The Sunspot Debate is Heating Up

Tony Crocker

Administrator
Staff member
global warming? wow! t2b on oct 17th.
Not only an eastern WROD October 16. Colorado WROD Oct. 6. Utah powder Sept. 30. And of course Mammoth's second earliest opening Oct. 16. Just :stir: since I'm always the first to remind people that this week's weather anomalies do not constitute a trend.

BUT:
Howard Scheckter, the Mammoth weather guru, is among many who are intrigued with the ongoing sunspot minimum and its possible intermediate term climate implications. The bottom of his page http://izotz.com/dweebreport/ currently has an extensive description of the situation, along with numerous references which I'll post here so they will be easily accessible if/when he takes them down:
DEEP QUIET SEE: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2009 ... nspots.htm
1. EXCELLENT SERIES OF ARTICLES AT THE FOLLOWING LINK:
COPY AND PASTE:
http://anhonestclimatedebate.wordpress.com/
2. READ ARTICLES FROM ICECAP.US
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/faqs-and-myths
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog ... r_maunder/
3. READ NEW EOS ARTICLE AT LINK BELOW:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009EO300001.pdf
ON THE TOPIC OF GLOBAL WARMING AND GLOBAL COOLING....EXCELLENT COMMENTARY BY DR. JEFF MASTERS; COPY AND PASTE LINK BELOW:
4. http://www.wunderground.com/blog/JeffMa ... mp=&page=2
AND YET AN OPPOSING VIEW FROM ANOTHER SCIENTIST AND OTHERS:
5. http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/Solar ... ar2_08.pdf
6. http://www.examiner.com/x-13886-New-Hav ... al-warming
NASA: 7. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/21/scien ... .html?_r=2

Post #4 above is an excellent analysis of climate variability. The author (as of Feb. 2009) notes that
even over time periods as long as eight years, the average global temperature is not always a good measure of the long-term global warming trend--particularly if a large volcanic eruption in the tropics occurs.
However, he also lays down a benchmark:
We've now gone ten years without unambiguously breaking the global temperature record, which the models say should happen 25% of the time. There is a 5% chance we'll go eighteen years without unambiguously breaking the record, so it is quite possible for natural variability in the climate system to obscure the global warming signal for periods of nearly twenty years. If we still haven't had a new global temperature record by 2018, then it is time to question global warming theory.
I don't think it's inappropriate to be raising some questions now. 2018 might be the time we "stick a fork" in global warming theory.
 
Tony Crocker":1btdtp92 said:
Just :stir: since I'm always the first to remind people that this week's weather anomalies do not constitute a trend.
I don't think it's stirring the pot - it's tweaking the ignorant. A shocking number of people still are unable to grasp the concept: climate != weather
 
Marc_C":3g8nsqld said:
Tony Crocker":3g8nsqld said:
Just :stir: since I'm always the first to remind people that this week's weather anomalies do not constitute a trend.
I don't think it's stirring the pot - it's tweaking the ignorant. A shocking number of people still are unable to grasp the concept: climate != weather

And another shockingly large subset of the population is unable to grasp the concept that the climatologist community is anything but in agreement on the existence of global warming, much less the theory. Too many lemmings simply accept it as fact.
 
Admin":14326e7z said:
And another shockingly large subset of the population is unable to grasp the concept that the climatologist community is anything but in agreement on the existence of global warming, much less the theory. Too many lemmings simply accept it as fact.

I agree. I also think there is a major issue of politicizing the issue. Albeit that I'm a liberal, and I'm for "green" energy, that is more because of economic issues than climate warming issues.

I still think it's too soon to predict why we have warmed: whether this is part of a general trend for the last 500 years, or whether this is entirely because of industrialization. Frankly, there are so many variables when it comes to climate....
 
I also think there is a major issue of politicizing the issue.
We've certainly passed that point already. The Solar Eclipse Mailing List contains quite a few scientist members who might well enlighten the discussion. One of the older, well-esteemed members made a passing comment questioning global warming conventional wisdom and immediately attracted heated criticism, at which point the Forum moderator banned the topic from the user group. Admin gives us a LOT more leeway here than Michael Gill does on SEML. In his defense, there was a 2-week online pissing match between a couple of the members a few years ago when the prior moderator was on vacation. So maybe FTO users are a more respectful group.

I'm for "green" energy, that is more because of economic issues than climate warming issues.
Also the the geopolitical issues, in terms of who is being enriched by selling us more oil.

I still think it's too soon to predict why we have warmed
An explanation that will be particularly interesting if the warming trend is coming to an end or reversing.
 
Tony Crocker":2952asvl said:
if the warming trend is coming to an end or reversing.
Isn't there a theory that the melting of the polar caps will create a "temporary" cooling period for many regions?
 
I hope this topic is only a brief diversion before the ski season.....We're supposed to talking about skiing, not lack thereof.
(I drove over Independence pass (just east of Aspen) yesterday- Still open, on Oct. 18th, there were plenty of skiers risking their season on the 8-inch deep drifts in the scree fields east of the pass)

The first thing that comes to mind when I hear/read people discussing the "global warming" issue is that most people have very short and selective memories, and great conceptual or ideological troubles grasping the concept of geologic time.

Gazing out my window for a few seconds, it's sunny and breezy, with a few passing clouds. In geologic terms, those few seconds are a whole lifetime, no changes in sun position, amount of light, temperature, or cloud cover-- similar to my lifetime's perspective on changes in climate, continental drift, or erosion. Looks permanent to me. We don't know what's next, glaciers sweeping across the continent, or worldwide tropical swamp-- but it's gonna be one first, then the other, geologically. Human built stuff like beachside or ski resorts, are not going to be able to operate in the same locatain for very long geologically, no matter what. Does human burning of hundreds of millions of years worth of accumulated fossil fuels over the course of a geologic blink of an eye have any effect on the near-term direction? Who knows.....But it could look to be pretty stupid in hindsight.

It's plenty likely something like a change in earth's axis or orbit, sunspots or solar flares, volcanic activity, or meteorite strikes will overwhlem anything smart or stupid that humans can do, but that doesn't mean we should ignore our impact, either. I think the best thing to do is ski as much as possible, this coming winter, if it ever comes.
 
Isn't there a theory that the melting of the polar caps will create a "temporary" cooling period for many regions?
There is strong agreement that melting Arctic ice has a positive feedback: replace highly reflective snow/ice with dark water = more heat from the sun absorbed = further warming. So no surprise that if the earth as a whole warms a little bit, the Arctic tends to warm at a much higher rate. This occurred during the medieval period also, when the Norse were farming in Greenland and the Inuit lived as far north as 80 degrees latitude on Ellesmere island. This phenomenon does not happen in the Antarctic, because the continent has snow/ice year round and the surrounding ocean only has much ice in the winter; nearly all of the southern ocean ice melts every summer.

What james may be thinking of is the possibility of an abrupt melting of Greenland's ice cap. Many scientists believe if that happened it would shut down the Gulf Stream and plunge Europe and some of eastern North America into a temporary (several decades?) ice age.

I hope this topic is only a brief diversion before the ski season.....We're supposed to talking about skiing, not lack thereof.
It is unlikely that warming or cooling during our lifetimes will affect skiing much, at least in western North America. There is little doubt that temperatures increased from 1975-2000 or so (regardless of cause) and there was no impact on North American snowfall. So no reason to believe there will be an impact on snowfall if temps go the other way either.
 
Tony Crocker":1yy75vs9 said:
It is unlikely that warming or cooling during our lifetimes will affect skiing much, at least in western North America. There is little doubt that temperatures increased from 1975-2000 or so (regardless of cause) and there was no impact on North American snowfall. So no reason to believe there will be an impact on snowfall if temps go the other way either.
:dead horse: ](*,) :troll:

As discussed in my Climatogy course in the Department of Geography back in 1985-1986....global warming/climat change would increase precipitation (snow and rain) in Quebec. Sorry, I was thinking about my ski seasons at that time and don't remember the rest of NA.

Did a quick search on google and this came up.

His résumé.

http://ncsp.undp.org/docs/cv/401.doc

Article with an exaggerated title, not exactly what the story says...but the longterm news isn't good.

http://www.thestar.com/article/301963

Climate change will wipe out Quebec skiing, study predicts
Sean Gordon Quebec Bureau Chief
2008/02/09 04:30:00

MONTREAL–The powder hounds' prayers have been answered with a pair of February snowfalls, but even a thickening blanket of the white stuff can't bury the grim truth about one of Quebec's favourite winter pastimes.

A vast climate study is predicting the ski season in southern Quebec will shorten dramatically – perhaps by as much as half – over the coming three decades, with even sharper changes in store beyond 2040.

"There will be a marked reduction in the duration of the ski season over the coming years, especially in more southern regions," wrote the study's principal authors, professors Bhawan Singh and Christopher Bryant of the University of Montreal's geography department.

According to a summary of Singh's analysis published by the university last month, warming effects mean "the skiable season could go from four months to fewer than two months. And even making artificial snow won't really help. To make snow, you need the mercury to fall below zero."

December was the second snowiest month on record in Montreal, with more than double the average monthly snowfall measured since the 1940s, but January told a different story, with 11 days of temperatures above freezing.

That's part of a long-term trend that foreshadows potentially devastating consequences for Quebec's $600 million ski industry.

Bryant first began measuring the impact of climate change on agriculture in the early 1990s. Singh sat on the intergovernmental climate-change panel that won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2007.

The implications are also clear for ski enthusiasts in New England and Ontario: As the planet warms, people will have to travel farther afield to find reliable ski conditions.

In southern Quebec, average winter temperatures have risen between four and five degrees since the 18th century, the study showed.

There are 84 major ski resorts in Quebec, although the 15 largest, mostly located within an hour's drive of Montreal, haul in 70 per cent of the business. "Some places are more vulnerable than others," Bryant said in an interview.

The three biggest ski resorts in the province – Mont Tremblant, Mont Sainte-Anne and Le Massif – should continue to thrive because of their altitude and the fact they are in more northern latitudes.

Indeed, there are plans afoot for a $230 million expansion of Le Massif, which is in the Charlevoix region northeast of Quebec City.

But in the Eastern Townships, home to the province's oldest downhill ski runs, the situation will grow increasingly perilous.

Weather statistics show 55.6 centimetres of snow fell on the Montreal area in January, compared with 112.8 centimetres in December, with a mean temperature of about half a degree warmer than in 2007.

The region around Montreal received about as much rain as it did snow in January (of 99 millimetres of total precipitation, 55.6 was rain or sleet, according to Environment Canada's preliminary readings). The picture is worse if you exclude a New Year's Eve storm that dumped 20 centimetres on the region. And in the Eastern Townships, records showed 40 per cent less precipitation in January than in Montreal and 12 days at or near zero degrees.

The results of the study on the ski industry were first released in late 2006 to Ouranos, a provincially funded environmental research consortium. But the researchers have continued to do a series of follow-up studies, which primarily consider the impact of climate change on agricultural practices in southern Quebec.

"We believe the results haven't changed; they're based on an examination of long-term trends," Bryant said.
 
That article is :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

And even making artificial snow won't really help. To make snow, you need the mercury to fall below zero."
JSpin and I analyzed this in another thread a while back. We both came up with something like 3-5 fewer days below freezing each season. Improvement in snowmaking technology has probably offset more than that.

the skiable season could go from four months to fewer than two months.
How much did the eastern ski season shorten over the 25 years of warming 1975-2000? As one who tosses numbers around, I again tell people to use common sense. Were October/November openings better, more frequent then? Probably less frequent because better snowmaking more than offset the temperature rise. Was the April/May natural snowpack within ski area boundaries better back then? I suspect not.

In southern Quebec, average winter temperatures have risen between four and five degrees since the 18th century, the study showed.
Really? Don't all the IPCC studies etc. show something like ONE degree increase since the late 19th century? Does Quebec have some unique climate that magnifies global temperature change by an order of magnitude? I suspect not, since I've seen data claiming that upstate NY temps haven't changed at all in the past century.

So we are supposed to believe that when a 25 year rise in temperature produced no measureable impact on the eastern ski season, the next 30 years are going to cut it in half even though the rate of temperature increase has slowed or possibly stopped over the past 10 years? :bs: :bs: :bs:
 
Tony Crocker":3cf2ka8z said:
That article is :rotfl: :rotfl: :rotfl:

That is an article based on a paper, even Admin quote wasn't precise in the USA Today. (see other thread)

I'll try to find the actual paper, however James is the good into diging stuff up.

Impacts of and Adaptation to Climate Change for the Golf Industry in Southern Québec
http://www.adaptation2005.ca/abstracts/singh_e.html

Not associated with Bhawan Singh.

The Implications of Climate Change for the Ski Industry in Eastern North America
http://www.adaptation2005.ca/abstracts/mcboyle_e.html

That's what I was able to find online, didn't find Singh's ski paper in a quick search.

Tony Crocker":3cf2ka8z said:
the skiable season could go from four months to fewer than two months.
How much did the eastern ski season shorten over the 25 years of warming 1975-2000? As one who tosses numbers around, I again tell people to use common sense. Were October/November openings better, more frequent then? Probably less frequent because better snowmaking more than offset the temperature rise. Was the April/May natural snowpack within ski area boundaries better back then? I suspect not.

I can only talk about Quebec and I can tell early opening and late closing (and coverage) was overall better in May in the 1970s and 1980s with the few odds bad years.

Tony Crocker":3cf2ka8z said:
In southern Quebec, average winter temperatures have risen between four and five degrees since the 18th century, the study showed.
Really? Don't all the IPCC studies etc. show something like ONE degree increase since the late 19th century?

You're comparing late 19th with the "since the 18th century". :roll:

Tony Crocker":3cf2ka8z said:
So we are supposed to believe that when a 25 year rise in temperature produced no measureable impact on the eastern ski season, the next 30 years are going to cut it in half even though the rate of temperature increase has slowed or possibly stopped over the past 10 years? :bs: :bs: :bs:
:brick:

Freeze and thaw cycle are more severe in the Townships. Sometimes the line between rain and snow isn't much.

I remember him saying about increased precipitation (snow and rain). Checkout the Mont Sutton website. It has open/close dates, days open and total snow. I don't know what the numbers says, but take a look. Remove the first year out of the analysis. IF 1979-80 was so bad with only 236cm(with very little snowmaking), how come was the mountain open the same amount of days (122) as 2005-06 with 456cm? :-"

http://www.montsutton.com/en/useful-inf ... l-info.php

I don't necessarily want to go on and on on this topic. I gave up last year cuz I was so busy at work (6-7 day weeks) at that time. This year, I'd like to actual post some late TRs and do some un-FTO related stuff instead of falling into a black hole of the eternal fight. :sabre fight:
 
You're comparing late 19th with the "since the 18th century".
You're going to say 3-4 degrees from 18th to 19th and one degree since? I don't believe that, but if true what would that say about CO2 as the most important cause?

That's a lot of years 48! on that Mt. Sutton page. I don't suppose there's any monthly snowfall data behind those annual totals, which are likely between open and close dates. Open/close dates have economics in them and probably will not be under 120 or more than 170 no matter how good or bad the season.

Here are the averages by decade:
60's: open 11/28, close 4/21, 143 days, 536 cm snow
70's: open 11/22, close 4/26, 156 days, 561 cm snow
80's: open 11/23, close 4/12, 137 days, 375 cm snow
90's: open 11/26. close 4/23, 146 days, 409 cm snow
00's: open 12/4, close 4/20, 138 days, 473 cm snow

Opening day is a week later in the past decade than the 4 prior ones. Closing date shows no trend. The snowfall, like most places, is erratic but not necessarily a time trend.

Even if there is a time trend in those numbers, it will not project to halving the ski season over the next 30 years. It's hard for me to view the Townships as a "threatened ski region." It's Northern Vermont minus about 1,000 feet of elevation.
 
Back
Top