Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > the myth of the warming Puget Sound climate
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Previous :: Next Topic
Author     Message
AA+
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17021 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 4:25 pm 
I recall a few posts that you deleted.  I think that's what Mike was referring to.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Mariner's Fanatic!!!



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5709 | TRs | Pics
Location: On a Bike
Layback
Mariner's Fanatic!!!
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 4:30 pm 
Tom - Yes.  I did have some rather harsh words which I put up and promptly deleted (right before your post at Mon Mar 02, 2009 11:09 pm).  I don't think that's what Mike was referring to though.  Mike's post accusing me of ad hominem occurred at Tue Mar 03, 2009 1:05 pm (14 hours later).  So unless he saw them for the split second they were up and waited nearly a day to comment on, then I am certainly guilty of being a jerk, but not ad hominem.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Mariner's Fanatic!!!



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5709 | TRs | Pics
Location: On a Bike
Layback
Mariner's Fanatic!!!
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 4:56 pm 
That aside, I still haven't seen anything from Weatherman to refute what I've said (he was on a few times last night) so I'm going to assume that he's in agreement that this really isn't all that scientific.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
weatherman
climatologist



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 658 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
weatherman
climatologist
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 6:45 pm 
Layback wrote:
That aside, I still haven't seen anything from Weatherman to refute what I've said (he was on a few times last night) so I'm going to assume that he's in agreement that this really isn't all that scientific.

So Layback, where do you propose I find the hundreds or thousands of data points in the Puget Sound area with complete monthly temperature records from 1989 - 2008?  And by the way, if you were paying attention, you would have seen that I used 3 widely spaced stations: Olympia, SeaTac, and Bellingham to represent the Puget Sound area, not 2 as you claimed.  All 3 stations showed the same cooling signal.  Also, I never claimed the climate had not warmed locally, indeed up through the early 90s there clearly was warming.  I'm only pointing out that in recent years our local climate has cooled.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Mariner's Fanatic!!!



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5709 | TRs | Pics
Location: On a Bike
Layback
Mariner's Fanatic!!!
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 6:47 pm 
I guess you can't.  Inability to obtain a thorough analysis does not mean that you just go with what you've got and hang your hat on it.  You could conclude that it's merely a hypothesis and not scientific fact.  Even three sites doesn't cut it for an area of 16,000 square miles.  No peer reviewed journal would ever take that data seriously in my field.  I'm not in the field of weather though, so I don't know how peer reviewed journals work in your field.  I'm just going on what I know about science and the data doesn't appear to be consistent with good science.

Make no mistake, there's definitely a trend towards less warming specifically at those sites.  That's very interesting and it's cool that you noticed it.  I'm just not willing to accept that it's indicative of the entire Puget Sound area and I'm also not willing to accept it as evidence that global warming isn't occurring.  I don't think that you're making a case for that (GW isn't occurring), but there are those here would would say that's exactly what the data says.

Now I don't know what a good sample size would look like.  It's probably not hundreds of thousand of sites.  30-40 different sites and I'd be way more inclined to accept it.  Maybe even 15+ sites spaced a reasonable distance apart accounting for all ecosystems in the Puget Sound area (including the foothills of the Cascades, the mountains of the Olympic Peninsula, and the coast of the San Juan Islands to name a few).

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Tom
Admin



Joined: 15 Dec 2001
Posts: 17021 | TRs | Pics
Tom
Admin
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 7:57 pm 
I don't doubt his sample size is good enough.  It is what it is.  Remember, he can't wax poetic about higher snowpack this year.  Weatherman, I'm still waiting to hear what you feel we should be concerned about in regards to global warming.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
yukon222
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 1881 | TRs | Pics
yukon222
Member
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 8:09 pm 
Layback wrote:
I guess you can't.  Inability to obtain a thorough analysis does not mean that you just go with what you've got and hang your hat on it.  You could conclude that it's merely a hypothesis and not scientific fact.  Even three sites doesn't cut it for an area of 16,000 square miles.  No peer reviewed journal would ever take that data seriously in my field.  I'm not in the field of weather though, so I don't know how peer reviewed journals work in your field.  I'm just going on what I know about science and the data doesn't appear to be consistent with good science.

Make no mistake, there's definitely a trend towards less warming specifically at those sites.  That's very interesting and it's cool that you noticed it.  I'm just not willing to accept that it's indicative of the entire Puget Sound area and I'm also not willing to accept it as evidence that global warming isn't occurring.  I don't think that you're making a case for that (GW isn't occurring), but there are those here would would say that's exactly what the data says.

Now I don't know what a good sample size would look like.  It's probably not hundreds of thousand of sites.  30-40 different sites and I'd be way more inclined to accept it.  Maybe even 15+ sites spaced a reasonable distance apart accounting for all ecosystems in the Puget Sound area (including the foothills of the Cascades, the mountains of the Olympic Peninsula, and the coast of the San Juan Islands to name a few).

In the Global Warming thread, Gil posted an interesting link to NASA worldwide (land and ocean) temperature analysis.  They only wanted to use stations with 300 out of 360 months of temperature recording over the 1951-1980 time period.  They also thought that only having 410 stations over the ENTIRE SOUTHERN HEMISPHERE was enough to make conclusions as to the warming trend.  This works out to 1 station per 240,171 square miles of land/ocean.  Pretty striking compared to Weatherman's use of the three primary Western Washington stations that "represented" the 16,000 square miles.  So he's using 1 station per 5,333 square miles compared to NASA's 1 to 240,171 square miles.  For the Northern Hemisphere, they had 3,428 stations or 1 per 28,725 square miles.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/warm_stations/

I wonder how they can make their conclusions based upon such a spread out data set, especially for the Southern Hemisphere.  Seems like Weatherman's use of the three main sites spread up/down the Western Washington region is valid enough to use for logical statements.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
Layback
Mariner's Fanatic!!!



Joined: 16 Mar 2007
Posts: 5709 | TRs | Pics
Location: On a Bike
Layback
Mariner's Fanatic!!!
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 8:33 pm 
Yukon - Thanks for the info.  I'll accept that as a good study and you've proven me wrong.  It looks like the norm in my field just isn't the same as Weatherman's.  It's kind of shocking but I guess Tom's right - it is what it is.

Weatherman - I'm sorry that I accused you of bad science and made accusations about possible motives.  I'll STFU now and sit back and learn something.     frown.gif agree.gif

Seriously - Sorry.   smile.gif

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
weatherman
climatologist



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 658 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
weatherman
climatologist
PostThu Mar 05, 2009 10:15 pm 
Tom wrote:
  Remember, he can't wax poetic about higher snowpack this year.

NRCS should have the final 2008 snotel and snow course data ready sometime this month, at which point I will present updated snowpack trends in the Cascades through 1 April 2008.

A foot of new snow fell in 6 hours this morning at Snoqualmie Pass from 7 AM to 1 PM.  At that rate the mountain snowpack should be well above normal in the Cascades by late this weekend. wink.gif  It also looks like we will be seeing an increasing snowpack here in Seattle late Saturday to go along with the 30 inches of snowfall we already have witnessed this winter.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
weatherman
climatologist



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 658 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
weatherman
climatologist
PostTue Mar 17, 2009 9:48 am 
At SeaTac Airport the Dec 2008 - Feb 2009 mean temperature of 39.1 F was the 2nd coldest out of the past 37 winters from 1973-2009.  Only 1984-85 was colder with 37.6 F while 1978-79 was a close 3rd with 39.2 F.  In addition, it was the snowiest winter in the past 37 years with 23.3 inches of snowfall at SeaTac.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
weatherman
climatologist



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 658 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
weatherman
climatologist
PostThu Mar 19, 2009 10:01 am 
Quote:
I don't understand why you chose a 37-year period for comparison.

SeaTac winter temperature comparisons can be made back to about 1957-58.  A major site move in 1956 makes comparison with earlier years difficult.  Comparing the past 52 winters (1958-2009) at SeaTac this winter with 39.1 F is the 4th coldest out of the past 52 winters.  Colder winters were 1968-69 (37.3), 1984-85 (37.6), and 1971-72 (38.6).  Winter as used here is defined as Dec-Feb.

The cold weather has persisted into March at SeaTac where the first 18 days of March 2009 have averaged 40.8 F, which is 4.7 F below normal.  March 2008 was also quite cold, averaging 2.7 F below normal for the entire month.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
peltoms
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2006
Posts: 1760 | TRs | Pics
Location: Worcester MA
peltoms
Member
PostThu Mar 19, 2009 3:02 pm 
Compare it to other La nina winters for us please.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
yukon222
Member
Member


Joined: 12 Mar 2007
Posts: 1881 | TRs | Pics
yukon222
Member
PostThu Mar 19, 2009 3:10 pm 
It was my understanding that this 2008-09 year was a neutral to very weak La Nina event.  Not a standard full force La Nina.

Good summary here from NOAA for the 08-09 Winter Outlook, although their forecasts weren't accurate in terms of snowfall or precip.  On p 21, the summary states "little if any threat of low elev. inland snowfall".   lol.gif

http://www.nwrfc.noaa.gov/presentations/html/water_weather_2008/Winteroutlook_ww2008.pdf

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
wamtngal
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jun 2004
Posts: 2383 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere
wamtngal
Member
PostThu Mar 19, 2009 3:51 pm 
I also had the same understanding, yukon, until someone told me that NOAA had bumped it up to a full (my term, not NOAA's) La Nina instead of neutral/very weak. Apparently this La Nina took more time to develop than most.

Here's an article I found on the subject...from a surfing website.

NOAA's Climate Prediction Center

--------------
Opinions expressed here are my own.
Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
weatherman
climatologist



Joined: 09 Feb 2007
Posts: 658 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
weatherman
climatologist
PostTue Mar 24, 2009 5:29 pm 
Since the weather turned cold 101 days ago on 12 Dec 2008 there have been 74 days with below normal temperature and 27 days above normal at SeaTac.   This does not include today which will almost surely make 75 days out of 102 below normal, given the high temperature of only 48 F at SeaTac.  The cold has allowed low elevation Cascade Mtn sites like Skykomish (998 ft) to remain snow covered unusually late into March.

Back to top This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies. Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > the myth of the warming Puget Sound climate
  Happy Birthday Hikesume!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
   Use Disclaimer Powered by phpBB Privacy Policy