Required Reading: Old Farmer's Almanac 2009

schubwa

schubwa

New member
An interesting article in this year's OFA 2009, they go out on a limb forecasting what we all wish for, a mini Ice Age! But like everything else in life, be careful of what you wish for...
Luckily I live on their projected interface between a cold/snowy area and a mild/wet zone. Everyone east and south gets cold/dry. Of course weather forecasting is inexact science at best. My personal observations parallel the article in that La Nina never left, and will reintensify and lead to another stormy PNW this of season after a warm and dry fall. The OFA goes on to quote a NOAA solar physicist and a Russian Academy of Sciences reseacher that both agree we are going into a protracted period period of "cool" weather due to diminished solar activity.
The charts published show average global temperatures rising over time, but I may be convinced that we may be entering a period of change. A year ago we visited Jefferson Park (elev: 6200') in early July, after an above normal winter and found wildflowers, meadows and mosquitoes. This Labor Day we crossed large snow banks well below the meadows hiking up into an impressive late summer snowstorm. There were quite a few persistant snow fields present extending into the higher elevations and it's very late summer. Just a fluke?
We just entered Cycle 24 and each cycle lasts about ten years. Cycle 25 is projected to be the quietest (solar activity) and therefore coolest in centuries. Interestingly, we're at the cusp of another underlying 88 year cycle. Don't quote me here folks, buy the Almanac and read it and come to your own conclusions!
It only takes a minor drop in temperatures and/or decrease in solar radiation to cause glaciers to advance. None of us has lived during an "Ice Age", but I have to think they're more cold than snow. Snow falls but it melts slower each year.
What you think?
 
The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is blocked from escaping the atmosphere.

We've burned millions of years of store carbon from inside the earth and effectively put it in the atmosphere.

That makes far more sense then solar flares do in affecting our climate.
 
salida":1mxzu1c4 said:
The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the more heat is blocked from escaping the atmosphere.

We've burned millions of years of store carbon from inside the earth and effectively put it in the atmosphere.

That makes far more sense then solar flares do in affecting our climate.
Click to expand...


I wish it were so simple. Perhaps you should read about the maunder minimum, or the little ice age. Personally, I think we shouldn't get into this again.
:dead horse:
 
No we probably shouldn't get into this again... That being said, I've read so many publications on this topic. I've had so many years of education on this topic. I've worked for some of the foremost climate research progams/institutes in this country... What I said in the previous reply is about the most succinct way I can sum up what is going on with our planet.
 
Well, going back to the FTO topic du jour from earlier this summer... :hijack: :dead horse: :sabre fight:

Not particularly good science that I've seen supporting either side. At least not published for us "masses" to read & look through (& IPCC has poor science published in that thing...ugh). With both sides basically taking a high level statistical view and saying "see, look, our two chosen data sets seem to match up - kinda, sorta, mostly". And then going on to try to almost manufacture underlying details to fit the supposed high level correlation they are attempting to prove.

I need to see hard science detailing the physics, interactions and etc (a little of which has been done on each side, but not nearly enough to cry about the sky falling)... Really both sides of the argument are still at a stage of not even knowing what it is that they don't know about yet; Yet alone being able to model and replicate the processes in a good enough manner to prove out their theories. If the science was so compelling and resolved you'd think that publishing the gory chemical and physics details in textbooks and general literature would be a high priority by now (vs a politician standing in front of a 'proprietary' power point presentation in a movie, or a generic graph here or there on a website - for either side).

Unfortunately it has turned into a huge political football both nationally and globally, which means that scientists on either side would seem to be turning in more politicized work than good, objective, unbiased science (but hey, it does get you that next round of grants and funding from your pre-chosen source!). So, unfortunately, based on the details available and have seen and read, I currently don't trust either side to be particularly accurate or reliable. And also due to the politicization of the topic, I doubt if any discussions like this do or would change anyone's mind. We're all too set up right now to be 'right' about our chosen side than to be objective about the options and details because of the tone the topic now takes in everyday life.

Sorry for the cynical tone, but it is my take on the current state of the topic. Clearly, one side will likely be looked at as fools 50 years from now (or maybe less). And not that I advocate doing nothing in the meantime, either. Pretty much anytime CO2 is produced by humans, there are far worse pollutants also being generated; so economical replacements (wind is pretty much there, but PV is not even close, etc...) or reductions in needs (CFL's, more advanced cars etc...) are quite logical and good steps no matter which side finally gets the science figured out.

I did find it interesting that the local business magazine published a short article by W Gray (CSU prof) of noted hurricane forecasting and known anti-warming spokesperson.

http://www.cobizmag.com/articles.asp?id=2331

Sorry for the hijack. Now back to your regularly scheduled discussion of the upcoming season snow forecast...
 
CYCLICAL PLANET CHANGES...nuff said...

We are so "new" to this planet...we have barely begun to scratch the surface of what cycles earth has gone through in its long history...we'd be fools to think we knew.

Humans and the industrial revolution have not made things any better, but the planet change was coming either way you cut it. Can we go back to pre industrial revolution? I dont think so, but i'd be open to suggestions.

M
 
Skidog":21qys7v3 said:
Can we go back to pre industrial revolution? I dont think so, but i'd be open to suggestions.

M
Click to expand...

We could all sacrifice a snowboarder to the gods... maybe that would stop global warming :wink: :wink: :wink:

If it didn't work at least the quality of skiing would be better. :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
As I mentioned on the previous AGW discussion :dead horse: , I share ESMC's frustration in finding credible info. After that discussion I did find a couple of specific points of controversy, which I e-mailed to Larry Schick in July:

Ongoing debates on the ski message boards have prompted me to read more. I could attach a bunch of URL's, but most advocates have a lot of fluff in their writing. I've tried to cut through the BS and find the key subjects of dispute.

There are two major schools of thought. Some believe greenhouse gases are the major driver of recent climate, while others believe it is solar cycles.

In both cases, the direct radiative effect is inadequate to explain the warming. The AGW people (IPCC report etc.) assume that since a warming atmosphere can hold more water vapor, that water vapor will increase to maintain the same relative humidity. Water vapor itself is a powerful greenhouse gas, so this water vapor feedback approximately triples the warming effect of CO2, CH4, NOx, etc. The solar cycle advocates contend that the actual increase of water vapor is much less than the IPCC assumption.

The solar cycle advocates admit that the fluctuation in solar radiation is small. But they contend that the cosmic rays associated with it increase or decrease cloud formation to magnify the effect. This is unproven, but in general temperatures correlate better with solar cycle length (short=warm, long=cool) than they do with greenhouse gases.

It is becoming more likely that this dispute will be resolved by actual temperature changes over the next decade. Solar cycles average 11 years in length. Solar Cycle 22 ended in mid-1996 and was only 9.8 years. Solar Cycle 23 is currently at 12 years, and likely to extend at least a few months more because sunspot activity is so low. The unusual length of Cycle 23 also increases the chance that Cycle 24 will have an abnormally low sunspot peak in 2012-13. If this occurs, the solar cycle theory will be squarely on the line, because it would call for substantial cooling in that scenario. The AGW advocates, of course, would call for warming over the next decade. So a decade from now one group may be vindicated and the other back to the drawing board.


Clearly, one side will likely be looked at as fools 50 years from now (or maybe less).
Click to expand...
More like 10-20. In addition to the lengthy Cycle 23 and slow start to 24, there is the prediction schubwa mentioned of the unusually quiet Solar Cycle 25.

Another article on the economic/political aspects: http://www.forbes.com/opinions/forbes/2 ... 1/094.html . I know that Forbes is far from unbiased on this subject, but the point is well taken that many nations are not going to change their energy usage profile unless it makes economic sense.
 
Just curious... what is the FA's record on winter predictions? Seems to me that it's wrong as often as it's right, which means I might as well flip a coin.
 
:dead horse: I'd like to set the record straight on my view of the "big picture" regarding the Human vs Sunspot debate I've reopened. I believe the humans have hugely contributed the the recent warming, as evidenced by our ever higher atmospheric CO2 concentrations. Our efforts to slow the burning of fossil fuels will only slow the rate of increase. There's just too many people and emerging wealth in the world to turn back the hands of time. We won't stop burning it until it's all gone, as illustrated by our recent rush to drill, rather than take this opportunity to replace the unused reserves with alternative energy. My belief is that any effort to reduce consumption of these fuels is good, reducing dependence on foreign oil, trade deficit issues, air and water pollution, etc. Hey, we may need it to heat our homes at a later date (like this January). Petrochemicals are useful for making goggles and GoreTex as well.
I thought it was startling that the Old Farmer's Almanac would go out on such a limb and predict a cooling trend. Here's a snippet from their General Weather Forecast and Report: "Our study of solar activity suggests that as we enter solar cycle 24 we are at the beginning of a significant change. Over the coming years, a gradual cooling of the atmosphere will occur, offset by any warming caused by increased greenhouse gases. We expect the La Nina that developed during the winter of 2007-08 to continue into the winter of 2008-09. Most of the nation will have below-normal temperatures, on average".
After reading further about the Maunder Minimum and the "Little Ice Age", the mind wanders to thoughts of long, snowy winters. But if these guys are right, and we'll know soon enough, we'll be dreaming of the tropics rather than powder!
:snowball fight:
 
BobbyD has the same misconception about snowfall that AGW alarmists often have in reverse. We cannot assume a change in temperature will cause any meaningful change in precipitation. There is little dispute that temperatures increased 1970-2000, yet North American ski areas showed no trend up or down in snowfall over that time. Perhaps some of BobbyD's powder will be a bit fluffier if it's colder.

I've never followed the Old Farmers Almanac predictions, and I'm highly skeptical that they are of any use. What is interesting is that the OFA is now incorporating Solar Cycle theory into those predictions.

After 2 dead-neutral months the MEI did turn negative again (-.206) in JUL/AUG. This is a very mild reading, and and would have to quadruple to meet most definitions of meaningful La Nina impact. MEI averaged -1.052 during the 2007-08 ski season.

Some of you will be amused to hear that I'm investigating putting solar panels on my front (SE-facing) roof, as one company came out today for an evaluation. California requires utilities to rebate nearly 40% of the upfront cost for the first adopters. That makes solar power close to break-even on top-tier power consumption in my city Glendale based upon level electric costs, and a clear winner if/when rates rise in the future.
 
Bobby Danger":2tyfm98g said:
could you imagine alta snowbird going from 550" a year to 8 or 900" ayear on a regular basis ( mecca on steroids) :drool: :drool:
Click to expand...

it'd still be way too busy and skied out way too fast. i'd be laughing from solitude though. \:D/
rog
 
they say last year was a strong la nina year the x-perts. ok november was dismal at best the first part of december wasn't much better (until christmas) then la nina kicked in. in years past living here i've noticed that even la nina years start slow when typically october november december are the really big months for the simple fact that at least here in this geographical location the colder months are in the latter half of autumn and early winter. january can be horrid for snow if a california high pressure sets up we get a summer time pattern pushes everything north to british columbia.canceling out la nina. what i think the best set up is a high pressure set up just west of cali. in the eastern pacific like we had in may & early june. so that where we sit geographically is in the north flow of the high pressure. alas the storms come from the north west cold and juicee. in a real la nina year thats a cold bonus. never mind the lake effect you get from a large october storm in a la nina year. example last october admin &i and several other f.t.o. associates skied one weekend with 500 other people in collins gulch thinking la nina was here . then reality set in and it shut off. :dead horse: but you do half to admit it sure would be nice to get out the 200" base maps that show snowbird as a different hill!!
 
Last year was the 4th strongest La Nina in the 58 years of data I have. Utah snowfall is not correlated to El Nino/La Nina. http://members.aol.com/crockeraf/Neutral_areas.htm . Alta is in the graph at the bottom, and you'll note that last year was the highest snow year of the strong La Ninas. 2 of the stronger ones had below average snow.

That bone-dry November 2007 was a good illustration of weather variability in general and the inconsistent impact of La Nina in particular. All we could say going into last season was that when it was over the PNW and most of the Northern Rockies areas (both US and Canada) would likely come out above average. But the odds against 2007-08 being that great overall (top 3 of last 35 years) after that November were long indeed.

And the La Nina itself was a bit atypical. Usually from the PNW the La Nina storms track as often as not into Canada as into the US. Last year most of the PNW storms continued on a more southerly track, boosting Utah's numbers but leaving much of Canada closer to average.

The record October was in 2004, which was neutral or mild El Nino IIRC.
 
schubwa":1i4fmu8l said:
soon enough, we'll be dreaming of the tropics rather than powder!
Click to expand...

Not me. I never dream of the tropics.

My compass points north. Scenic downtown Hopewell NJ is the farthest south I will (voluntarily) go. I dream of cool and cold Canadian air masses, fresh clean air, pleasant summers and long snowy winters. A steady diet of coastal storms and clippers.
 
I stand corrected. NZ is definitely on my wish list. It looks like heaven from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top