Snowing hard as far south as Austin, Texas

Ain’t global warming just grand?

This is what it looks like in my back yard today, south of Dallas/Fort Worth.

So far I would estimate that we’ve had around 6 inches of snow, but it’s very slushy because the ground is so warm that most of it is melting.

A Winter Storm Warning from the National Weather Service remains in effect through 6am Monday.0

Even though Austin doesn’t show up on this Weather Service map, one of my readers from Austin says it is also snowing there.

https://www.weather.gov/fwd/


15 thoughts on “Snowing hard as far south as Austin, Texas”

  1. Started snowing here in north Louisiana about 6 PM and it’s still coming down hard! Nice snow cover of about 1 inch or so is already on the ground, with much more expected before daybreak tomorrow.

    Reply
  2. Measured 4-3/4 inches on the top of my truck here in Temple, which is about 70 miles north of Austin. Only measured 2 inches on the driveway, ground temps are melting it pretty quickly.

    Reply
  3. There is no CO2-induced ‘global warming’… in fact, CO2 decreases the adiabatic lapse rate, just as all polyatomic molecules do. It causes cooling. See below for the mathematical proof.

    Feel free to use this however you like, in whole or in part, with or without attribution. Claim it as your own, if you like. As long as it gets promulgated, I don’t care.
    ———-
    The effective emission height is ~5.105 km. However, the spectrum itself is clearly not a 255 K blackbody spectrum. 7 – 13 µm emission comes from a region with temperature in excess of 280 K (near-surface). >17 µm emission comes from temperature between 260 – 240 K (~5km in the troposphere). 13 – 17 µm emission comes from a region with temperature close to 220 K (near the tropopause). There isn’t a single emission height (IOW, TOA is that altitude at which the atmosphere becomes effectively transparent to any given wavelength of radiation… and for some wavelengths, TOA is very near the surface), but the emission is still equivalent to a blackbody with a temperature of 255 K, and thus an effective emission height of 5.105 km.

    Combine that 255 K effective emission height temperature with the lapse rate to get the surface temperature, and you’ll find there is no “greenhouse effect”, thus no CAGW.

    The lapse rate is said to average ~6.5 K / km. 6.5 K / km * 5.105 km = 33.1825 K That is not the ‘greenhouse effect’, that is the tropospheric lapse rate. The climate loons have conflated the two. Polyatomic molecules such as CO2 and H2O reduce the adiabatic lapse rate, not increase it (for example: dry adiabatic lapse rate: ~9.81 K / km; humid adiabatic lapse rate: ~3.5 to ~6.5 K / km).

    9.81 K / km * 5.105 km = 50.08005 K dry adiabatic lapse rate (due to homonuclear diatomics and monoatomics), which would give a surface temperature of 255 + 50.08005 = 305.08005 K. Sans CO2, that number would be even higher.

    Water vapor (primarily) reduces that to 272.8675 K – 288.1825 K, depending upon humidity. Other polyatomics (such as CO2) also contribute to the cooling, to a much lesser extent. The higher the concentration of polyatomics, the more vertical the lapse rate, the cooler the surface. Also remember that the atmosphere is stable as long as the actual lapse rate is less than the adiabatic lapse rate… and a greater concentration of polyatomic molecules reduces the adiabatic lapse rate… thus convection increases.

    ———-

    If ‘backradiation’ from CO2 atmospheric emission causes catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, where is this ‘backradiation’ coming from?

    The near-surface extinction depth is ~10.4 m at current atmospheric CO2 concentration, and a doubling of atmospheric CO2 concentration would reduce that to ~9.7 m. The troposphere is essentially opaque to 13.98352 µm to 15.98352 µm (to account for the absorption shoulders of CO2) radiation. In fact, it’s opaque to that radiation right up to ~15 – 20 km (TOA for that wavelength of radiation). That’s where the effective emission height of CO2 is.

    As I’ve repeatedly stated, CO2’s absorption of IR in the troposphere only has the effect of thermalizing that radiation and thus increasing CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection of air to the upper atmosphere (carrying with it the latent and specific heat of polyatomic molecules… more polyatomic molecules will carry more energy and will more readily emit that energy in the upper atmosphere), which is a cooling process.

    Mean free path length for radiation decreases exponentially with decreasing altitude and increases exponentially with increasing altitude due to air density changing inversely exponentially with altitude. Therefore the net vector for radiation in the 13.98352 µm to 15.98352 µm band is upward. So the majority of ‘backradiation’ which could possibly reach the surface would be from that very thin layer of atmosphere which is within ~10.4 m of the surface. And the great majority of that energy is being thermalized and convected. So where’s this ‘backradiation’ energy coming from that’s going to cause catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, especially considering that the maximum able to be absorbed by CO2 is 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2, and the maximum able to be absorbed by anthropogenic CO2 is 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2?

    At 287.64 K (the latest stated average temperature of Earth) and an emissivity of 0.93643 (calculated from NASA’s ISCCP program from data collected 1983-2004), at a photon wavelength of 14.98352 µm (the primary spectral absorption wavelength of CO2), the spectral radiance is only 5.43523 W / m^2 / sr / µm (integrated radiance from 13.98352 µm – 15.98352 µm of 10.8773 W/sr-m^2 to fully take into account the absorption shoulders of CO2).

    That means that the maximum that CO2 could absorb in the troposphere would be 10.8773 W/sr-m^2, if all CO2 were in the CO2{v20(0)} vibrational mode quantum state.

    While the Boltzmann Factor calculates that 10.816% of CO2 will be excited in one of its {v2} vibrational mode quantum states at 288 K, the Maxwell-Boltzmann Speed Distribution Function shows that ~24.9% will be excited. This is higher than the Boltzmann Factor calculated for CO2 because faster molecules collide more often, weighting the reaction cross-section more toward the higher end.

    Thus that drops to 8.1688523 W/sr-m^2 able to be absorbed. Remember, molecules which are already vibrationally excited can not absorb radiation with energy equivalent to the vibrational mode quantum state energy at which they are already excited. That radiation passes the vibrationally excited molecule by. This reduction of CO2 molecules available to absorb radiation is akin to reducing atmospheric concentration of CO2 for the absorption part, and increasing atmospheric concentration of CO2 for the radiative emission part, all else being equal.

    That’s for all CO2, natural and anthropogenic… anthropogenic CO2 accounts for ~3.63% (per IPCC AR4) of total CO2 flux, thus anthropogenic CO2 can only absorb 0.29652933849 W/sr-m^2.

    CO2 absorbs ~50% within 1 meter, thus anthropogenic CO2 will absorb 0.148264669245 W/m^2 in the first meter, and the remainder 0.148264669245 W/m^2 within the next ~9 meters.

    CO2 will absorb this radiation regardless of any increase in atmospheric concentration… the extinction depth is ~10.4 m at 14.98352 µm wavelength. A doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration would reduce that to ~9.7 m. Thus any tropospheric thermalization which would occur at a higher CO2 atmospheric concentration is already taking place at the current CO2 atmospheric concentration. Thus the net effect of tropospheric CO2 thermalization is an increase in CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convective transport to the upper atmosphere, which is a cooling process.

    The tropospheric thermalization is saturated. Even a doubling of CO2 doesn’t appreciably reduce extinction depth at the band centered around 14.98352 µm. But the upper-atmospheric radiative shedding of energy to space is not saturated… and more CO2 molecules will cause more upper-atmospheric cooling, increasing buoyancy of lower-atmosphere air and thus increasing convection. IOW, polyatomic molecules (such as CO2) increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source (in this case, the surface) and heat sink (in this case, space) due to the fact that they have higher specific heat capacity than the monoatomics (Ar) and homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2).

    An increased CO2 atmospheric concentration will emit more radiation in the upper atmosphere (simply because there are more molecules absorbing energy in the lower atmosphere, more molecules convectively transporting energy to the upper atmosphere and advectively transporting energy poleward, and more molecules capable of emitting radiation in the upper atmosphere), thus more radiation will be emitted to space, and that represents a loss of energy to the system known as ‘Earth’, which is a cooling process.

    This illustrates what I’m stating:
    http://imgur.com/Zxq4KlB.png
    That’s a MODTRAN plot at 287.64 K for 415 ppm vs. 830 ppm CO2 for 13.98352 µm to 15.98352 µm radiation (to fully account for the absorption shoulders of CO2). It assumes no water vapor, no CH4, no O3 present. Note that the troposphere plots aren’t appreciably different, whereas the 100 km plots (ie: at the edge of space) are appreciably different. IOW, a doubling of CO2 atmospheric concentration doesn’t appreciably change the upward or downward radiative flux in the troposphere (because the extinction depth for those wavelengths at 415 and 830 ppm is low enough that it’s thermalizing nearly all of that radiation, the net effect being an increase in CAPE (Convective Available Potential Energy), which increases convection, which is a cooling process), but it does appreciably change how much energy is exiting the system known as ‘Earth’, and that represents a cooling process. One can clearly see the effect of CO2 upon energy emission to space, as delineated by the shoulders of the emission spectrum of CO2 in the 100 km plots. That cools the upper atmosphere, and since the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA and since the heat transfer equation must (eventually) balance, that means the lower atmosphere must cool toward the temperature of the upper atmosphere (because a higher concentration of polyatomic molecules shifts the lapse rate vertically, and radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it), and thus the surface must cool with an increasing CO2 atmospheric concentration.

    Spectral Cooling Rates For the Mid-Latitude Summer Atmosphere Including Water Vapor, Carbon Dioxide and Ozone
    https://web.archive.org/web/20190331141324if_/https://co2islife.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/spectralcoolingrates_zps27867ef4.png

    Note the CO2-induced spectral cooling rate (positive numbers in the scale at right) extends right down to the surface of the planet, whereas CO2 shows just a slight bit of warming (negative numbers in the scale at right) only at the tropopause (ie: just above the clouds, where it absorbs a greater percentage of cloud-reflected solar insolation and radiation from cloud condensation).

    Given that the lapse rate is ‘anchored’ at TOA (that altitude at which the atmosphere effectively becomes transparent to radiation of any given wavelength), and given that the heat transfer equation must (eventually) balance, this means the surface must cool toward the temperature of the upper atmosphere, not the other way around (because a higher concentration of polyatomic molecules shifts the lapse rate vertically, and radiatively cools the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it). This is what is taking place, we’re just working through the humongous thermal capacity of the planet, which warmed due to a now-ended long series of stronger-than-usual solar cycles (the Modern Grand Maximum), but it is cooling (in fact, it’s projected that we’re slipping into a Solar Grand Minimum which will rival the Dalton Minimum, and may rival the Maunder Minimum).

    https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Figure-3.png
    Zoomed in…
    https://i0.wp.com/wattsupwiththat.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/Figure-4.png
    Note the extreme right-hand edge of that chart… negative and decreasing at an accelerating rate.

    Why do the CAGW-kooks deny that global cooling is occurring? Climate deniers. LOL

    Polyatomic molecules shift the lapse rate vertically (which should clue you in that they are coolants), more of them shifts the lapse rate more vertically (which attempts to decrease temperature differential between different altitudes by transiting more energy from surface to upper atmosphere), while also radiatively cooling the upper atmosphere faster than the lower atmosphere can convectively warm it… ie: they are coolants, they increase energy transfer from heat source (the surface) to heat sink (space), they increase the thermodynamic coupling between heat source and sink.

    Thus radiative molecules are net atmospheric coolants (except those which have their lowest vibrational mode quantum state energy higher than the translational mode kinetic energy of two colliding molecules such that they can not significantly receive energy via t-v (translational-vibrational) collisional processes… and I’m not sure if that type of molecule even exists).

    You will note that this is borne out empirically by that long-term and dramatic upper-atmosphere cooling and by the fact that OLR increased by ~7 W/m^2 over ~72 years even as surface temperature showed no statistically significant trend for more than two decades (said increased OLR partly caused by the increasing CO2 concentration making available more molecules capable of efficiently convectively transporting energy to the upper atmosphere, and advectively transporting energy poleward, then radiatively emitting it).

    https://i.imgur.com/FLhcY0B.png

    ———-

    I encourage you to study the refrigeration cycle. Now transfer your newly-gained knowledge of the refrigeration cycle to, for example, cloud formation and heat transfer by thunderstorms or tropical cyclones.

    Which do you suppose moves the bulk of energy at a faster rate?
    —–
    Radiation – photons from the surface have to ping-pong back and forth between molecules upwards of a billion times before being emitted to space (if they’re not thermalized and convected, that is, which they generally are in the troposphere).

    Convection – especially in a growing thunderhead, where the convection creates updrafts so strong that flying through them is dangerous… or in a tropical cyclone, which has such strong updrafts that it leaves cool tracks in the ocean. That moves that energy nearer to TOA by moving the molecules carrying that energy.
    —–
    Hint: It’s convection.
    https://andymaypetrophysicist.files.wordpress.com/2020/09/figure-2.png

    Water and convection represents a strong negative feedback to surface temperature… higher temperature means more water evaporation, which means more convection (humid air is more buoyant than dry air), that energy is entrained in the latent heat of vaporization of the water molecules and is rapidly convected closer to TOA, where that energy is radiated away as the water vapor undergoes phase change (vapor to liquid) and sometimes undergoes phase change twice (vapor to liquid, liquid to solid) which radiates away even more energy.

    That’s why convection accounts for more than 3/4ths of all energy removed from the surface. Because water acts as a refrigerant, in a literal ‘refrigeration cycle’ sense.

    The same holds true for CO2, to a far lesser extent (because CO2 only has specific heat at prevalent Earth temperatures, not latent heat, whereas water has both)… the CO2 molecule has higher specific heat capacity than the homonuclear diatomics (N2, O2) and the monoatomics (Ar), so it can carry more energy when it is convected or advected.

    https://www.e-education.psu.edu/earth103/sites/www.e-education.psu.edu.earth103/files/module03/net%20zonal%20erbe.pngNet energy, NASA ERBE experiment © D. Bice

    Thus a higher atmospheric concentration of CO2 molecules in a parcel of air will convectively transport more energy to the upper atmosphere and advectively transport more energy poleward (and more readily radiatively emit that energy) than a lower atmospheric concentration of CO2 molecules in a parcel of air.

    Another advantage of CO2 over the homonuclear diatomics is that CO2 can easily radiate away its energy, whereas the homonuclear diatomics cannot… once the homonuclear diatomics are vibrationally excited, their quantum states are meta-stable and long-lived. Monoatomics have no vibrational mode quantum states.

    All polyatomic molecules increase thermodynamic coupling between heat source (in this case, the surface) and heat sink (in this case, space). This is why a monoatomic (with fewer DOF and thus lower specific heat capacity) is used as a filler gas between double-pane windows. If CO2 was such a terrific ‘heat trapping’ gas, one would think it would be used in this manner, but it’s not because window manufacturers understand that atoms or molecules with fewer DOF and thus lower specific heat capacity convect and advect less energy.

    So logic would dictate that both water vapor and CO2 (all polyatomic molecules, really) are net atmospheric coolants. The effect of polyatomic molecules upon the lapse rate (for instance, the dry and humid adiabatic lapse rates) shows this to be true.

    Reply
  4. MSM response to this news is very much like the response on the other side of the Atlantic with snow over Spain, or in the other direction the massive snowfalls over China and Japan. Or even the flooding that has been occurring all Saudi Arabia and other Arab states, also little is said about Australia’s and New Zealand’s cooler summer especially over the southern territories of these countries.
    No, the MSM stays as silent as a shivering church mouse, or if it reports at all, their response (as usual) has been little and couched in verbiage that down-plays the unusual nature of these events coming together this year.

    Reply
  5. Off topic, I note Vietnamese amazed at snow-capped northern mountains
    By Gia Chinh January 11, 2021 | 01:18 pm GMT+7

    Where they say

    Many Vietnamese have been drawn to the northern highlands, including Sa Pa, as thick white snow blanketed the region.
    Due to drizzles at low temperature, snow has covered O Quy Ho mountain pass in Lai Chau Province and Sa Pa, a popular tourist town in Lao Cai Province, since Sunday night.

    Vietnam typically encounters a tropical climate with annual average temperatures ranging from 22 to 27 degrees Celsius.
    But the northern highlands have received frost and snow every winter in recent years.
    According to the National Center for Hydro-Meteorological Forecasting, the northern region would switch to dry cold weather from Tuesday.
    American forecasting services provider AccuWeather said the lowest temperatures in Hanoi would hit 10 degrees Celsius on Tuesday and rise to 14 on Saturday. Temperatures in Sa Pa on Tuesday would be two to seven degrees Celsius, and seven to 14 degrees Celsius over the weekend.

    Vietnam has experienced a colder winter than usual this year as the Pacific Ocean sea surface temperature drops, forming the La Niña phenomenon, weather experts said. The country should expect up to 27 waves of cold air coming from the north this winter, a typical average.

    Click on the headline above for the link to the report, pictures, and video.

    Reply
  6. Wandering polar vortex may cause a wild, snowy winter

    The first true Arctic blast related to the displacement of the polar vortex is slated for the period from Jan. 18-22.

    “An Arctic cold front is expected to move through the northern Rockies and northern Plains on Jan. 18-19 then the eastern and south-central parts of the U.S. between Jan. 20 and 21,” Samuhel said.

    Disruptions to the polar vortex are key for forecasts, as about two weeks after they happen, the troposphere gets a wallop of weird weather, which can last for weeks. Because of this week’s polar vortex disruption, “there’s indications we’ll see some colder weather within two weeks … in the Eastern U.S., Northern Europe and East Asia,” Cohen said.

    For now, it’s up in the air whether that means snowstorms or a rash of cold air, he said.
    https://www.accuweather.com/en/winter-weather/polar-vortex-set-to-unleash-coldest-air-of-season-yet-in-us/879344

    Reply
  7. I find irony in the fact that while cold and snow records are falling around the world and in many lower latitude locations, I am hunkered down in my cabin somewhere in the inland NW, and it has been a relatively warm winter! Certainly not flip-flop weather, but hovering in the mid – 30’s and rarely dipping into the teens, with more rain than snow. I believe that as this GSM progresses, anywhere east of the Rockies, relatively flat terrain, will suffer the brunt of extreme weather. There is nothing to stop those increasing arctic outbreaks from being driven far south by now oscillating jet streams. This is also borne out by those ice age maps as well, showing the states surrounding the great lakes and northeast covered in ice, while in the west the ice extent roughly follows the U.S./Canada border.

    Reply
  8. Robert, my family has lived in Texas for a long time and we do get occasional snow going back many generations. In 1985 San Antonio received 13.2″ of snow. I remember that snow.

    Historical records also tell of Galveston Bay getting a thin covering of ice in 1899. There were also -4 F and -5 F temperatures in Central Texas during that year.

    So here in Central Texas even though we do get occasional snow, sleet and freezing rain (in January) it usually lasts a few days and warms back up into the mid 60’s F (with some wonderful days in the 70’s F). In one very weird year that I remember we actually got a snow the very last of March with some snow still on the ground the first couple of days of April.

    When things like this happen folks in other parts of the country often do not notice because they are usually being hit with winter weather that is so much worse. Our little 2-3 days of winter weather is merely a blip on the radar.

    Reply
  9. Drove across Texas on the 10th. Snowing lightly in San Antonio, I took hwy 90 instead of I-10. Why? Because new years eave I was stuck on an Ice Sheet on I-10 between Fort Stockton and Ozuna… didn’t want to go north and up slope into active snow.

    So snow further south than Austin.

    Reply

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.