The Global Precipitation Mission (GPM) core observatory is scheduled to be launched from Japan at about noon (CST) on Thursday, Feb. 27. It will be in a 65 deg. inclination orbit, providing the first mid- and high-latitude coverage of precipitation systems with a precipitation radar.

The joint Japan-U.S. mission will be used with a variety of other satellites already orbiting the Earth that provide passive microwave imagery of precipitation systems to provide nominal 3-hourly coverage of most areas on a daily basis. A major focus of the core satellite will be the measurement of light precipitation, especially at mid- and high-latitudes, facilitated with a dual-frequency radar (14 GHz and 35 GHz; the TRMM satellite has only the lower frequency).

Clearly, precipitation is a key weather and climate variable, and its measurement from space has always been a challenge. Radars are the most direct method, but spaceborne precipitation radars have a practical limitation on swath width, and thus global coverage and sampling. So, we use the radars to “train” our passive microwave retrievals using data from the wide-swath microwave imagers, like the GMI (GPM Microwave Imager, with frequencies from 10 to 183 GHz).

I am particularly interested in precipitation processes from the standpoint of precipitation being what regulates how much of our main greenhouse gas — water vapor — is allowed to accumulate in the atmosphere from evaporation. I still think positive water vapor feedback in global warming theory is not a done deal (climate modelers consider it indisputable, magnifying any warming influence by about a factor of 2), and the lack of significant feedback might explain why the tropics have not warmed significantly (and the upper tropospheric hot spot has failed to materialize). See our paper, How dry is the tropical free troposphere? Implications for global warming theory (1997 BAMS).

My very first research publication as a post-doc was on measuring rainfall over land, which appeared as a cover article in Nature (1983). I was very active in the field for about 10-15 years before measuring temperature (rather than precipitation) with microwaves became my main research focus, although I still interface with many of those in the precipitation retrieval business.

This video animation of the GPM core satellite launch and deployment of the instruments and solar arrays is pretty cool (the rotating antenna is the microwave imager…the radar is electrically scanning, and sits on the bottom of the spacecraft):

Global NWP models continue to forecast another record-setting cold air outbreak for late next week. By Friday, the GFS model has below-zero temperatures knocking on the door in NYC, DC, and Boston, with below freezing temperatures extending well into Florida (model imagery courtesy of WeatherBELL):

Of course, as I’ve said before, an unusually cold winter doesn’t disprove global warming any more than an unusually hot summer proves warming. It’s just weather.

NOTE: The Atlanta ADL issued a letter reprimanding me for casual use of the term “Nazi”. I responded, pointing out their hypocrisy when it comes to Holocaust imagery, since the incorrect term “denier” for skeptics is apparently OK with them (Hypocrisy at the Anti-Defamation League?). The resulting comments at their website were heavily in my favor and we could get no further comment from them.

Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

When politicians and scientists started calling people like me deniers, they crossed the line. They are still doing it.

They indirectly equate (1) the skeptics’ view that global warming is not necessarily all manmade nor a serious problem, with (2) the denial that the Nazi’s extermination of millions of Jews ever happened.

Too many of us for too long have ignored the repulsive, extremist nature of the comparison. It’s time to push back.

I’m now going to start calling these people global warming Nazis.

The pseudo-scientific ramblings by their leaders have falsely warned of mass starvation, ecological collapse, agricultural collapse, overpopulation… all so that the masses would support their radical policies. Policies that would not voluntarily be supported by a majority of freedom-loving people.

They are just as guilty as the person who cries “fire!” in a crowded theater when no fire exists; except they threaten the lives of millions of people in the process.

Like the Nazis, they advocate the supreme authority of the state (fascism), which in turn supports their scientific research to support their cause (in the 1930s, it was superiority of the white race).

Dissenting scientific views are now jack-booted through tactics like pressuring scientific journals to not publish papers with which they disagree, even getting journal editors to resign.

Like the Nazis, they are anti-capitalist. They are willing to sacrifice millions of lives of poor people at the altar of radical environmentalism, advocating expensive energy policies that increase poverty. And if there is a historically demonstrable threat to humanity, it is poverty.

I’m not talking about those who think we should be working toward new forms of energy to eventually displace our dependence of fossil fuels. Even I believe in that; after all, fossil fuels are a finite resource.

I’m instead talking about the extremists. They are the ones who are sure they are right, and who are bent on forcing their views upon everyone else. Unfortunately, the extremists are usually the only ones you hear from in the media, because they scream the loudest and make the most outrageous claims.

They invoke consensus, which results from only like-minded scientists who band together to support a common cause.

This authoritarianism tends to happen with an over-educated elite class. I have read that Nazi Germany had more PhDs per capita than any other country. I’m not against education, but it seems like some of the stupidest people are also the most educated.

So, as long as they continue to call people like me deniers, I will call them global warming Nazis.

I didn’t start this fight, they did. Yeah, somebody pushed my button.

NOTE: A couple people in comments have questioned my use of “Nazi”, which might be considered over the top. Considering the fact that these people are supporting policies that will kill far more people than the Nazis ever did — all in the name of what they consider to be a righteous cause — I think it is very appropriate. Again, I didn’t start the name-calling.

DISCLAIMER: Any views expressed here are my own, and unless otherwise stated, are not those of my employer, the University of Alabama in Huntsville, or the State of Alabama.

I received the following question from a loyal, frozen reader:

Uff da, Dr. Roy! Exactly how does global warming cause 50 deg. below zero in Minnesota? – Lars Olsen

Excellent question, Lars! Let me climb down out of my ivory tower and I will attempt to explain it to you….

You see, right now there is a little bit of open water in the Arctic Ocean that isn’t frozen over. This is a bad thing, because Beluga whales are known to surface in these waters where they produce emissions of a potent greenhouse gas, methane.

These methane emissions then drift over land. This, in turn, causes herds of caribou (which have a keen sense of smell), to start moving in a clockwise direction (in the northern hemisphere), transferring anticyclonic vorticity from the Earth to the atmosphere.

As every meteorologist knows, anticyclonic vorticity causes atmospheric high pressure to form, which drags cold air down from the upper atmosphere (kind of like in the Al Gore docudrama, Day After Tomorrow).

In response to this Beluga-Caribou Forcing, polar vortex butterflies start flapping their wings harder. These very rare creatures are seldom seen, but global warming-cooling theory suggests there are trillions of them.
As they do so, the Polar Vortex^® starts spinning erratically and moves southward.

Why southward, you ask? Silly Lars, every direction from the north pole is southward. Sheesh. Now quit interrupting…

What then makes the whole process really get energized, though, is the billions of polar bears that have died, and are no longer blocking the cold Arctic winds from plunging into Minnesota.

Concern over the billions of dead polar bears then causes humans to do stupid things to the environment (as part of their fundraising activities) which then causes the oceans to warm, if ever so slightly.

Scientists do not yet understand why humans behave in this way, but there is sufficient anecdotal and photographic evidence to conclude that they really do:

Finally, all of these effects, together, are believed to be part of a positive feedback loop:

Stupid people warming oceans leads to
=> less sea ice
=> whale farts
=> spinning caribou
=> polar vortex butterfly stimulation
=> reduced wind blocking (dead polar bears)
=> (more) stupid people warming the oceans…

…and the whole process starts over.

So there you have it. This is how global warming is believed to cause 50 below zero temperatures in Minnesota.

And that’s a fact, Jack.

After this next storm system exits the Great Lakes in a couple of days, cold arctic air is going to gradually return to the Eastern U.S., and especially the upper Midwest and Great Lakes.

The 8-day forecast for Thursday night (next week) has -50 deg. F temperatures knocking on the door in Minnesota, and below-freezing temperatures pushing into northern Florida. Awesome GFS model forecast imagery (paywalled) courtesy of our friends at WeatherBELL:

Time to fire up your SUV, sacrifice the groundhog, or something.

This morning’s NASA MODIS image of the northeast U.S., true color (which I’ve enhanced a little…click for large version).

I put together this time lapse of twice-daily images from NASA MODIS (flying on the Terra and Aqua satellites), between 11 Dec. 2013 and 15 Feb. 2014. This is the “721” enhancement, which better separates clouds (white) from snow/ice (blue). (Sorry, but it was too much trouble to put a date stamp on every frame).

Here’s some video I took of large ice falling off a 1,500 ft. TV tower I live next to. This happens every few years after a snowstorm, and is mostly due to supercooled cloud water freezing to the tower and support cables (we didn’t have an ice storm…but did have 6 inches of snow). The falling ice sounds a little like a propeller plane coming in to land.

Best watched full-screen, with HD enabled, turn up your sound, and don’t miss the ending.

In another silly pseudo-science rambling, the President’s science advisor, John Holdren, has recently stated, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change.”

Drought in California. Record snows in the East. It’s tempting for many to blame it all on our use of fossil fuels.

What Causes Weather?
Let’s start with the basics. Weather is caused by energy imbalances, primarily (1) between the solar heated surface of the Earth and the atmosphere above it, and (2) between different geographic regions (e.g. the tropics vs. high latitudes; the warm oceans versus cold continents in winter).

These energy imbalances have associated temperature differences, which in turn cause atmospheric circulation systems which form clouds, precipitation, and high and low pressure systems.

How much energy is involved? On a global basis the average rate of solar energy absorbed by the Earth is estimated to be about 240 Watts per sq. meter. In order for the climate system to stay at the same average temperature year after year, the Earth has to lose exactly the same amount of energy (240 W m^-2) to outer space, in the form of infrared energy.

It’s all about the energy…and especially about imbalances in energy, which causes “weather” as the ocean and atmosphere seek to reduce those imbalances. On a local basis, those imbalances can be tens or even hundreds of watts per sq. meter.

So, How Much of Weather Could be Caused by Manmade Climate Change?
Our best estimate of how much the climate system has been perturbed from energy balance comes from the slow warming of the oceans, which since the 1950s equates to a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance (say, if 240 W m^-2 of solar energy has been absorbed on average, 239.75 W m^-2 has been lost to space…the slight ~0.25 W m^-2 imbalance leads to slow warming).

Now, how exactly can a 1 part in 1,000 energy imbalance lead Holdren to state, “Weather practically everywhere is being caused by climate change”? Well, all I can think of is that his statement is not based in science.

Maybe that imbalance in recent years is somewhat more…say 2 parts in 1,000 (about a 0.5 W m^-2 imbalance). But even that depends upon whether you believe in the measurements of tiny, multi-decadal oceanic warming trends of tenths or hundredths of a degree (depending on depth).

And it’s far from clear that even that is entirely our fault.

Now, how that tiny imbalance gets translated into a change in weather is, admittedly, not well understood. But, ultimately, weather is still related to energy imbalances, and mankind’s role in changing those rates of energy flow is miniscule.

You might say, “But what about global warming causing a warmer Gulf Stream, which then clashes with the cold air masses and makes bigger East Coast snowstorms?” The trouble with that argument is that “global warming” warms those winter air masses more than it warms the oceans, reducing the temperature contrast. So, if the opposite is happening this winter, then it’s not due to global warming.

The idea that any of the weather we are seeing is in any significant way due to humanity’s greenhouse gas emissions verges on irrationality.

Yesterday’s NASA MODIS imagery from the Terra and Aqua satellites revealed relatively cloud free conditions over Lake Superior, which is unusual since the cold air sitting over the relatively warmer ice and water causes almost continuous cloud formation. Here’s the Aqua MODIS true-color image, which I’ve enhanced somewhat (click for large version):

The MODIS “721” color enhancement product does a better job of distinguishing between clouds and ice (click for large version):

Note that it is difficult to distinguish between open water and new ice formed during low wind conditions, which is relatively clear.

GLERL’s model analysis suggests about 94.3% ice coverage of Lake Superior today, and some lake watchers are forecasting complete coverage in the near future.