Seattle is Hot - But Not That Hot...

[Sinatra]

Whew! The Northwest is finally getting some legit summer weather! Even some record breaking heat - of course, that might have the doom n gloom global warmers dancing a jig and pointing their collective fingers to the heat wave as a sign of...global warming.

Some perspective though quickly dismisses any such claim.

From Jan 1, 2009, to July 30, 2009, the average mean temperature for Seattle was 52 Degrees.

Go back 10 years and this reflects one degree warmer than the 1999 average of 51 degrees. Holy smokes, global warming is surely upon us!

Ah but wait - the temperature average for Seattle 20 years ago was identical to that of 2009 - no warming??? What the huh????

Turn back the clock to 30 years ago and we see the Seattle temp average was again, 51 degrees - one degree warmer than the 2009 average. OK - that is better! Now we are back on the global warming train! Especially since the mean temperature for 1960 was also 51 degrees - YES, we have global warming folks!

Alas, it is not to be though...take the record data back another ten years to 1959. Now we see a mean temperature average that of 54 degrees - far greater than the temperature average of 2009. SAY WHAT???? Seattle was warmer on average in 1959 than 2009?? As a matter of fact, it was.

And if we go back another 10 years to 1949, guess what? Seattle was warmer then as well - by a full degree over 2009.

So much for global warming in Seattle....

 

[Caligirl]

I would have thought ocean currents affect climate in Seattle, and we all know that currents are predicted to change with climate. Maybe the warm air that normally comes to you from the tropics isn't making it this year.

 

[k2skier]

sinatra, am radio will rot your mind

 

[elvis]

sinatra, am radio will rot your mind

so will al whore's movie.

 

[editec]

Sinatra?

You're an idiot if you imagine that any specific wealth condition (be it hot or cold) on one spot on the earth proves anything one way or the other.

 

[Old Rocks]

it is not a few hot days, or a few cold days that are indicators of a changing climate. Rather, it is evidence such as this;

North Cascade Glaciers


Mauri S. Pelto, Director Founded 1983
Nichols College, Dudley, MA [email protected]


Mass Balance
Mass balance Data
Ice Worms
Google earth Distribution map file.
Snowpack Changes: Snowpack-Precipitation Ratio Terminus Behavior
Google Earth Tour of Monitored Glaciers
Terminus Data Set Glacier Runoff
Glacier runoff charts
Updated 5/18/09

PROLOGUE
The North Cascades rugged, cold, gray cloaked peaks, then snowy summits shine forth on the occasional sunny day. Despite having the largest concentration of glaciers in the lower 48 states, no North Cascade glacier can be reached without significant effort. In Alaska, Europe's Alps or Canada's Rocky Mountains a number of glaciers can be reached by road or ski lift. Driving on any of the three highways that cross the North Cascades only occasional glimpses of a glacier are obtained. In contrast, standing upon a North Cascade peak a sea of snow-covered summits dominates your view. North Cascade glaciers are a world apart, remote yet vital to us.

The North Cascades of Washington extend from Snoqualmie Pass to the Canadian Border and in 1980 contained 700 glaciers. Today this number is dwindling. North Cascade glaciers attract our attention because of their beauty, power, and inaccessibility. But more importantly these glaciers store water. Lots of water, as much water as all of the states' lakes, rivers and reservoirs combined. They are natural reservoirs and provide 25% of the North Cascade regions total summer water supply. During the dry months of June-September North Cascade glaciers release approximately 230 billion gallons of water each year. Today this water is fully utilized for irrigation, salmon fisheries, and power generation.

All too often we take our natural resources for granted. We plan on 230 billion gallons of glacier runoff each summer. From 1944 to 1976 this was a good bet. Today, after several decades of stability North Cascade glacier's are in rapid retreat. Annual runoff is determined by annual precipitation for the most part. However, the timing is altered by the existence of glaciers. A glacier retains snowpack in the spring and early summer when streamflow is high and releases meltwater later in the summer when others sources of water are diminishing. Thus, glacier retreat raises spring snowmelt season flows and reduces low late summer flows. This is important for fall salmon runs and for later summer irrigation and hydropower demands.

Three lines of evidence indicate that most North Cascade glaciers are currently in a state of disequilibrium. The mean cumulative annual balance for the 1984-2008 period is -12.4 m w.e, which represents a net loss of ice thickness exceeding 14 m. This is a significant loss for glaciers that average 30-50 m in thickness, representing 20-40% of their entire volume lost in two decades.

 

[KittenKoder]

First, that "one spot doesn't prove anything" bullshit is bullshit. If the global weather patterns do change then even in those "one spots" the weather would change, so yeah it does make a difference.

Ice melting ... back on that lame argument. No need to readdress it.

Fact is, hoaxers (like Chris) have no proof, no real evidence, only circumstantial data that is easily altered to fool small minds.

 

[Sinatra]

First, that "one spot doesn't prove anything" bullshit is bullshit. If the global weather patterns do change then even in those "one spots" the weather would change, so yeah it does make a difference.

Ice melting ... back on that lame argument. No need to readdress it.

Fact is, hoaxers (like Chris) have no proof, no real evidence, only circumstantial data that is easily altered to fool small minds.

Thank you - and thus the point of this thread. Chris, like clockwork, posts location-specific examples of warm days in summer as proof of "global warming". I in turn show year to year trend data that completely dismisses that ridiculous claim by those such as Chris.

And as earlier threads have shown, Seattle is not the only one to show decades old year to year data showing little or no warming - and in many cases, actual cooling - locations from New York, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc.

Global Warming?

Hah!

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I would have thought ocean currents affect climate in Seattle, and we all know that currents are predicted to change with climate. Maybe the warm air that normally comes to you from the tropics isn't making it this year.

Well, sort of... Seattle is on Puget sound, a part of the ocean surrounded by land on three sides. It is about 80 miles inland from the rest of the coast line, and is just a bit bigger than the Great Salt Lake, but there are huge islands in the middle which probably make the actual amount of water there a bit less.

So, it is on the ocean, sort of, in the same way as Vancouver BC is part of the North American land mass.

And the ocean currents we get here in the North West come in from Alaska. The great convection runs clockwise along the coast.

Sinatra's main point is that mean temperatures vary a lot short term, but not so much long term. We really arent' seeing that much of an increase.

 

[Sinatra]

I would have thought ocean currents affect climate in Seattle, and we all know that currents are predicted to change with climate. Maybe the warm air that normally comes to you from the tropics isn't making it this year.

Well, sort of... Seattle is on Puget sound, a part of the ocean surrounded by land on three sides. It is about 80 miles inland from the rest of the coast line, and is just a bit bigger than the Great Salt Lake, but there are huge islands in the middle which probably make the actual amount of water there a bit less.

So, it is on the ocean, sort of, in the same way as Vancouver BC is part of the North American land mass.

And the ocean currents we get here in the North West come in from Alaska. The great convection runs clockwise along the coast.

Sinatra's main point is that mean temperatures vary a lot short term, but not so much long term. We really arent' seeing that much of an increase.

You got it.

 

[KittenKoder]

First, that "one spot doesn't prove anything" bullshit is bullshit. If the global weather patterns do change then even in those "one spots" the weather would change, so yeah it does make a difference.

Ice melting ... back on that lame argument. No need to readdress it.

Fact is, hoaxers (like Chris) have no proof, no real evidence, only circumstantial data that is easily altered to fool small minds.

Thank you - and thus the point of this thread. Chris, like clockwork, posts location-specific examples of warm days in summer as proof of "global warming". I in turn show year to year trend data that completely dismisses that ridiculous claim by those such as Chris.

And as earlier threads have shown, Seattle is not the only one to show decades old year to year data showing little or no warming - and in many cases, actual cooling - locations from New York, Chicago, Miami, Los Angeles, etc.

Global Warming?

Hah!

I grew up in this area, spent most of my life and almost all my childhood here in Seattle, mostly Kent/Covington and Tukwilla. The area is actually no warmer than I remembered and often much cooler. Our seasons here have gotten extremely mild compared to 20 years ago. But the forecasters normally stick to no more than 10 years ago for comparison which is an epic fail.

 

[k2skier]

sinatra, am radio will rot your mind

so will al whore's movie.

yes it will, as will any extremist stance...

 

[k2skier]

I would have thought ocean currents affect climate in Seattle, and we all know that currents are predicted to change with climate. Maybe the warm air that normally comes to you from the tropics isn't making it this year.

Well, sort of... Seattle is on Puget sound, a part of the ocean surrounded by land on three sides. It is about 80 miles inland from the rest of the coast line, and is just a bit bigger than the Great Salt Lake, but there are huge islands in the middle which probably make the actual amount of water there a bit less.

So, it is on the ocean, sort of, in the same way as Vancouver BC is part of the North American land mass.

And the ocean currents we get here in the North West come in from Alaska. The great convection runs clockwise along the coast.

Sinatra's main point is that mean temperatures vary a lot short term, but not so much long term. We really arent' seeing that much of an increase.

You got it.

Do you? We are warming up, global mean temps, the only debate is how much man can effect our climate, we'd be ignorant to think we couldn't have some impact on it...

 

[KittenKoder]

Well, sort of... Seattle is on Puget sound, a part of the ocean surrounded by land on three sides. It is about 80 miles inland from the rest of the coast line, and is just a bit bigger than the Great Salt Lake, but there are huge islands in the middle which probably make the actual amount of water there a bit less.

So, it is on the ocean, sort of, in the same way as Vancouver BC is part of the North American land mass.

And the ocean currents we get here in the North West come in from Alaska. The great convection runs clockwise along the coast.

Sinatra's main point is that mean temperatures vary a lot short term, but not so much long term. We really arent' seeing that much of an increase.

You got it.

Do you? We are warming up, global mean temps, the only debate is how much man can effect our climate, we'd be ignorant to think we couldn't have some impact on it...

But we have yet to reach the highest in human history, much less world history, and no long term pattern can be established ... so why is temperature the one thing they focus on? Simple, they make money off the fear it causes since most people are too ignorant to look into all the details.

 

[Sinatra]

Well, sort of... Seattle is on Puget sound, a part of the ocean surrounded by land on three sides. It is about 80 miles inland from the rest of the coast line, and is just a bit bigger than the Great Salt Lake, but there are huge islands in the middle which probably make the actual amount of water there a bit less.

So, it is on the ocean, sort of, in the same way as Vancouver BC is part of the North American land mass.

And the ocean currents we get here in the North West come in from Alaska. The great convection runs clockwise along the coast.

Sinatra's main point is that mean temperatures vary a lot short term, but not so much long term. We really arent' seeing that much of an increase.

You got it.

Do you? We are warming up, global mean temps, the only debate is how much man can effect our climate, we'd be ignorant to think we couldn't have some impact on it...

Are we? Based upon models with dubious trend data rampant with infills?

The satellite data shows negligible warming - and in fact cooling over the last decade.

The temp data most often utilized begins at the conclusion of a mini-ice age. Should it not show warming? Of course it should. The 1930s and part of the 1940s were warmer than they are now (US Data - the most accurate) and the most recent years shows cooling.

 

[Old Rocks]

USDA Forest Service
Pacific Northwest Research Station

Portland, OR: June 26, 2009

USFS contact: David L. Peterson, (206) 732-7812, [email protected]
USFS media assistance: Yasmeen Sands, (360) 753-7716, [email protected]
UW contact: Jeremy Littell, (206) 221-2997, [email protected]
UW media assistance: Sandra Hines, (206) 543-2580, [email protected]

PORTLAND, Ore. June 26, 2009. The recent increase in area burned by wildfires in the Western United States is a product not of higher temperatures or longer fire seasons alone, but a complex relationship between climate and fuels that varies among different ecosystems, according to a study conducted by U.S. Forest Service and university scientists. The study is the most detailed examination of wildfire in the United States to date and appears in the current issue of the journal Ecological Applications.



“ We found that what matters most in accounting for large wildfires in the Western United States is how climate influences the build up—or production—and drying of fuels,” said Jeremy Littell, a research scientist with the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and lead investigator of the study. “Climate affects fuels in different ecosystems differently, meaning that future wildfire size and, likely, severity depends on interactions between climate and fuel availability and production.”



To explore climate-fire relationships, the scientists used fire data from 1916 to 2003 for 19 ecosystem types in 11 Western States to construct models of total wildfire area burned. They then compared these fire models with monthly state divisional climate data.



The study confirmed what scientists have long observed: that low precipitation and high temperatures dry out fuels and result in significant fire years, a pattern that dominates the northern and mountainous portions of the West. But it also provided new insight on the relationship between climate and fire, such as Western shrublands’ and grasslands’ requirement for high precipitation one year followed by dry conditions the next to produce fuels sufficient to result in large wildfires.



The study revealed that climate influences the likelihood of large fires by controlling the drying of existing fuels in forests and the production of fuels in more arid ecosystems. The influence of climate leading up to a fire season depends on whether the ecosystem is more forested or more like a woodland or shrubland.



“ These data tell us that the effectiveness of fuel reductions in reducing area burned may vary in different parts of the country,” said David L. Peterson, a research biologist with the Forest Service’s Pacific Northwest Research Station and one of the study’s authors. “With this information, managers can design treatments appropriate for specific climate-fire relationships and prioritize efforts where they can realize the most benefit.”



Findings from the study suggest that, as the climate continues to warm, more area can be expected to burn, at least in northern portions of the West, corroborating what researchers have projected in previous studies. In addition, cooler, wetter areas that are relatively fire-free today, such as the west side of the Cascade Range, may be more prone to fire by mid-century if climate projections hold and weather becomes more extreme

Pacific Northwest Research Station - In the warming West, climate most significant factor in fanning wildfires’ flames

 

[Old Rocks]

The Pacific Northwest has already warmed at double the rate of most of the rest of the world.

http://www.paleolands.org/pdf/PNWclimatechange.pdf

 

[Old Rocks]

Observed Climate Trends
Over the 20th century, the region has grown warmer and wetter. Annual-average temperature has increased 1 to 3�F (0.5-1.5�C) over most of the region, with nearly equal warming in summer and winter. Annual precipitation has also increased across the region, by 10% on average, with increases reaching 30 to 40% in eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. The region's climate also shows significant recurrent patterns of year-to-year variability. Warm years tend to be relatively dry with low streamflow and light snowpack, while cool ones tend to be relatively wet with high streamflow and heavy snowpack. Though the differences in temperature and precipitation are small, they have clearly discernible effects on important regional resources. Warmer drier years tend to have summer water shortages, less abundant salmon, and increased probability of forest fires. These variations in the region's climate show clear correlations with two large-scale patterns of climate variation over the Pacific: the El Niño/Southern Oscillation (ENSO) on scales of a few years; and the more recently discovered Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) on scales of a few decades. The observed effects of these patterns provide powerful illustrations of regional sensitivities to climate, but how they might interact with future climate change is not yet understood.

Scenarios of Future Climate
Model scenarios project regional warming in the 21st century to be much greater than observed during the 20th century, with average warming over the region of about 3�F (1.5�C) by the 2030s and 5�F (3�C) by the 2050s. By the 2090s, average summer temperatures are projected to rise by 7-8�F (4-4.5�C), while winter temperatures rise by 8-11�F (4.5-6�C). Through 2050, average precipitation is projected to increase, although some locations have small decreases. Precipitation increases would be concentrated in winter, with little change or a decrease in summer. Because of this seasonal pattern of wetter winters and drier summers, even the projections that show annual precipitation increasing, show water availability decreasing, especially in the Hadley model. By the 2090s, projected annual average precipitation increases range from a few percent to 20% in the Hadley model, and from 20 to 50% in the Canadian model.
US National Assessment of Climate Change.  Overview: Pacific Northwest

 

[Old Rocks]

http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/WPCJuly15.ppt


Notes from a lecture at the University of Washington.

 

[Sinatra]

Cliff is a very cool guy - one of the nicest profs at the UW - and somewhat of a local weather celebrity to boot!

He is also among the more moderate discussion contributors regarding man-made global warming - particularly the CO2 impacts. Cliff believes that while CO2 plays a part, so too does methane and of course, water vapor.

He also does not get too excited by cold weather records nor warm weather records. I spoke with him in person a few months back when we were getting hit by unusually cold weather and said, "So much for Global Warming." Cliff gave a little head shake and repeated that he still thinks we have an overall global warming trend, and that man is playing some part in that - but he is not sure how much of a part. He believes strongly that politics are messing up the actual science within this debate, and that climate is far more complex than weather - which is his area of expertise, and that we still can't manage to get weather right much of the time, and climate predictions are far more difficult to make.

Again, a really neat guy. And a great, albeit very dry, sense of humor...