Global Warming Update: Snowfall Records Being Broken in New England

Photo of Noel Sheppard.
By Noel Sheppard | February 28, 2008 - 11:12 ET

Remember all those articles last year about how ski resorts were going to go bankrupt, and that folks with vacation homes near such areas were going to take a bath as global warming significantly reduced snowfall levels?

Well, ski enthusiasts and investors around the country should rest assured that this media hype was just as accurate as all those hurricane forecasts in 2006 and 2007.

In fact, much as what has occurred in Wisconsin this year, parts of New England have experienced more snow than ever in history as reported by USA Today late Wednesday evening (emphasis added, h/t ICECAP's Joe D'Aleo):

Another snowstorm swept across New England on Wednesday, toppling seasonal snowfall records and dumping so much heavy snow on buildings that some collapsed under the weight.

[...]

In Vermont, Burlington's 7.6 inches pushed the official snowfall past the February record of 34.3 inches and the winter record from December, January and February of 96.9 inches.

Around a foot of snow had fallen in parts of Vermont and New Hampshire.

Concord already had set a record for the snowiest December, January and February, and the storm pushed the total for the three months to 97.5 inches. For the entire snow season, Concord has seen 99.6 inches, off the record of 122 inches, set in the winter of 1873-74, but still enough to make it the 10th snowiest winter on record.

In northern Maine, Caribou had seen 144.5 inches this season as of Wednesday morning, putting it on pace to break the record of 181.1 for the entire season, said National Weather Service meteorologist Mark Turner.

There's so much snow that Ski Press World issued the following press release Wednesday (emphasis added):

The abundant snowfall that has blanketed Vermont's ski areas all season has continued at a record-breaking pace with snowfall totals that have already shattered the 50-year-old mark for the snowiest February in Vermont's history.

As D'Aleo reported:

Central New England too has been snowy. Concord, New Hampshire also has now exceeded 100 inches for the season with another light snow event last night. Official amounts will be available later today. They are closing in on the all-time record of 122 set in 1874. In this New Hampshire Public Radio story, they report the heavy snow is causing problems for many New Hampshire towns and cities.

Will a global warming obsessed media be focusing a lot of attention on this record snowfall? Not likely.

However, maybe more important for folks around the country to understand is that the axiom of professional investors is that by the time press members and the majority of the population recognize a trend, it's probably over.

This is called contrarian analysis, and the premise is that the herd is always wrong, and when enough people begin believing that stocks are going to keep going up, it's time to sell.

As it relates to global warming, it should be no surprise that the peak in hysteria -- certainly set off by Nobel Laureate Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth" and Hurricane Katrina -- came close to this cycle's warmest temperatures being recorded. This is typical, and to be expected given the herd mentality of the press and the public.

Now that we have had two straight years of below average hurricane totals -- despite the hysterical forecasts! -- and the appearance of a well-predicted cooling trend associated with solar cycles, one has to wonder when the media will start actively reporting warming's end.

Or, will they just call it climate change, and no matter what happens from this point forward, it's all man's fall and NOT Mother Nature's?

*****Update: NB reader Darrel La Dra sends pictures from Watertown, NY, where some areas had 146 inches of snow in two weeks:

 


—Noel Sheppard is an economist, business owner, and Associate Editor of NewsBusters.

Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

Leon

Leon,

A few days ago, you were claiming that snow conditions in New England were terrible. Care to comment? ns

Noel: Methinks Leon is over

Noel:

Methinks Leon is over at the Daily Kos giving back massages and foot rubs. You might want to check over there.

Well, Leon was shown up by

Well, Leon was shown up by many of us on this thread (where, in classic Leon fashion, he changes his statements and claims on the fly), but that usually does not stop our resident pseudo-Ivy-Leaguer from chiming in. The facts usually do not deter him.

I can tell you

NS: Living in Maine, I can tell you that this has been the coldest and snowiest winter in years. The ski slopes are packed with people, lodges are full and snowmobilers are having the time of their lives with all the snow. As I look out my window, I can see the snow piled so high from my snowblowing the driveway, that I can't see my neighbor's house anymore (view is blocked). The five-foot high fence I put up to keep my white lab out of my raspberry patch (he chews up the branches on the plants) is useless this winter because the snow has buried the fence. So I'm chasing ol Buddy out of the patch a lot (twigs are sticking up out of the snow. Buddy says "yum yum"). The road in front of the house, which is usually more than wide enough for two cars, is now so narrow that two cars have to slow down to a crawl to pass each other by. I've raked the snow snow off my roof 6 times this year because of the weight of the snow on the roof. More snow is forecast for later today.

My question: where is global warming in a winter when ya really need it???? ;+}

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

Doesn't he live in

Doesn't he live in Pennsylvania? If so. I found this yesterday.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Leon is in Denial of Low Temperatures and Snow Fall

First he is complaining that Philadelphia did not really have 40 days that dropped below freezing this winter or 56 days since last November:

Philadelphia Winter 2008 Low Temperature History

Philadelphia Nov 2007 - Feb 2008 Low Temperature History

Then he was complaining that the snow fall in Philly this year has been the same as 1950:

Historic Philadelphia Snow Fall

According to Leon the only temperatures that happen are the ones that he is outside during and any change in snow fall never happened before. 

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

GLOBAL WARMING is neither!

GLOBAL WARMING is neither!

Does this mean I can keep my

Does this mean I can keep my light bulbs?

Explanation

Clearly, with the globe warming, this is causing more moisture to evaporate and be in the atmosphere. This additional moisture is the reason that there is so much more snow. So the predictions were off, but the complete opposite is still evidence of our warming world.

/s

Then I guess this suggests

Then I guess this suggests that the cure for global warming is more global warming.

Kind of like a vaccine.

*****

"People only insist that a debate stop when they are afraid of what might be learned if it continues." - George Will 

Yes..

Now yer gettin' it. ;+}

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

beep beep BEEP!

The following is a statement from the Reality broadcasting network.  This is only a test. 

 

If global warming caused additional evaporation (which would lead to greater precipitation) then shouldn't the northeast being seeing record RAINFALL instead of SNOW?

After all, if the planet was warming beyond normal, you'd think it'd be too warm for this much snow.

 This has been a test of the REALITY broadcasting network.  We now return you to your normal programming.

 

You may be correct Tocano,

You may be correct Tocano, and I'm not sure how reliable this story is.

Clearly, nothing.

Here's some stats from where I live:

2007-2008:  25 nights below zero so far

2006-2007:  18 nights below zero

2005-2006:  6 nights below zero

2004-2005:  14 nights below zero

2003-2004:  16 nights below zero 

This "clearly" shows something about my region...and the trends show variation within a predictable range.

Clearly, the globalarmists are full of crap.

What a difference 8 months makes.

One of the pre-winter articles that Noel was referring to, from June 5, 2007. Global warming already affecting New England.

"There
are 15 to 25 fewer days with snow on the ground each winter, and rivers
and lakes ice over later and thaw earlier, Wake said."

Here in Houston, we aren't seeing fewer days with snow on the ground. It's still zero. That's the way we like it.

"A cross-country skier, Kasianchuk has noticed successively milder, drier winters in the last few years."

You know the saying. "Be careful what you wish for ..."

 

Missing the Point

It's not called Global Warming when there isn't any warming. When there's "cooling", then the correct term is "Climate Change". So here is the math:

Warming temperatures = Global Warming
Cooling temperatures = Climate Change
Less ice = Global Warming
More ice = Climate Change
Less snow = Global Warming
More snow = Climate Change

This only applies to situations that require temperature variation. When there are increased, non-temperature related activities, then there isn't "change", just plain "Global Warming". For example:

More Hurricanes = Global Warming
More Floods = Global Warming
More Tornados = Global Warming
More Landslides = Global Warming
More Fires = Global Warming
More Earthquakes = Global Warming

However, there is one unifying equation:

Global Warming = Climate Change = Man's infestation of Mother Gaia

You're cribbing from their

You're cribbing from their "style book", aren't you, Killgrave!

Yes, indeed, MB, for I

Yes, indeed, MB, for I subscribe to their dedication to style and fashion, and all of the limited shelf-life it entails. In fashion, it's all about how one appears.

Fernando said it best: "It's better to look good, than to feel good".

Good Call Kilgrave

In addition,

Global Warming = Climate Change = Bigger Government=MORE TAXES

Big Al / dumb @ss

Al Gore is an Idiot, his so called science is anything but factual. Global warming and cooling have been going back and forth since the earth first developed a climate. This is a fact that has turned political so Big Al can make money off of his propaganda. The truth is that our climate is effected more by changes in the sun than Co2, the problem with the truth is Big Al can not profit from the sun at least not yet anyway.     

My question is, if CO2 is

My question is, if CO2 is causing all the warming, how are they going to go about relating CO2 warming to the cooling? If CO2 causes warming, what is causing the cooling? Is it the Anti-CO2 element from all the corn fuel?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Ahh, but you see bass, they

Ahh, but you see bass, they are actually pretty smart.  It is like playing chess---they strategically placed their pieces in the right spots, some time ago, to eventually be able to claim both cooling and warming as our fault---of course all based on CO2 emissions.  Remember the "Day After Tomorrow" movie---it was fictional right?  Everybody dismissed it.  But know the sheeple will go back to this horribly scientifically inaccurate movie and say "see, now our CO2 is going to send us into the next ice age!  We are going to end up like all of those souls in 'that global warming ice age movie' ". 

Checkmate.

I have stated this here before, but it is always worth repeating.  I have a very close friend, like family, that I got into a global warming debate (obviously, said person was the AGW'er) last summer.  They recited all of the MSM's talking points, blah blah blah.  Nevertheless, once I had them against the ropes they actually CITED the movie "Day After Tomorrow"----and this person, of whom is really actually smart, has  A MASTERS DEGREE IN GEOLOGY!!  To me that is pure evidence that people are dismissing science to promote their agendas....and it is extremely scary..... 

"Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

With all due respect to you

With all due respect to you and your friend, Sick-n-Tired, isn't it like the whole "Dropping temperatures and increased snow fall around the world are evidence of global warming..." position  to say that your friend is really very smart and yet he still buys into the global warming myth? 

If he's so smart, how on earth can he buy into that shite? 

To me it's like people who go on and on saying how smart Bill Clinton is and yet he functions like a world-class jackass. 

Just what defines smart, I guess, is the question...

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"  - Shakespeare

You're missing TT's point,

You're missing TT's point, suspension of disbelief.  Intelligence has nothing to do with it.  What TT did was assault his friend's world view and his friend reacted predictably in grasping at straws to defend his world view.  It's a psychological thing, where the mind works really hard at maintaining consistency to make sense of the world according to the dogma. The best way to describe it is circular reasoning, an endless loop of reasoning. Contrary to popular thinking, the more intelligent you are, the more suseptible you are to mind control as your own mind is what keeps you a prisoner to the delusion, the spell of AGW or any other delusional thinking.  This is why confirmation bias like a hot spell or hurricanes or the snows of Kilomanjaro are hyped.

Here's a hint TT at dealing with your friend, the trick is to get them to "explain" the inconsistencies not just acknowledge them, as they try to do this they convince themselves of their own error. You must get them to move to the edge of the facade of the talking point and then explain the conflict.  Subconsciously, your mind does this by ignoring the inconsistencies, "blind to your own faults". The conscious mind must grapple with reality.  In the lib world, an assertion is fact until disproven by other facts.  It's a deprogramming tactic used on cult members.

Failure to respond to reason and discontinuity:
http://www.freeminds...
Deprogramming, Ted Patrick aka Black Lighting:
http://www.rickross....

The Socratic method is very successful in snapping a person out of the mind control. By making them think about the basics is the path to self control versus being controlled. As you ask them questions, and they have to answer, you get them to use their mind for themselves by coming up with the answer. A cult typically has pat answers for most things, much like the Dem or AGW talking points. Force the cult member to explain in detail what they believe, why they believe, support their assertions with evidence and then when they discover for themselves the empty space behind the facade of the talking point, they begin to question the whole thing. BTW, making unsupported assertions is how they (cult) stay in control, forcing them to support the assertion is how we get them to think for themselves.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

D, You pretty much hit it

D,

You pretty much hit it on the head, as I see it the same way.  This person is smart/intelligent in certain parts of their craft, yet their world view blocks some of their traditional scientific training and reasoning (which, to me as a scientist myself, is EXTREMELY frustrating). 

 I appreciate the links; it is good reading.  The only problem is, as I said, this person is very close to me and my family.  I am affraid to try and deprogram them, even by methodologies learned in the sciences, as I don't want to cause rift in our friendship.  Tough spot to be in, especially since I, like many of you, get great heartburn from this issue.  And to be honest a big portion of my 'fire' comes from the absolute bastardization of the science and the scientific method!!  If those tenets were followed this wouldn't even be an issue.

 "Controlling carbon is a bureaucrat's dream. If you control carbon, you control life," Richard Lindzen - March 2007.

I have a similar friend.

But the debate continues, and is unlikely to affect our friendship.

I do find it a bit ironic that conservatives can so-easily see the political in AGW "science," but give 'em a similar case of totally-political cannabis "science" and they're likely to swallow it hook, line & sinker rather than in any way question the holy tax and spend drugwar. In fact, if the USA taxpayers' Gabriel Nahas experience is any guide, it's almost like blatant non-repeatability due to crappy methods leads to even MORE government funding. Much like with AGW, come to think of it...
JMR

A corruption-story the TV media will-not cover.

Sarc,

I don't oppose legalizing pot. I am not sure where to draw the line in terms of harder drugs. The benefits you have spoken of only happen if you legalize all drugs, as gangs are not killing each other over territory to sell marijuana. These turf battles are usually over the harder drugs like cocaine, crack, and herion. So unless you are willing to leagalize ALL drugs, the tax money-pit that is the drug war will continue.

At the risk of going way

At the risk of going way off topic, I'll try to be brief.  The other evening while listening to the radio, I heard a book mentioned and talked about.  It is called "The Liberal Mind..." and sounded very interesting (kind of like the fascination of a train-wreck, I suppose).

It's also discussed here

Not that I necessarily want to try to understand the aberrant, but I may just buy it as an effort to figure out why there are so many contradictions in their thinking.  The ostensibly brilliant but hopelessly ignorant manifestations confuse me.

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"  - Shakespeare

A man convinced against his

A man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still.

Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

S-n-T

Come July, August, September, pretty much 9 months out of 12, here in San Antonio, I am hoping for a global ice age as it might lower summer temps here to a blustery 95 degrees with the requisite 90% humidity. Dave in Texas has it worse in Houston though. I think the humidity stays at 99% there all year long. :)

They have it backwards

Good question. Here's how I respond to the global warming cultists: Increased temperatures occur FIRST; this is what creates conditions for increased CO2. Most important source of "global warming" is the sun, which has waxed and waned in temperatures for, oh, about 15 billion years.

I will admit that I have not been very successful in convincing the cultists of the veracity of this established scientific phenomenon.

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

Headlines

Now: Algore Defeats Global Warming.

Next up: Scientists Name Algore to Tackle Global Cooling.

Global warming strikes again

I found this yesterday (on Drudge, perhaps...?) and had to laugh:  Twelve-month long drop in world temperatures wipes out a century of warming

If Algore had any couth he'd return his Nobel Peace Prize.  What a buffoon. 

"Cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war"  - Shakespeare

National Climate

National Climate Summary
Percentage Area Wet/Dry Hot/Cold
January 2008

NOAA/NESDIS National Climatic Data Center
Asheville, North Carolina
Updated 6 February 2008

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/jan/uspa.html#pa_gr

U.S. Percentage Area Very Warm or Cold, Jan-05 to Jan-08
http://www.ncdc.noaa...

Gee. National January

Gee. National January average 1998-2008 . My that's some warming. A national decrease of 1.91 degreeF per decade.

Sorry looks like NOAA won't let you link to charts you generate from their data. Go here, select - national, data type - mean tempertures, period - january, start - date 1998. Submit.

 BTW This is a great site. Although there are people at NOAA trying to distort what's going on. Like comparing this january to cool times and pretending it's warming in lots of places. However this site helps you cut through the BS. You're in control. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

If you look closely at

If you look closely at lotr's chart. You will notice they compared this to the 1961-90 mean temps. In short this "warm" chart is trying to portray a lot of the areas warm by comparing it to a known cool period.

How many ways can we distort?

And it still shows that in january most of the US is cooler than the cooler 61-90 mean.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Wait for it...

I cannot wait for some climate change this spring to get rid of all the global warming that has accumulated in this corner of the world.  My GW blower can only take so much.

I can relate...

The snowbanks outside our house are taller than my 6' husband. After this winter, he is SO glad that he bought a snowblower this year. And I can not wish for Spring to come soon enough, although I have a feeling with all this "global warming" piled up in our front and back yards that we are going to have severe mudpits.

Global Warming gets worse

This year's Global Warming will just get worse since we have the unfortunate circumstance of having that extra day in February. Just one more chance for us stupid humans to spew our earth-harming pollutants into the atmosphere. 

Ecclesiastes 10:2 - "The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left."

Not to worry Noel, as soon

Not to worry Noel, as soon as the libs put together a coherant propaganda line for AGC and a clever program to fleece the public like the carbon credit scam, they will come out in full force to proclaim doom and gloom due to the impending Ice Age.  Last time they didn't have a mega spending program attached to the 70s ice age scare so it flopped without notice.  Sooner or later they may just get something right for the wrong reason and both conservatives and liberals will agree upon something, at that point it will be the end of the world.

Since Sulfuric Aerosols were already dealt with in the 70s the libs will have to come up with another culprit, and of course they can't blame the Chinese for all the air pollution. They were very successful with banning CFCs but not successful enough to stop people from air conditioning altogether.  Maybe they will settle on something else equally stupid like the square footage of your roof reflecting all that light back into space and force everyone to paint their roof black or have pointy topped houses.  This will be added to all the other flops like welfare, DDT, CO2, population bomb, etc.

 Lord Sidious / Darth Vader 2008  Long Live the Empire!  Come to the Dark Side, it is your Destiny.

I'm still waiting ...

I'm still waiting for someone to proclaim that we all have to stop driving our cars because we're altering the rotation of the earth. :)

Yesterday on Special Report w/ Brit Hume

Evidence of Global Cooling:
http://www.foxnews.c...

"Now there is word that all four major global temperature tracking outlets have released data showing that temperatures have dropped significantly over the last year. California meteorologist Anthony Watts says the amount of cooling ranges from 65-hundredths of a degree Centigrade to 75-hundreds of a degree."

"That is said to be a value large enough to erase nearly all the global warming recorded over the past 100 years. It is reportedly the single fastest temperature change ever recorded — up or down."

This single event ought to extinguish all talk of "manmade global warming". But it wont. It will be swept under the rug and ignored by the vast majority of the media and the AGW zealots becaus too many people are making way too much money from AGW to let it go away.

 

The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.

What goes around comes around

Or, will they just call it climate change, and no matter what happens from this point forward, it's all man's fall and NOT Mother Nature's?

With the start of solar cycle 24, the planet is clearly headed toward a prolonged cooling cycle. The MSM will still call it climate change for a decade or so and then will revert to scare mongering ice age stories like they did in the 1970's. Somehow though, it will always be mankind's fault.

it will always be mankind's fault...

and (to them) the solution will always be socialism.

My own pet theory. As the

My own pet theory. As the media, hollyweed elites and the libs are so out of touch with reality by the time they realize it's warming, cooling etc, the closer we are at the end of the cycle. In short the more hysterical they are about global warming or cooling. The more likely the climate will go the other way. 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Suing Algone

2 years ago I bought property in NH about 30 miles from the coast and up in the hills, about 100 ft above sea level. I listened to Algore tell me that sea level would rise so I figured I would have ocean front property soon. I was planning on building a seaside resort, what with the ocean "out there" and nice warm weather. Well! It's the coldest it's been in my lifetime, more snow than ever in 100 or more years and I don't see the sea anywhere near here!!! This is fraud and I plan to sue Algore and the other Global-Warmest religious nutcases for all they are worth! I can't seem to get Algore on the phone, though, his handlers keep hanging up on me! Any lawyers out there who can help me???!!!

Planet...call John Edwards.

Planet...call John Edwards. I think he is looking for a position at this time, and I hear he will sue anyone for anything. Has a good record for wins to, or at least his bank account sayes so.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Noel

The cooler than average global temps during the last few months are typical of La Nina, just like the record warmth during 1998 was primarily contributed by El Nino, not global warming. Why hasn't anybody noted this? I'm sure if the discussion was on '98 you would rush to note El Nino's influence. Inferring that a few months of cooler than normal temperatures is the beginning of a major shift in climate is complete nonsense. Let's see what happens when we shift out of the current phase in the ENSO cycle.

meteor

meteor,

I don't disagree with your point at all. Looking at anything this narrow -- frankly, even 150 years -- is absurd given the millennia of ice core data. Yet, that's what the alarmists do, isn't it -- take a relatively small period in time, compare to another relatively small period in time, and extrapolate exactly what they want?

In the end, since most of the scientists I know that are researching this believe 1998 will prove to be the peak in this warming cycle, I could make the case that there's absolutely nothing wrong with using the 2007 Southern Hemisphere winter and the 2008 Northern Hemisphere winter as proof that, indeed, the warming trend is complete, and a cooling one has begun. Is this too short? Well, we peaked ten years ago now, didn't we?

As for La Nina and El Nino, aren't these discounted by the IPCC in all of this? Warming and cooling as far as the alarmists are concerned is not caused by the ENSO cycle, correct? It's all about carbon dioxide, right? As such, why bring these into the equation?

Yes, I'm being preposterous and absurd -- because this whole debate is preposterous and absurd. There is far more conclusive evidence that warming and cooling cycles are governed by solar activity and the ENSO cycle than carbon dioxide, correct? Yet, that's not what the climate alarmists want us to believe. ns

Noel, dosent the ENSO

Noel, dosent the ENSO cycles contribute more to the wet-dry cycles than the temps?

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

bnd

bnd,

That's not my understanding, as El Ninos and La Ninas impact ocean temperatures as well as cloud formations and the jet stream, correct? Don't these impact not just moisture but also temperature?

In the end, isn't this at the heart of the debate? Aren't all of these factors important variables to weather and climate? The reality is that the climate realists I speak to regularly will almost universally agree that we don't know what variable is more important. Yet, the alarmists want us all to believe that carbon dioxide is the most important, correct? ns

That is what they want us to believe,

therefore I propose they do their part to cut down on CO2 emissions by shutting up! But then we wouldn't have all these absurd stories to blog about. Darn catch-22s. :-)

I'm not putting my finger

I'm not putting my finger on it right now. And I want to say D'Aleo did it. But Rsquare was calculated for the US temps. 

As I recall. The oscillations represented by adding the PDO and NAO, had an Rsquare of over 80%. Solar was over 60%. CO2 was about 20%. When they compared CO2 with temps for either the last 10 or 20 years, was about 5%. And there are other oscillations not included in the calculations.

My understanding, the PDO shifted in the late 70's to the warm phase. Though it shifted back to cold in the late 90's or so. It didn't stay in the cold phase and shifted back to warm. And is now back in the cold phase. The PDO has a 25-30 year cycle.

Many argue that what we're seeing is the natural cycle of the oscillations. And if we're in a true cold PDO we could have 25-30 years of colder weather.

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

Noel, thanks for clearing

Noel, thanks for clearing that up for me. It was just my understanding. I am hoping for another very wet year. The fishing was great last summer here. We set the all time record for rain fall here. Lakes were all very full, good spawns all around. Looking for another great year of rain.

Save a SeAL, club a liberal!!

Noel

Well, you could make the case that the warming trend is complete, but you'd be wrong. Basing trends on small time scales in which interannual variability (caused by natural processes like ENSO) still has effects does no good.

You're probably right that the IPCC discounts ENSO. That's because they diagnose trends by examining long enough time periods so that ENSO cycles cancel each other out.

I bring ENSO "into the equation" because it is likely what is causing the cooler than normal temps this year and you are blaming it on solar cycles; you would need a much longer period of cooling to occur to place blame on this.

I'm not sure what you mean by there "being more conclusive evidence that warming and cooling cycles are governed by solar activity and ENSO cycles." If you're referring to the pre-industrial era then you are right; there is strong evidence that solar activity was the primary driver of climate while gases like CO2 and water vapor were secondary drivers. (However, ENSO has nothing to do with the climate on long time scales.) If you are talking about the current climate, in particular the last 30 or so years, there is strong evidence that changes in solar activity are no longer the primary driver of climate. In fact, if changes in solar activity were the primary driver, global temps should have stayed about the same or even slightly dropped during the last 30 years and this has not occurred. Even one of the articles I read cited by your local academic, PopularTech, notes that changes in solar output can only explain 20% of the observed changes in temperature.

Interesting..


"If you are talking about the current climate, in particular the last 30
or so years, there is strong evidence that changes in solar activity
are no longer the primary driver of climate."

I'm a strong adherent of solar activity being the primary (but not sole) driver of climate change, but I would be interested in learning more about your sources. I always keep an open mind on this issue.

I think the difficulty with our speculation sometimes is that we think in a linear way (I do, anyway). Simple cause yields predictable effect. Climate change, obviously, is extraordinarily complex, though cyclical, with arrays of causative variables we don't yet understand.

Volcanoes are the single largest sourse of "earth-based" CO2, with Penatubo having spewed 22 million tons of debris in 1991, and having lowered temps in some areas by .5 C degrees. I have heard this was the equivalent of 10,000 years of emissions from current levels of automobile usage, but I'm not that confident in the data. Tambora in 1815 was the most powerful volcanic explosion in recorded history and lowered world-wide temps by 3 degrees. The year 1816 was known in North America and Europe as the year with no summer. Volcanoes have been extremely active in the past few years. What's been the greenhouse effect? In addition, the Chandler Effect shows an enormous amount of internal plate activity in recent years, opening up heretofore closed vents. This has resulted in incredible releases of heat from the earth's core and (my opinion) increased volcanic activity. (It's really a chicken/egg issue for me right now).

Even more bizarre, the core temps of all the planets in our solar system, including Earth's, have risen proportionally in the past few years. In other words, there's a galactic system-wide deal going on. Obviously, our auto emissions and coal fired plants have no impact on temps on Venus. (do they??? ;+}. One paper I read speculated that the inner core temps of all planets vary up and down simultaneously over very long periods of time. What causes that? I dunno.

I think it's time for my nap.

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

Celator

Here are some examples of peer-reviewed articles discussing the contributions of changes in solar output to the observed warming during the last century or so.

Phenomenological
solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface
warming

(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05708,
2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Reconstruction
of solar irradiance since 1610: Implications for climate
change

(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 22, No. 23,
PAGES 3195–3198, 1995)
- Judith Lean, Juerg Beer, Raymond
Bradley

Solar
total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature
record

(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, NO. D2,
Pages 2835–2844, 1991)
- George C. Reid

I borrowed them from a previous post by PopularTech; it was faster than digging up some articles myself!

Note that these studies conclude that changes in solar output account for less of the change in temps during the last 30 years than they did 100 or more years ago. Thus, other causes (anthropogenic?) are increasingly driving the climate.

I agree that climate change is extraordinarily complex, but scientists have made huge gains during the past decade in understanding what drives past and current climate states using new sets of observations and increasingly complex climate models. There is much left to understand, but currently, most of the evidence suggests that the current warming is outside the range of natural variability (e.g., references cited above).

You are wrong about volcanoes being the largest source of "Earth based" CO2. Currently, the largest sources resulting in a net CO2 increase (keep in mind that huge exchanges of CO2 occur between the atmosphere, oceans, soils etc. that don't result in any net CO2 gains/losses) are the burning of fossil fuels, cement production, deforestation, and biomass burning. Perhaps in the distant past volcanoes contributed significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere, but currently the contribution is virtually negligible. There actually isn't even a signal in the '91 CO2 concentrations for the Northern Hemisphere. However, Mt. Pinatubo's eruption did emit tons of sulphate aersols into the stratosphere, which remain only for a short time period (2-3 years), and caused a short term cooling, similar to other recent major eruptions.

I haven't heard about this evidence that core temps of all the planets in our solar system are rising proportionally. Interesting. Do you have any references for this?

 

 

Excellent!

Excellent! Thanks. Looks like I'm gonna do some reading. I'll see if I can dig up that resource.

The last thing I read re solar was that the solar storm cycles correlated perfectly with climate change. I'll revisit that.

Liberal's Basic Rule For Discourse: I don't care if you agree with my premises, but I demand that you agree with my conclusions.

R-squared for CO2 vrs 11

R-squared for CO2 vrs 11 year running mean of the USHCN since 1905 is .44.

R-squared for solar irradience vrs USHCN is .57. Stronger than CO2.

R-squared for a combination of the PDO + the AMO is .85.

"The divergence post 2000 was either (1) greenhouse warming finally kicking in or (2) an issue with the new USHCN version 2 data.

The plot of the difference between version 1 and version 2 suggests the latter as the likely cause. Note the adjustment up of the 1999-2005 temperatures by as much as 0.15F (unexplained)."

"Since temperatures have stabilized in the last decade, I looked at the correlation of the CO2 with HCSN data. Greenhouse theory and models predict an accelerated warming with the increasing carbon dioxide.

Instead, a negative correlation between USHCN and CO2 was found in the last decade with an R or Pearson Coefficient of -0.14, yielding an r-squared of 0.02." Quite a coorelation.

"To ensure that was not just an artifact of the United States data, I did a similar correlation of the CO2 with the CRU global and MSU lower tropospheric monthlies over the same period. I found a similar non existent correlation of just 0.02 for CRU and 0.01 for the MSU over troposphere. "

There is this interesting statement. "Given the rapid decline of the PDO and AMO this past year and the continued low solar Activity, the regression suggests 2008 will end up coldest since 1996 (perhaps even 1993)."

Source

 

"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT

No AGW Conclusions from Solar Papers

These papers were included for the following reasons:

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05708, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

This proves solar contributions are disputed in relation to modeling:

"...that the solar impact on climate change during the same period is significantly stronger than what some theoretical models have predicted."

It can make no conclusions about AGW.

Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, NO. D2,
Pages 2835–2844, 1991)
- George C. Reid

This again attempts to show the importance of solar contribution to global warming:

"...the results can be taken as indicating that solar variability has been an important contributor to global climate variations in recent decades."

No conclusions about AGW can be drawn from it. These papers were studying solar contributions and thus cannot claim AGW conclusions based on an unknown amount of contribution. That unknown amount can very well be natural, more complex solar contributions that are not understood or simply errors with the climate models and temperature records - these are the most likely.

While there is ample evidence of Planets undergoing climate change:

Global warming on other planets (Luboš Motl, Ph.D. Theoretical Physicist, Harvard)
Jupiter - New Storm on Jupiter Hints at Climate Change (Space.com)
Jupiter - Researcher Predicts Global Climate Change On Jupiter As Planet's Spots Disappear (Science Daily)
Mars - Climate Change Hits Mars (The Times, UK)
Mars - Evidence Of Climate Change, Icy Region Observed On Mars (Science Daily)
Mars - Evidence for Recent Climate Change on Mars (Malin Space Science Systems)
Mars - Mars Melt Hints at Solar, Not Human, Cause for Warming, Scientist Says (Khabibullo Abdusamatov, Ph.D. Astrophysicist)
Mars - NASA's Global Surveyor Sees Possible Climate Change On Mars (Science Daily)
Mars - Orbiter's Long Life Helps Scientists Track Changes on Mars (Mars Global Surveyor Team, NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory)

"...for three Mars summers in a row, deposits of frozen carbon dioxide near Mars' south pole have shrunk from the previous year's size, suggesting a climate change in progress."

Neptune - Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature (AGU)
Neptune Moon Triton - MIT researcher finds evidence of global warming on Neptune's largest moon (MIT)
Pluto - Global Warming on Pluto Puzzles Scientists (Space.com)
Saturn - Hot shot of Saturn's 'hot spot' (BBC)
Saturn Moon Enceladus - Saturn moon delights and baffles (BBC)

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

Conveniently Leaving out Papers

It must be nice to leave out all the other papers and propagandize conclusions that cannot be drawn from the ones you did link to.

A mechanism for sun-climate connection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, 2005)
- Sultan Hameed, Jae N. Lee

A Millennium Scale Sunspot Reconstruction: Evidence For an Unusually Active Sun Since the 1940's
(Physical Review Letters 91, 2003)
- Ilya G. Usoskin, Sami K. Solanki, Manfred Schüssler, Kalevi Mursula, Katja Alanko

Altitude variations of cosmic ray induced production of aerosols: Implications for global cloudiness and climate
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 107, No. A7, 1118, 2002)
- Fangqun Yu

Celestial Climate Driver: A Perspective from Four Billion Years of the Carbon Cycle
(Geoscience Canada, Volume 32, Number 1, March 2005)
- Ján Veizer

Celestial driver of Phanerozoic climate?
(GSA Volume 13, Issue 7, July 2003)
- Nir J. Shaviv, Ján Veizer

Cosmic rays and Earth's climate
(Space Science Review 93: 155-166, 2000)
- Henrik Svensmark

Cosmic rays and climate - The influence of cosmic rays on terrestrial clouds and global warming
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 41 Issue 4 Page 4.18-4.22, August 2000)
- E Pallé Bagó, C J Butler

Cosmic Rays, Clouds, and Climate
(Space Science Reviews, v. 94, Issue 1/2, p. 215-230, 2000)
- Nigel Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

Cosmoclimatology: a new theory emerges
(Astronomy & Geophysics, Volume 48 Issue 1 Page 1.18-1.24, February 2007)
- Henrik Svensmark

Empirical evidence for a nonlinear effect of galactic cosmic rays on clouds
(Royal Society of London Proceedings Series A, Vol. 462, Issue 2068, 2006)
- R. Giles Harrison, David B. Stephenson

Evidence of Solar Variation in Tree-Ring-Based Climate Reconstructions
(Solar Physics, Volume 205, Number 2, Pages 403-417, February 2002)
- M.G. Ogurtsov , G.E. Kocharov, M. Lindholm, J. Meriläinen, M. Eronen, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn

Evidence for a physical linkage between galactic cosmic rays and regional climate time series
(Journal Advances in Space Research, February 2007)
- Charles A. Perrya

Formation of large NAT particles and denitrification in polar stratosphere: possible role of cosmic rays and effect of solar activity
(Atmos. Chem. Phys., 4, 2273-2283, 2004)
- F. Yu

Geophysical, archaeological, and historical evidence support a solar-output model for climate change
(PNAS, Vol. 97, No. 23, 12433-12438, November 7, 2000)
- Charles A. Perry, Kenneth J. Hsu

Has solar variability caused climate change that affected human culture?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 1173-1180, 2007)
- Joan Feynmana

Influence of Cosmic Rays on Earth's Climate
(Physical Review Letters - November 30, 1998 - Volume 81, Issue 22, pp. 5027-5030)
- Henrik Svensmark

Is solar variability reflected in the Nile River?
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 111, D21114, 2006)
- Alexander Ruzmaikin, Joan Feynman, Yuk L. Yung

Length of the Solar Cycle: An Indicator of Solar Activity Closely Associated with Climate
(Science, Vol. 254. no. 5032, pp. 698 - 700, November 1991)
- E. Friis-Christensen, K. Lassen

Linkages between solar activity, climate predictability and water resource development
(Journal of the South African Institution of Civil Engineering, Vol 49 No 2, Pages 32–44, June 2007)
- W J R Alexander, F Bailey, D B Bredenkamp, A van der Merwe, N Willemse

Long-Period Cycles of the Sun's Activity Recorded in Direct Solar Data and Proxies
(Solar Physics, Volume 211, Numbers 1-2, December, 2002)
- M.G. Ogurtsov, Yu.A. Nagovitsyn, G.E. Kocharov, H. Jungner

Low cloud properties influenced by cosmic rays
(Phys. Rev. Lett., 85(23), 5004-5007, 2000)
- Nigel D Marsh, Henrik Svensmark

On climate response to changes in the cosmic ray flux and radiative budget
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Volume 110, A08105, 2005)
- Nir J. Shaviv

On the possible contribution of solar-cosmic factors to the global warming of XX century
(Bulletin of the Russian Academy of Sciences: Physics, Volume 71, Number 7, July, 2007)
- M. G. Ogurtsov

On the relationship of cosmic ray flux and precipitation
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 28, No. 8, pp. 1527–1530, 2001)
- Dominic R. Kniveton and Martin C. Todd

Persistent Solar Influence on North Atlantic Climate During the Holocene
(Science, Vol. 294. no. 5549, pp. 2130 - 2136, 7 December 2001)
- Gerard Bond, Bernd Kromer, Juerg Beer, Raimund Muscheler, Michael N. Evans, William Showers, Sharon Hoffmann, Rusty Lotti-Bond, Irka Hajdas, Georges Bonani

Phenomenological solar contribution to the 1900–2000 global surface warming
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L05708, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Phenomenological solar signature in 400 years of reconstructed Northern Hemisphere temperature record
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 33, L17718, 2006)
- N. Scafetta, B. J. West

Reply to Lockwood and Fröhlich – The persistent role of the Sun in climate forcing
(Danish National Space Center Scientific Report, 3/2007)
- H. Svensmark, E.Friis-Christensen

Regional tropospheric responses to long-term solar activity variations
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 40, Issue 7, Pages 1167-1172, 2007)
- O.M. Raspopov, V.A. Dergachev, A.V. Kuzmin, O.V. Kozyreva, M.G. Ogurtsov, T. Kolström and E. Lopatin

Rhodes Fairbridge and the idea that the solar system regulates the Earth’s climate
(Journal of Coastal Research, SI 50, pp. 955-968, 2007)
- Richard Mackey

Solar correlates of Southern Hemisphere mid-latitude climate variability
(International Journal of Climatology, Volume 22, Issue 8 , Pages 901 - 915, 27 May 2002)
- Ronald E. Thresher

Solar Cycle Variability, Ozone, and Climate
(Science, Vol. 284. no. 5412, pp. 305 - 308, 9 April 1999)
- Drew Shindell, David Rind, Nambeth Balachandran, Judith Lean, Patrick Lonergan

Solar total irradiance variation and the global sea surface temperature record
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 96, NO. D2, Pages 2835–2844, 1991)
- George C. Reid

Solar Variability Over the Past Several Millennia
(Space Science Reviews, Volume 125, Issue 1-4, pp. 67-79, Friday, December 22, 2006)
- J. Beer, M. Vonmoos, R. Muscheler

Suggestive correlations between the brightness of Neptune, solar variability, and Earth's temperature
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L08203, 2007)
- H. B. Hammel, G. W. Lockwood

Surface warming by the solar cycle as revealed by the composite mean difference projection
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 34, L14703, 2007)
- Charles D. Camp, Ka Kit Tung

The Antarctic climate anomaly and galactic cosmic rays
(physics/0612145v1, 2006)
- Henrik Svensmark

The link between the solar dynamo and climate - The evidence from a long mean air temperature series from Northern Ireland
(Irish Astronomical Journal, vol. 21, no. 3-4, p. 251-254, 09/1994)
- C.J. Butler, D.J. Johnston

Variations in Radiocarbon Concentration and Sunspot Activity
(Journal of Geophysical Research, Vol. 66, p.273, 01/1961)
- Stuiver, M.

Variations in the Earth's Orbit: Pacemaker of the Ice Ages
(Science, Vol. 194. no. 4270, pp. 1121 - 1132, 10 December 1976)
- J. D. Hays, John Imbrie, N. J. Shackleton

Variation of Cosmic Ray Flux and Global Cloud Coverage - a Missing Link in Solar-Climate Relationships
(Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics, 59, 1225-1232, 1997)
- Henrik Svensmark, Eigil Friis-Christensen

Variations of solar coronal hole area and terrestrial lower tropospheric air temperature from 1979 to mid-1998: astronomical forcings of change in earth's climate?
(New Astronomy, Volume 4, Issue 8, Pages 563-579, January 2000)
- W. Soon, S. Baliunas, E. S. Posmentier, P. Okeke

Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years
(Geophysical Research Letters, Vol. 32, L16712, 2005)
- Willie W.-H. Soon

What do we really know about the Sun-climate connection?
(Advances in Space Research, Volume 20, Issue 4-5, p. 913-921, 1997)
- Eigil Friis-Christensen, Henrik Svensmark

Will We Face Global Warming in the Nearest Future?
(Geomagnetism i Aeronomia, Vol. 43, pp. 124-127, 2003)
- V. S. Bashkirtsev, G. P. Mashnich

The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource

You are the king, PT.

You are the king, PT.

Whooaaa Pop Tee....talk about slicing and dicing

Pop Tech I think you addressed the question " there is strong evidence that changes in solar activity are no longer the primary driver of climate" with that last little list you posted. 

Sometimes when Pop Techee posts, there is a six week pause in rebuttle, while the postee victim does 6 weeks of reading.........before using the "nevermind" answer.

I find it amazing, that Since we ALL know that the END of Winter (nothern hemisphere) is brought on by the slight Tilt of the Earth towards....what ?  ? --THE SUN-- !! and yet we still hear that some Dufus's say the Sun is not the Primary driver of the climate..... 

I hope the Men in White coats are not watching this site...because there are some Escappees running around loose who think they're really Al Gore......Geezzz.

Changes in solar irradiance

Changes in solar irradiance are already accounted for in climate models.  Nobody, I repeat, nobody, has ever claimed that the sun is not the primary source of energy to the earth's atmosphere/ocean system.  However, the greenhouse effect (the "atmosphere effect" is more accurate) is of comparable importance for our climate.  Without it, i.e., without an atmosphere with IR-absorbing gases, Earth would be no different than the moon, which cannot be said to even have a "climate," at least not one that supports life.

BTW, this stuff (climate-change, greenhouse effect, measured decadal increases in anthropogenic CO2, a mind-boggling increase in fossil fuel combustion due to human industry in the 20th Century) was well-known before Al Gore ever decided to capitalize on it, indeed well before he even rose to national politics in the U.S. Senate.

Thanks lotr

Thanks lotr for the clarification. I stated above that changes in solar output may no longer be the primary driver of changes in climate. This is a far cry from saying the sun doesn't drive climate. It is amazing how much skeptics can distort statements of those that don't agree with them...

it's almost like they want

it's almost like they want proof or some such instead of pointless assertion.

changes in solar output may no longer be the primary driver of changes in climate.  or then again they may not?