the Air Vent

Because the world needs another opinion

Feedback, Temp = K(C02 – Dollars Spent)

Posted by Jeff Id on January 4, 2010

Not much time to blog but you’ve got to be amazed at how fast the Commuhagen accord worked.  I’m not even sure if the checks have been written yet.  It turns out that everything I believed about government’s ability to control weather was wrong.  Perhaps they should have discussed putting smaller dollar numbers on the paper though.

Arctic freeze and snow wreak havoc across the planet

Arctic air and record snow falls gripped the northern hemisphere today, inflicting hardship and havoc from China, across Russia to Western Europe and over the US plains.

There were few precedents for the global sweep of extreme cold and ice that killed dozens in India, paralysed life in Beijing and threatened the Florida orange crop. Chicagoans sheltered from a potentially killer freeze, Paris endured sunny Siberian cold, Italy dug itself out of snowdrifts and Poland counted at least 13 deaths in record low temperatures of about minus 25C (-13F).

The heaviest snow yesterday hit northeastern Asia, which is suffering its worst winter weather for 60 years. More than 25 centimetres (10in) of snow covered Seoul, the South Korean capital — the heaviest fall since records began in 1937.

In China, Beijing and the nearby port city of Tianjin had the deepest snow since 1951, with falls of up to 8in and temperatures of minus 10C. In the far north of China, the temperature fell to minus 32C. More than two million Beijing and Tianjin pupils were sent home and 1,200 flights were delayed or cancelled at Beijing’s international airport.

25 Responses to “Feedback, Temp = K(C02 – Dollars Spent)”

  1. Denis said

    Yup, and Bejing Meteorological Bureau attributes the cold temperatures to global warming.

  2. RomanM said

    We should consider ourselves lucky. Without the cold weather, the average rise in temperature could be 12C! 😉

    No problem, however. GISS and CRU will manage to adjust this to be the unprecedentedly hottest year yet!

  3. […] More FOI requests refused; Australia, Arctic snow and freeze cause havoc! […]

  4. Kenneth Fritsch said

    An article in the Guardian tells about Peru’s mountain people facing a fight for survival in a bitter winter that has now continued for 4 years.

    It relates a sorry tale of these poor peoples’ trials and tribulations and then out of the blue says:

    Climate change campaigners and development NGOs say that the failure of Copenhagen has signed the death warrant for hundreds of thousands of the world’s poorest and that a quarter of a million children will die before world leaders meet again to try to thrash out another deal at the United Nations next climate change conference in Mexico in December. Among them may be these children of the high mountains.

    I read the entire article and I did not find any reference to how the author(s) of this article related this cold weather to the climate change in the context of Copenhagen. In fact, one would take an opposite view about the detrimental effects of cold temperatures.

    Did I miss something or is this another example of junk journalism?

  5. John G. Bell said

    We just had three cold related deaths in my city. These huge seasonal and storm related swings make three degrees of projected warming over one hundred years seem something of a bad joke.

  6. Steven Geiger said

    everyone’s heard the common mantra that AGW will bring about more severe weather and ‘extremes’. However, is there anything theoretically that could explain how more extreme ‘cold’ temps are at all consistent with GHG induced warming?

  7. Mark T said

    No. The hypothesis as I’ve heard it is that it will increase the variance of temperature, which in turn leads to greater extremes, but that is all that is ever said. An increased variance would indeed imply (not a statistical usage here) greater negatives as well as positives, but nobody seems to be able to explain why the variance would increase.


  8. KuhnKat said

    The idea of a variance that increases due to AGW has a certain plausibility. Of course, a mechanism would have to include energy used to REMOVE heat from one area and pump it to another to cause these increased variances.

    As previously asked, has anyone heard of an actual mechanism to air-condition the Northern Hemisphere and heat the Suthun??

    OOOPS, the Suthun hemisphere isn’t recording excessive warm anomalies. That heat pump must be pumping in to the deep oceans or SPACE!! Either we are creating a huge energy store IN THE PIPELINE, or we really are cooling!!

    Any bets on no excess energy being found in the deep oceans??

  9. RichardT said

    From the UK Met Office’s website on 18 December 09

    New analysis released today has shown the global temperature rise calculated by the Met Office’s HadCRUT record is at the lower end of likely warming. The study, carried out by ECMWF (the European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts) with input from the Met Office, performs a new calculation of global temperature rise. This independent analysis is based on information from a wide range of sources. It uses all available surface temperature measurements, together with data from sources such as satellites, radiosondes, ships and buoys.

    The new analysis estimates the warming to be higher than that shown from HadCRUT’s more limited direct observations. This is because HadCRUT is sampling regions that have exhibited less change, on average, than the entire globe over this particular period. This provides strong evidence that recent temperature change is at least as large as estimated by HadCRUT.

    So taking a smaller sample gets you ‘better’ results…..?

  10. HotRod said

    I was browsing through the extreme predictions for 2009 to see who to vote for – it didn’t take long:

    BarryW said

    January 21, 2009 at 2:14 am
    “Before the end of Obama’s first term, we will be seeing new record temperatures. I can promise the president that.” — James Hansen

    And …… HE WAS RIGHT! WAHEY! And so soon, too.

  11. Espen said

    #4: Well, they write: “increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers.”

    Even Andy Revkin writes about the record low AO now:

  12. Kenneth Fritsch said


    #4: Well, they write: “increasingly cold conditions in their own microclimate, which may have been altered by the rapid melting of the glaciers.”

    I saw that comment in the article, but without a reference to why melting glaciers cause a micro climate cooling it is standard junk journalism. Still junk journalism but more standard fare would be “according to experts in the field the micro climate cooling may have been caused by glaciers melting”.

    Remember also that it would take a leap in faith to believe that climate modeling with its resolution limitations would be capable of revealing microclimate cooling.

  13. Kenneth Fritsch said

    Revkin link from #11:

    Blogs of those variously called climate realists/skeptics/deniers are hammering on the chilly conditions, presumably in hopes of fending off a new push to close out the climate bill in the Senate.

    Odd that Andy Revkin connects these blogs with political motives and specifically the climate bill in the Senate. Jeff ID was that what you had in mind with this thread? I wonder whether Revkin has imputed political motives to RC.

    The Artic oscillation is well known for its effects on climate and on Artic ice. Was Revkin talking about the AO when the Artic ice was disappearing?

  14. richard said

    There’s a difference between weather and climate. Your sarcasm backfires when it’s groundless.

  15. DeWitt Payne said

    richard said
    January 5, 2010 at 12:38 pm

    There’s a difference between weather and climate. Your sarcasm backfires when it’s groundless.

    Define climate and justify your definition. If the system is chaotic (highly likely), then it varies at all time scales and there is no possibility of defining a bright line between climate and weather.

    Leonard Ornstein has a guest post on Ocean Heat Content on Pielke, Sr.’s blog. Pielke’s reply is here. Ornstein makes a similar mistake when he talks about the deep ocean equilibrating with the atmosphere. With time scales differing by several orders of magnitude, the concept of equilibration is invalid.

  16. Kenneth Fritsch said

    RichardT @#9:

    I have not been able to link up with that study you cited, but I would be very interested in what was measured in terms of temperature data set differences and whether the differences were significant and how that might be translated into a quantifiable uncertainty in measuring historical temperatures. I am very interested in someone using this approach to undersatnding uncertainty.

    We do not have an absolute standard of temperature as measured in these data sets and thus a differences indicate that one or the other or both data sets are wrong. Of course for calculating longer term temperature trends we only have the CRU, GISS and GHCN and we know that they are not independent sources (different adjustments of mainly the same raw data).

    Furthermore we should not limit these comparisons to global averages over one time period, but make regional comparisons and over shorter time segments. I would even go down to individual station data for these comparisons.

  17. Kenneth Fritsch said


    There’s a difference between weather and climate. Your sarcasm backfires when it’s groundless.

    Richard, I was wondering to whose sacrcasm you were referring and then I went back to:

    “Before the end of Obama’s first term, we will be seeing new record temperatures. I can promise the president that.” — James Hansen

    I get it now. Mentioning climate and record temperatures within 4 years in the same sentence is confusing climate and weather. But then again we all knew that Jim Hansen can be sarcastic.

  18. Guo Hu, the head of the Beijing Meteorological Bureau, linked this week’s conditions to unusual atmospheric patterns caused by global warming.

    So even the Chinese heads of bureaux

  19. If a hypothesis can be experimentally confirmed by either of two contradictory observations (colder, warmer), the hypothesis is automatically contradictory, too, in some key aspect. Therefore, it is fatally flawed.

    To correct it, one would have to specify under what precise conditions X would be observed and under what other precise conditions X-opposite would be observed.

    To my knowledge, the AGW hypothesis does not specify these conditions.

  20. d55may said

    The journalist also never explains, how the meeting in Copenhagen was going to change the weather in Peru for these poor people this winter or anytime for that matter. I do see how the meetings will help the elites who attend make billions. I would love to backtrack after the next elections to see who makes the most money. I have a feeling G.E., Al Gore and Soros will be on top of the list.

  21. kwik said

    I found a link over at WUWT to a paper by G. Gerlich and R. D. Tscheuschner

    Its 115 pages.

    It saya that the greenhouse effect can only exist in a greenhouse.
    A Greenhouse has typically walls and roof made of glass.

    And the athmosphere is no greenhouse. Hence, no greenhouse effect.

    I find this to be a very well written paper. And the conclusion is hillarious.

    All this AGW hysteria. And for nothing!

    Here it is;

  22. DeWitt Payne said


    G & T is only useful to line bird cages or wrap fish guts for disposal. A lot of the paper is ranting about semantics and deconstructing, using extremely tortured logic, statements made to the popular press by scientists trying to describe the, admittedly misnamed, greenhouse effect. The science part of the paper referenced the magneto-hydrodynamic (MHD) equations. Last time I checked, most of the atmosphere wasn’t ionized so I fail to see the relevance. Atmospheric radiative transfer in the thermal IR range is relatively well understood. My definition of well understood is that you can calculate emission and absorption spectra from fundamentals which match well with observed spectra. Attempting to refute it is a complete waste of time when there are so many better targets, meanwhile giving the rest of us a bad name.

    Miskolczi’s paper, btw, is no better.

  23. kwik said

    I see. So its not a good argument that it is convection outside the car, versus trapped air inside that gives the
    temperature difference between outside, and inside? That argument looked pretty convincing to me.

    I didnt follow all the math, too much for me, and didnt bother with disussions of all other statements.

    But that car discussion looked very logical.

  24. DeWitt Payne said

    G & T’s argument rests on a logical fallacy.

    1. A greenhouse (or a car) heats up by preventing convective heat loss.

    2. The atmosphere has convection.

    3. Therefore the atmospheric can’t be a greenhouse.

    The logical fallacy is a false dichotomy or a straw man, I’m not sure which. You are given only two choices: either the atmosphere is an actual greenhouse or it isn’t. If it isn’t then it can’t heat up and CO2 can have no effect on total heat content. The actual atmospheric ‘greenhouse’ effect, however, works by a different mechanism than a greenhouse for growing plants, but G & T have excluded consideration of the actual mechanism with a lot of hand waving to distract the reader.

    If the effect in question had been named something other than the greenhouse effect, their whole argument collapses.

  25. St Pancras said

    Oh, all this snow palava will be fun… Did you hear about what happened with the Eurotrain services? They had problems because of the snow too, although the services were only reduced, not cancelled. I got back from holiday yesterday and we had taken the Eurotrain, so we missed the trouble.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: