The Oil Drum

196 comments on As the world celebrates the Olympics . . .

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

unplanner on February 11, 2006 - 5:21am

Well, at least the warmer weather means less heating will be required. Looks like Europe has begun to thaw out. Now the chill shifts over to North America. Anyone think that NatGas futures may have bottomed out this past week?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Marotti32 on February 11, 2006 - 11:45am

There are masses of snow in parts of Germany. Houses need to be evacuaed on account of roofs prone to crash under the snow's weight. But maybe on the other side of the Alpes it looks different. matthias, berlin (almost no snow here)

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

haggisbasher on February 11, 2006 - 12:09pm

According to NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration) this January was the warmest on record for the US. Their calculations are that residential energy demand would have been 20% less than normal. I guess that has had a substantial effect on inventories.

http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2006/s2576.htm

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sunlight on February 11, 2006 - 6:39pm

Interesting link to NOAA... which explains record high US January temperatures happened because the jetstream was north of its usual location, trapping cold air in Canada and Alaska rather than in the Lower 48.

My question is, how much warmer was it in January, than the average temps when the jetstream is in a similar position in January? And given that we have only 111 years of records, can such a sample exist? It would be nice to tease out the effects of the jetstream position from those of climate change.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on February 11, 2006 - 6:50pm

Two links on this. First, James E. Hansen, the NASA climate scientist who sparked an uproar last month by accusing the Bush administration of keeping scientific information from reaching the public, said Friday that officials at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration are also muzzling researchers who study global warming:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/10/AR2006021001766.html?nav=rss_nation/ science

Second, a blast from the past regarding unusual hurricanes:

"Emanuel has another disagreement with government scientists. He thinks they've been too quick to dismiss the role of global warming in hurricanes.

NOAA puts all the blame on something called the multidecadal signal -- a historical pattern in which several decades of high hurricane activity are followed by several quiet decades."

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5031529

Sad, isn't it? I for one now question how political is this "jetstream" explanation for high temperatures?

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Sunlight on February 11, 2006 - 9:58pm

All I can say is, I hope you are wrong. It is one thing to muzzle scientists, or to call for more global warming research as an excuse to preclude action most scientists believe to be necessary -- bad as these things are. But if the science agencies are now forced to lie about scientific data -- that would be a new low even for the Bush Administration and a sad day for the United States. If you are right, this would seem to be even more egregious in some ways than McKelvey's muzzling of Hubbert; after all, at the time, Hubbert was in the minority and most professional opinion was on McKelvey's side. He at least had respectable, professional company in being wrong.

If you are right the blogs dedicated to climate change will have to give the NOAA their own version of the McKelvey Award...

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Stoneleigh on February 12, 2006 - 9:32am

The position of the jetstream (a river of air in the upper atmosphere which guides low pressure systems and generally separates warm and cool air masses) makes an enormous difference to the temperature and weather where I live. It also makes a big difference if the flow is zonal (flat, latitudinally speaking), or highly distorted.

In the summer, the jetstream is usually to the north and we languish in a hot humid airmass with poor air quality. If the jetstream dips to the south during the summer, it carries low pressure systems over the great lakes and we get a cool, wet spell. During a typical winter, the jetstream is usually to the south and we sit in a cold, stable airmass with bright sunshine. If the jetstream moves north of its usual position (especially if it rises far north in the west, plunges in the centre and rises again in the east), then it typically brings Colorado lows charged with moisture from the GOM our way and we get an enormous dump of snow.

In recent years (with the notable exception of the winter of 2002/2003), the jetstream has been further north than usual for the time of year and the flow more zonal, which has meant more precipitation than usual for us (although more often as Alberta clippers than Colorado lows so the individual dumps of snow have been smaller), warmer temperatures and less sunshine (bad for my PV system). Those cloudy and wet conditions are more typical of spring and fall here when the jetsteam would normally be transitioning from its winter to summer position or the other way around.

The role of the jetstream in defining weather patterns is not in dispute, but the interesting thing to study would be the effect of global warming on the position and shape of the jetstream.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

odograph on February 12, 2006 - 11:26am

That all sounds completely reasonable. To fine-tune my statement of discomfort, it is whether the global warming relationship in this warm-weather pattern would be "strangely missing" as it was in the discussion of the "multidecadal signal" and hurricanes.

I was actually watching TV and caught a NOAA chief's response to the global warming question, post-Katrina. His flat surety that global warming was not involved was shocking. He did not take the more nuanced position that global warming's contribution was unproven, and would likely be one factor among many.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

step back on February 13, 2006 - 9:21am

Sad, isn't it? I for one now question how political is this "jetstream" explanation for high temperatures?

This is what I like about TOD. The Peak Oil question quickly gets emmeshed in discussion of politics and human behavior.

We are not shy to cast doubt on the "Stay the Course" guidance given to us by our esteemed leaders (the figures of "authority" within our herd mentality masses).

I personally have no idea how the NOAA chief you watched rose to his position of royal "authority" and power. Maybe it was based on merit and scientific ability, and then again, maybe not.

I highly doubt that "merit" was the basis of his authority. Politics is the more likely answer. In our "competitive" societies, it is the most ruthless, the most political and the ones willing to step on the dead bodies of those who trusted them; who rise to power.

You may think it an oddity --but it is not-- that in the corporation you work for, the boss and his henchmen are the sleaziest of Enron style exectuives who constantly cook the books, and constantly "reorganize" the organization just to keep everyone off balance, this even as the corporate ship is sinking. In fact they are grabbing all they can and preparing to bail out with their golden parachutes before the plebes figure out what happened. How often is it that the crooks who sank the boat stay on board? If you work for a corporate entity where the leaders are honest, hard working types, count yourself in the lucky minority.

It is no accident that in our "competitive" societies that the most ruthless kind of people rise to the top. And by the way, who sold you on the idea that "competition" and "free markets" is the way to go? (Hint: they did.)

P.S. Aren't the jock-elite Olympics just grand?
I am so thrilled to celebrate the "thrill" of their victory and the agony of our defeat.

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

Reed on February 11, 2006 - 2:25pm

Enjoy the demand destruction of NG while you can. It seems passing the tipping point of no return re. climate change postulated by Lovelock, is being confirmed by other climate scientists. It's out of the closet guys. We better start facing it.
http://news.independent.co.uk/environment/article344690.ece

Comments can no longer be added to this story.