Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Topics of a general nature regarding snowsports, which don't easily fit into one of our other Liftlines categories. This is also the place to post Letters to the Editor.

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby rfarren » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:25 am

Admin wrote:And not because of a few-inch rise in MSL over the past 50 years.
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


Most definitely true, albeit a foot rise over the last century or so, which may very well be in the statistical norm over a 100 year period. That being said, I think the evidence is overwhelmingly strong that global warming has occurred, and that there is no doubt that humans have contributed to it. The warming trend data does support a faster than normal warming trend. What can't be told is whether the feedback effects that the models predict will come to fruition.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:35 am

rfarren wrote:ocean temps up here were more than 2 degrees warmer than historical temps. That certainly allowed Sandy to retain more strength than the storm would've historically.


No, because Sandy had already become a deep extratropical cyclone long before coming ashore as a result of the merger with a deep trough in the eastern US. She didn't gain her strength from warm water as hurricanes do. In fact, she dipped to a tropical storm while over warmer water before restrengthening over colder water because, coincidentally, that's when she started the merge. See:

http://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9987
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby rfarren » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:49 am

Admin wrote:
No, because Sandy had already become a deep extratropical cyclone long before coming ashore as a result of the merger with a deep trough in the eastern US. She didn't gain her strength from warm water as hurricanes do. In fact, she dipped to a tropical storm while over warmer water before restrengthening over colder water because, coincidentally, that's when she started the merge. See:

http://wasatchweatherweenies.blogspot.c ... y.html?m=1


Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


I read the high pressure ridge over Greenland that forced Sandy into the low pressure area to east was in large part an anomaly dude to the higher than normal Artic temperatures. This could be wrong. Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates. The long term effects of it GW or if you prefer AGW will become easier to see and cipher over decades.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Sat Nov 03, 2012 10:55 am

rfarren wrote:Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.


No it's not. There is ample data to refute that assertion and in no way is there "no doubt." Go back and reread the East Coast hurricane history of the 1950s and 60s.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9987
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby rfarren » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:10 am

Admin wrote:
rfarren wrote:Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.


No it's not. There is ample data to refute that assertion and in no way is there "no doubt." Go back and reread the East Coast hurricane history of the 1950s and 60s.

Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note II using Tapatalk 2


Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming. The overwhelming data that has direct correlation i.e. glacial reduction, artic ice extent, sea temperature, sea acidification etc... those tend to strongly support faster than normal rates of warming.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Admin » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:30 am

rfarren wrote:Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming. The overwhelming data that has direct correlation i.e. glacial reduction, artic ice extent, sea temperature, sea acidification etc... those tend to strongly support faster than normal rates of warming.


I fully agree, but that's not what you said. I was responding to this quote where you erroneously asserted that there was "no doubt" about their increased incidence:

Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.


That's simply not true.
Image

Image
User avatar
Admin
Site Admin
 
Posts: 9987
Joined: Wed Sep 22, 2004 9:32 am
Location: Salt Lake City, Utah

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby jasoncapecod » Sat Nov 03, 2012 11:41 am

people have very short memory's when it comes to weather events. If you are a New Yorker you should remember the Dec 10th-12th 1993 storm. It caused wide spread flooding and damage. What about the super storms of 1978 or the biggest super storm of all the 1993 March storm.

Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming.


+1
User avatar
jasoncapecod
 
Posts: 1127
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2006 9:30 am
Location: NEW YORK

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby rfarren » Sat Nov 03, 2012 1:20 pm

Admin wrote:
rfarren wrote:Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming. The overwhelming data that has direct correlation i.e. glacial reduction, artic ice extent, sea temperature, sea acidification etc... those tend to strongly support faster than normal rates of warming.


I fully agree, but that's not what you said. I was responding to this quote where you erroneously asserted that there was "no doubt" about their increased incidence:

Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.


That's simply not true.


I didn't mean to imply that, just poorly written.
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Wed Nov 07, 2012 11:29 pm

rfarren wrote:What can't be told is whether the feedback effects that the models predict will come to fruition.
To me that's the attraction of the Muller study, not dependent upon models that have not worked very well. The best guess ought to be future warming from more future CO2 = past warming from CO2 since 1950. That 1.5F degree rise corresponded with CO2 rise from 310 to 390. As the relationship is logarthmic a similar increase might be expected rising from 390 to 490. Not to say there might not be feedbacks (positive or negative) or "tipping points," but we're not in a position to make those kind of assertions with any credibility yet.

I'm with admin all the way on the hurricane issue. No historical evidence that hurricane incidence or intensity is up during the period since 1950. Sort of like North American ski area snowfall.

I guess the bottom line of my view for the time being is that we can probably live with 500-600 CO2 but I wouldn't want it to go up much more than that.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9870
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Mike Bernstein » Thu Nov 15, 2012 12:15 pm

Admin wrote:
rfarren wrote:Hurricanes are meteorological events and thus aren't an indicator of global warming, so using historical rates of hurricanes certainly wouldn't disprove or prove Global Warming. The overwhelming data that has direct correlation i.e. glacial reduction, artic ice extent, sea temperature, sea acidification etc... those tend to strongly support faster than normal rates of warming.


I fully agree, but that's not what you said. I was responding to this quote where you erroneously asserted that there was "no doubt" about their increased incidence:

Regardless, whether this storm was or wasn't amplified by global warming, there is no doubt that it is happening, and it's happening faster than historical rates.


That's simply not true.

Marc -

It was pretty clear he was talking about warming more broadly, not about hurricanes, which you've conveniently ignored.

Think of the kittens indeed.
Mike Bernstein
 
Posts: 262
Joined: Thu Nov 10, 2005 5:23 pm
Location: The City of Studios

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby rfarren » Sat Nov 17, 2012 9:33 am

The following piece is the type of news that makes me think Joe Bastardi will ultimately be on the wrong side of this debate.
http://grist.org/news/if-youre-27-or-yo ... age-month/
Rob
User avatar
rfarren
 
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2007 4:02 pm
Location: New York City

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby berkshireskier » Mon Nov 19, 2012 1:44 pm

http://www.accuweather.com/en/weather-b ... -1/1642595

If the charts in the above link are to be believed, it DOES seem to be at least somewhat compelling evidence that the overall climate IS warming. I suppose people can argue over what is causing that warming. My view is that, even if it is being caused by the release of manmade carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse" gases, good luck on trying to get the entire world to cut down on the release of these emissions into the atmosphere. We may just have to live with the consequences of warming.
berkshireskier
 
Posts: 427
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 2:20 pm
Location: Western Massachusetts

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Tony Crocker » Sat Nov 24, 2012 3:59 am

The temperatures shown in the references above inspire as many questions as they answer. They show a plateau of temperatures at a historically high level, but no increase over the past decade when CO2 emissions are rising at least as rapidly as in the prior 2-3 decades when temperatures were increasing. 2012 is on track to be the 9th warmest year on record, so no breakout above the plateau.

With regard to whether the temperature increase is ongoing, the arctic ice melt is the most compelling indicator IMHO. And it is also one which Joe Bastardi said would begin to reverse.

The sea level rise looks quite linear, and has been ~5 inches since 1950. So prediction of feet of sea level rise in the intermediate term are clearly based upon model assumptions rather than observed experience.
http://bestsnow.net
Ski Records
Season length: 21 months, Nov. 29, 2010 - July 2, 2012
Days in one year: 80 from Nov. 29, 2010 - Nov. 17, 2011
Season vertical: 1,610K in 2016-17
Season powder: 291K in 2011-12
User avatar
Tony Crocker
 
Posts: 9870
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2004 10:37 am
Location: Avatar: Charlotte Bay, Antarctica 2011
Location: Glendale, California

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby Marc_C » Mon Nov 26, 2012 11:51 am

Originally posted in another thread, but warrants repeating here:

Image
-marc
User avatar
Marc_C
 
Posts: 3181
Joined: Thu Mar 24, 2005 10:32 am
Location: A Sandy place south of a Great Lake

Re: Round 1 to Joe Bastardi & Company

Postby SnowbirdDevotee » Tue Dec 04, 2012 9:59 pm

Regarding the chart above. That is how skeptics view global warming, but a few things to keep in mind. Since 2000 mans CO2 output has risen about 30%, yet t here is no warming, as your chart shows. Another thing, that graphs shows almost 1 degree C of warming since 1973. That's not right, the warming has been about .4-.5C, and that is agreed upon by both sides of the argument.
Here are three of the four major temp indexes charted.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcru ... 73/mean:12

There is so much deception and trickery on the alarmist side of the debate. A few short points.
It is 100% ridiculous to think that there is some type of renewable energy source, (as in wind/solar) that can take the place of fossil fuel. Also very likely they result in using more energy to produce the same amount of end result energy that our society can use.
Thinking that fossil fuel industries are somehow funding the skepticism is another ridiculous point. (that may have been a little true in the 90's, but that's another discussion)
The corruption is on the side of the alarmist.
A rational person who really studies this issue, like many of us have, should be completely disgusted in the overall general corruption in our scientific and educational communities. Also, many of them are plain dumb and won't think for themselves, always deferring authority, like the poster at the beginning of this thread, 99% of "good people (ie the scientists) agree so it must be right. Again, if you understand this issue the amount of immoral and/or dumb people in our scientific communities is simply overwhelming, just an example of how so many will sell their soul for a shackle.
Most alarmist have no real understanding of the skeptics positions. They don't even know that ALL REAL SCIENTISTS agree that the atmosphere has not warmed in 15 years. (although however now they say the heat is hiding in the deep ocean- see recent skeptical science postings)
The word Climate Change, meaning all anomalous weather events, being the result of mans fossil fuel use is another ridiculous point. Read Brian Fagan books (a "warmer") on the Little Age Age, El Nino and the Medievil Warming to learn some basic historical weather facts.
Also, there isn't a "believer" in the US that understands that it is very likely the US hasn't EVEN WARMED the past couple centuries. We only have data ( ha ha!) since 1880, but in 1999 James Hansen (who most warmers don't even know who he is) wrote a paper with graphs showing in 1999 the US temps were slightly downward the past century. String along current data from 1999 and you get no US warming. But of course, since the movement has strengthened the past decade, the "data" has changed, but the paper is still on NASA's website. There are also other graphs produced prior to 1990's showing no US warming in the 20th C. If you don't know who Hansen is or that he is the grandfather of this movement (in the US) don't even bother commenting on this thread or any other thread about AGW.
Yes, we live in a very evil world, hold onto your pocket book.
Sorry mod to be inflammatory, but we truly live in a society of dumbasses these days. The people on this thread who can afford to fly around skiing wearing/using $1300 of equipment and taking $1500 or more ski trips have absolutely no idea where all that luxury comes from. Pure and simple - fossil fuels!
Seriously, I love my line of work, but if i had to choose another profession, i would be a fossil fuel engineer, there are very few jobs that do as much for our society!
(glad to see the moderator is on the right side of this issue!)
oh sorry, 99% of "scientists" agree....
SnowbirdDevotee
 
Posts: 65
Joined: Tue Nov 23, 2010 4:42 pm
Location: Poconos, Pa

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests


All content herein copyright © 1999-2017 First Tracks!! Online Media

Forums Terms & Conditions of Use