think tanks.... Our Monckton's ... Our assassins.Anyone got Bill Gates' private number, Warren Buffett, Richard Branson? Our 'side' has got to get professional, ASAP. We don't need to blog. We need to network. Every single blog, organisation, movement is like a platoon in an army. ..This has a lot of similarities to the Vietnam War....And the skeptics are the Viet Cong... Not fighting like 'Gentlemen' at all. And the mainstream guys like Gleick don't know how to deal with this. Queensberry Rules rather than biting and gouging...So, either Mother Nature deigns to give the world a terrifying wake up call. Or people like us have to build the greatest guerilla force in human history. Now. Because time is up...Someone needs to convene a council of war of the major environmental movements, blogs, institutes etc. In a smoke filled room (OK, an incense filled room) we need a conspiracy to save humanity.
Tuesday, March 10, 2015
Wednesday, March 4, 2015
Tuesday, March 3, 2015
1932 The year with out a winter (updated April 27 2022)
Article no longer works Archive.org version
What it looks like on a GISS map
What it looks like on a GISS map
Winter 2012
It's interesting that both really warm winter years show the globe being cool. Cooler than the period used to create anomalies. Which is the coolest period in the instrumental record.
A few climate stations to compare the two warm winters, I would hope no arrows are required to point them out.
Does colder in Barrow Alaska mean it snows more?
Data source
Dec 2007 Monthly Mean Max Temperature for Barrow 6.3F
Dec 2007 Monthly Mean Min Temperature for Barrow -7.1F
Monthly Mean Avg Temperature for Barrow -0.4F
Dec 2011 Monthly Mean Max Temperature for Barrow -4.3F
Dec 2011 Monthly Mean Min Temperature for Barrow -15.7F
Monthly Mean Avg Temperature for Barrow -9.6F
Does this mean it snows more when it's colder? In Barrow Alaska? No, it just shows for those two months, that was certainly the case.
All data from NOAA Online Weather Data
accessed March 1st 2015
used with permission
Convert C to F using Google
Monday, March 2, 2015
It snows more in Chicago when it's cold
Most winter snow (1979), and least winter snow (1931), for Chicago. With temperatures and precipitation to compare with. Also most winter precipitation (1950) showing warm wet winter. Lots of rain, little snow.
All data from NOAA Online Weather Data
accessed March 1st 2015
used with permission
Sunday, March 1, 2015
More snow in Chicago than Barrow Alaska? It doesn't seem that is true.
Arctic climates often get surprisingly little snow. Barrow, Alaska, for example, gets less snow than Chicago in an average year, despite having winters that average 39°F (22°C) colder.
The Straight Dope Nov 19 2002
Does Barrow Alaska really get less snow than Chicago Illinois? Not in the last 15 years. Data source
Since 1982, to Mar 15 2015, usually Barrow gets more now. (but look at the recent changes!)
What about recent snowfall, when Chicago had record snowfall? (2014)
The data shows Barrow almost always has more snow than Chicago.
Let's look at another period, just to be sure it's not an anomaly.
Well then what about the decade before that? Maybe snow changed since then?
Yes, in that period Barrow did get less snow than Chicago! The Dope article was using old sources for the claim.
It sure seems to have changed. A lot.
But to be sure, let's check the 2002 hydrological year data.
In 2002 the average snow expected (Normal) is almost exactly the same! But Barrow still got more snow than Chicago. In fact, most years of the last two decades shows Barrow, AK gets more snow.
So the "fact" of the matter is fuzzy. Here are some graphs showing 1999 (Jan) -2015 (Jan) monthly snow totals, and seasonal. Which should make everything clear. usually, in the last few decades, Barrow gets more snow than Chicago. (click any image to enlarge)
Of course it's probable that the 2002 article was only talking about "snow in Meteorological winter", which is Dec-Jan-Feb, in which case Chicago certainly can get much more snow than Barrow. But the real issue was about "Can it get too cold to snow?".
That's the straighter dope right there.
All data from NOAA Online Weather Data
accessed March 1st 2015
used with permission
The definition of Global Warming, from NASA, compared to Wikipedia
NASA - "To a scientist, global warming describes the average global surface temperature increase from human emissions of greenhouse gases"
And that's why you should never use Wikipedia as a source for science about anything controversial.
But even the AMS glossary definitions are troubling.
The straighter Dope on this is going to be hard to find.
Wikipedia - Global warming and climate change can both refer to the observed century-scale rise in the average temperature of the Earth's climate system and its related effects, although climate change can also refer to any historic change in climate.
And that's why you should never use Wikipedia as a source for science about anything controversial.
But even the AMS glossary definitions are troubling.
The straighter Dope on this is going to be hard to find.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)