Posted on 02/08/2008 3:25:36 AM PST by justa-hairyape
Blizzard Racks Northern Sakhalin
2/14/2008 3:02 PM
A powerful winter storm churned the Sea of Okhotsk Wednesday and Thursday. Bearing the brunt of this mighty storm, much of Sakhalin Island withstood a blizzard. On the hard-hit northern reaches of this big island, sustained winds were reported to have been clocked at 60 mph at Pogibi in the northwest. The high winds whipped up fresh snowfall of more than 15 inches into blinding whiteouts. Snowfall was heavier in the northeast. At Nogliki, snowfall was more than two feet, which boosted snow depth to nearly four feet. Winds were strong enough to blow and drift the snow a great deal. Elsewhere, the far-reaching storm, which was much like a nor'easter along the eastern North American coast, was felt for its wind and snow on Hokkaido, the northern Island of Japan. Also hit were the Kuril Islands stretching between Hokkaido and the Kamchatka.
Story by AccuWeather.com Senior Forecaster Jim Andrews
>> And when the next year with a substantial El Nino ranks first in the assessments of all three groups, what will that do to your assertion? <<
That would be the greatest year-over-year warming to date. Obviously, I’m not predicting that, and certainly not going to concede it will happen. Of course, the next year, when space aliens arrive and zap us with a freeze ray, and turn the entire Earth into an iceball, your theory is going to look pretty shot to hell, too.
What I’m now arguing with you is that current events are incompatible with an accelerating warming trend as the alarmists are asserting. Could a warming trend resume? yes. But the next few years would require a warming as we have not ever seen to get us back to the 1975-2005 trend line.
I think that most climate scientists expect the approximately ~0.2 C per decade warming trend to continue for a couple more decades. Remember, this decade might be just 0.1 C of warming, and the next decade could be 0.3, and that averages out to 0.2. So I don't rush to judgment based on month-to-month changes.
However, I have virtually no doubt that the next year featuring a substantial El Nino will rank as the warmest year in the assessments of all three groups, because that underlying warming trend is still happening, despite the current cool conditions we are observing.
The fact that there has only been snow in LA in sixteen times in ten different years since records were kept in 1922, and of those only trace amounts all but three times, makes the events rare. BTW 1962 was the last time it snowed in the flow lands of Orange County, as well. I was 4 and I can barely remember it. As above, the Santa Ana Mountains get dusted regularly.
>> I think that most climate scientists expect the approximately ~0.2 C per decade warming trend to continue for a couple more decades. Remember, this decade might be just 0.1 C of warming, and the next decade could be 0.3, and that averages out to 0.2. So I don’t rush to judgment based on month-to-month changes. <<
Well, the seven-year trend is now downward, and, if there isn’t a resurgence of temperature that is very unprecedented, the downward trend will soon be able to be extended back ten years or more (since we’re balancing cool weather in 1999-2000 with cool weather in 2008).
>> Remember, this decade might be just 0.1 C of warming, <<
It’s looking negative to me... that’s my point.
>> However, I have virtually no doubt that the next year featuring a substantial El Nino will rank as the warmest year in the assessments of all three groups, because that underlying warming trend is still happening, despite the current cool conditions we are observing. <<
You’re begging your own conclusion.
>> and the next decade could be 0.3, and that averages out to 0.2. <<
And here, you go so far as to assert that something you think will happen but which has never happened serves to demonstrate that something which has already happened doesn’t really mean anything.
And .3 degrees has never happened.
I guess in 2020, I’ll be convinced that the weather will warm another 2 degrees in the 21st century.
>> And to add to the analogy, the escalator has a rheostat that is very slowly increasing the speed that it is going up. <<
So you still are adhering to the notion that global warming isn’t only happening, but it’s accelerating? So I guess next decade, we’ll have to have .4 degrees of warming. Or actually, .5 make up for the fact that so far this decade is at best steady, not, as you relate it, warming slightly slower.
So now you are asking me to believe that something is happening offering me as proof that something the likes of which there is absolutely no precedent for will happen.
The decade isn't over. Let's go back and see what GISS said about 2007 again, shall we?
"The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the "El Niño of the century".
I.e., based on the 0.2 C/decade trend, we should now be about as warm as 1998.
Let's quote the Hadley Centre UK now:
"These cyclical influences [El Nino, La Nina] can mask underlying warming trends with Prof. Phil Jones, Director of the Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, saying: "The fact that 2008 is forecast to be cooler than any of the last seven years (and that 2007 did not break the record warmth set on 1998) does not mean that global warming has gone away. What matters is the underlying rate of warming - the period 2001-2007 with an average of 0.44 °C above the 1961-90 average was 0.21 °C warmer than corresponding values for the period 1991-2000."
Youre begging your own conclusion.
I beg to differ -- read what I just quoted again. It's not my conclusion. I just read the press releases.
And here, you go so far as to assert that something you think will happen but which has never happened serves to demonstrate that something which has already happened doesnt really mean anything.
I guess you misunderstood. Unfortunately, even decadal variability doesn't change the physics of the situation. That was MY point. Long-term trends are just that.
So you still are adhering to the notion that global warming isnt only happening, but its accelerating? So I guess next decade, well have to have .4 degrees of warming. Or actually, .5 make up for the fact that so far this decade is at best steady, not, as you relate it, warming slightly slower.
You exaggerate. Let's say that the total global temperature rise over the 21st century ends up being 3 degrees. (That'd be wonderful, actually, given the current status.) Let's say it only warms up 0.1 C this decade. For fun:
2000-2010: 0.1 C
2010-2020: 0.25 C
2020-2030: 0.25 C
2030-2040: 0.3 C
2040-2050: 0.3 C
2050-2060: 0.35 C
2060-2070: 0.35 C
2070-2080: 0.4 C
2080-2090: 0.4 C
2090-2100: 0.45 C
Adds up to 3.15 C over the entire century. With acceleration.
So you can keep doing all the analyses you want, and think about them what you want to think. But hold off on telling me I'm wrong if the next year in which a full-scale El Nino occurs doesn't set a new all-time global temperature record.
"our first ever forecast for the next ten years in 2014 the world will be 0.3 °C warmer than 2004, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record."
We'll see, won't we?
>> You exaggerate. Let’s say that the total global temperature rise over the 21st century ends up being 3 degrees. (That’d be wonderful, actually, given the current status.) Let’s say it only warms up 0.1 C this decade. For fun:
>>2000-2010: 0.1 C
>>2010-2020: 0.25 C
>>2020-2030: 0.25 C
>>2030-2040: 0.3 C
>>2040-2050: 0.3 C
>>2050-2060: 0.35 C
>>2060-2070: 0.35 C
>>2070-2080: 0.4 C
>>2080-2090: 0.4 C
>>2090-2100: 0.45 C
>>Adds up to 3.15 C over the entire century. With acceleration. <<
Well, now we’re waiting an entire century to see us make up for the lost warmth? And begging a completely arbitrary prediction of *acceleration*?
>> I guess you misunderstood. Unfortunately, even decadal variability doesn’t change the physics of the situation. That was MY point. Long-term trends are just that. <<
But the “long term trend” existed only for 25 years? How is that any different than the “long term trend” from 1908-1941? How can you be so certain that your “long term trend” isn’t simply resuming the course of a 100 year trend which was interrupted by the fleeting effects of global dimming, which I actually think is the case? And if a ten-year interruption, unexplained by the greenhouse-gas model, doesn’t break the model, then how can we possibly say models of other explanations are broken?
Here’s a model: Solar activity, with considerable lag, plus the effects of global dimming. Plus maybe a tenth of a degree of CO2 warming since 1970. Or maybe the sun is actually getting brighter in spite of the sunspot cycle; NASA also noticed planetary warming on the other solid-surface planets they could test: Mercury, Mars, Pluto, the moon, and three moons of Jupiter.
You accept a priori that accelerating global warming is happening, so when you don’t see it happen, you regard it as an anomaly.
bump
>> I was just looking over the Hadley Centre UK press releases and I discovered this:
“our first ever forecast for the next ten years in 2014 the world will be 0.3 °C warmer than 2004, with at least half of the years after 2009 predicted to exceed the warmest year currently on record.” <<
Frankly, that devastates their credibility as a source. This is called “moving all in before the river.”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.