6 thoughts on “New Temp and Snow Records for January 2014

  1. adf February 6, 2014 / 2:46 pm

    Shouldn’t that title be “New Temp and Snow Records for January 2014”, not 2013.

  2. Anthony j. Mengotto February 8, 2014 / 10:15 pm

    Russ, The great lakes are almost to a point where the ice was back in the winter of 1977!!! And that was a year that had the most ice cover since we’ve been keeping records. Here is the link from the weather channelhttp://www.weather.com/news/weather-winter/great-lakes-ice-cover-largest-century-20140207 Look’s like we may be braking the record since 1977 total ice cover was 79.1% compare to now 2/8/2014 we are at 78.7% A difference of .4% Anthony

  3. Russ Steele February 9, 2014 / 10:25 am

    Interesting that it was 1976 -1977 that we had such a deep drought in California just like we are having this year in the state, was the same year as the increased ice on the Great Lakes. I am wondering if this is just another indication that our climate is controlled by dominate cycles. It would be nice if we could discover the triggers for individual cycles.

  4. Visiting Physicist February 15, 2014 / 8:54 pm

    The greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture starts with an assumption that there would be isothermal conditions in a troposphere that was free of radiating (so-called “greenhouse”) gases, including water vapour, or free of direct solar radiation.

    There are similar conditions in the Uranus troposphere where there is very little methane except in a layer in the uppermost regions. Virtually all the very weak solar radiation reaching the planet (nearly 30 times the distance from the Sun that Earth is) is absorbed and re-emitted back to space by this methane layer where the temperature is a very cold 60K or so, that being the radiating temperature of the planet. There is no internal energy generation that can be convincingly detected, yet the core is at about 5,000K and the base of the troposphere (where there is no surface being heated by any direct Solar radiation) is hotter than Earth’s surface.

    The existence of isothermal conditions would be in violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics which says that a state of maximum entropy will evolve spontaneously. Such as state is isentropic, and so the sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy for each molecular has a propensity to be equal at all altitudes. This means that there is a temperature gradient, because temperature depends upon the mean kinetic energy, not the gravitational potential energy.

    If there were isothermal conditions (an impossibility) then what is the sensitivity for each 1% of water vapour in the atmosphere above any region? Perhaps you would say something like at least 10 degrees of warming. Hence you would say in a dry desert (with say 0.5% water vapour the warming would be 5 degrees, but in a rain forest with 4.5% water vapour it might be 45 degrees, making the rainforest 40 degrees hotter than the dry desert.

    Need I say more about this ludicrous travesty of physics?

  5. rishrac February 22, 2014 / 10:23 pm

    The climate scientists at the IPCC don’t understand a word of what you just said. I’ve said something similar, but then neither of us are, at least me, in their view (probably because I disagree with them) ‘climate scientists’. Terms like Second Law of Thermodynamics and Entropy don’t apply. Therefore, the correct conclusion is we don’t know what we are talking about.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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