<![CDATA[IZMinc.ORG - don't jump into the pacific ocean or evacuate earth 'yeah nothing like that"]]>

Study: Pacific ocean now warming 15 times faster than in past 10,000 years

By Jason Samenow

October 31 at 4:20 pm

More

39 Comments Rate of heat accumulation (in joules) per century at different time intervals (BP=before present, CE=common era). The 1955-2010 CE interval reflects modern heat accumulation rates. (Image courtesy Brad Linsley)

A new study finds Pacific ocean is taking in heat at the most rapid rate in many thousands of years, providing yet another indicator of global warming.

The authors of the study, published in Science magazine, analyzed Pacific ocean sediment cores to reconstruct quantities of heat stored at the middle depths of the western Pacific going back 10,000 years.

They found a general cooling trend – with some peaks and valleys along the way – until warming commences in the last few hundred years punctuated by a spike in the modern era, over the last 60 years.

Here’s how Columbia University describes the temperature evolution:

From about 7,000 years ago until the start of the Medieval Warm Period in northern Europe, at about 1100, the water cooled gradually, by almost 1 degree C, or almost 2 degrees F. The rate of cooling then picked up during the so-called Little Ice Age that followed, dropping another 1 degree C, or 2 degrees F, until about 1600. The authors attribute the cooling from 7,000 years ago until the Medieval Warm Period to changes in Earth’s orientation toward the sun, which affected how much sunlight fell on both poles. In 1600 or so, temperatures started gradually going back up. Then, over the last 60 years, water column temperatures, averaged from the surface to 2,200 feet, increased 0.18 degrees C, or .32 degrees F.

The rate of change over the last 60 years is roughly 15 times faster than any other period, the authors conclude.

“We’re experimenting by putting all this heat in the ocean without quite knowing how it’s going to come back out and affect climate,” said study coauthor Braddock Linsley, a climate scientist at Columbia University’s Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory. “It’s not so much the magnitude of the change, but the rate of change.”

Watch: Video of Linsley discussing his work

Deep ocean heating: An explanation for surface warming slow down?

While multiple analyses, including this new study, have found heat rapidly accumulating in the oceans, the rate in the rise of global surface temperatures has slowed over the last 15 years or so. An emerging hypothesis is that the relatively slow rate of surface temperatures reflects the oceans removing heat from the atmosphere.

Global Heat Content (0-2000 meters) layer (NOAA)

“We may have underestimated the efficiency of the oceans as a storehouse for heat and energy,” said study lead author, Yair Rosenthal, a climate scientist at Rutgers University. “It may buy us some time – how much time, I don’t really know.”

Related: La Niña-like conditions behind gentler global warming, study finds

Even if the oceans are rapidly storing heat now while surface warming is sluggish, scientists expect some of this heat to eventually emerge in the atmosphere, steepening surface temperature rises.

“With global warming you don’t see a gradual warming from one year to the next,” said Kevin Trenberth, a climate scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research, not involved in the research. “It’s more like a staircase. You trot along with nothing much happening for 10 years and then suddenly you have a jump and things never go back to the previous level again.”

Related: Greenhouse gamble: Could IPCC’s adherence to climate models backfire?

More heat in Medieval Warm Period?

Although the study concludes the current rate of heat accumulation in the Pacific is unprecedented, it calculates more heat was stored in the ocean during the Medieval Warm Period, roughly 900-1,200 years ago – a controversial finding.

The quantity of ocean heat content (in joules) compared to a reference period (1965-1975) at different time intervals. The 0-1000 CE period reflects the Medieval Warm Period whereas 2000-2010 is the last decade. (Image courtesy Brad Linsley)

Michael Mann, a climate scientist at Penn State who has published research contending modern warmth is unprecedented in the last 2,000 years (aka his “hockey stick” work), argues this new study is likely underestimating the present-day warming.

“[S]ediment core tops are notoriously bad estimates of “current” climate conditions because of various factors, including the limited temporal resolution owing to slow sediment deposition rates, and processes that mix and smear information at the top of the core,” Mann writes in a critique of the study at the Huffington Post.

Despite this and some other methodological criticisms, Mann concludes the study provides “incrementally richer understanding of the details of climate changes in pre-historic times.”

Update: The authors discuss their research and the implications in this video interview with the NY Times’ Andrew Revkin: New Study Finds 10,000 Years of Deep Pacific Ocean Cooling Preceded Fast Recent Warming, read more at Revkin’s blog: DotEarth

Jason Samenow is the Capital Weather Gang's chief meteorologist and serves as the Washington Post's Weather Editor. He earned BA and MS degrees in atmospheric science from the University of Virginia and University of Wisconsin-Madison. Also on Capital Weather Gang Wind advisory for D.C. region's western counties overnight 39 Comments Comment Discussion Policy | FAQ | About Discussions Comments LiveSort: Linda Serena11/3/2013 6:30 PM EST Weird article if you combine the facts.

Even at recent rate, we would need another 400 years just to reach temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period.

Heavyweight Steve McIntyre has now his audit online.

http://climateaudit.org/2013/11/02/rosenthal-et-al...…

1. Ocean Heat Content today near the very low end of the last 10000 years.

2. Also much lower than during the global Medieval Warm Period.

3. Little Ice Age was global and by far the coldest period of the Holocene.

4. The increase in the last 50 years is in its extent just a blip and then also a product of basic computation errors. There is nothing special about this increase.

5. The trend of the last 50 years would have to continue another 400 more years, just to reach temperatures of the Medieval Warm Period. 400 years is also around the residency time of CO2 in the atmosphere, hence that warming may be already stopped by the CO2 cycle. If the increase from the little ice age has been a natural cycle or caused by increased solar radiation, we may be heading into an ice age.

A picture says more than all US oligarchs and their networks (the red blip is the "dangerous human caused warming").

The really picture suggests to pay anyone for CO2 emission. Though, perhaps not, as the effect is so small.

http://climateaudit.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/ro...LikeLiked by 1 reader · Reply · Share · Report Abusebigjimsteele11/3/2013 12:16 PM EST The headlines betray the global warming bias. It appears to promote warming propaganda and downplay critical thinking. The main conclusions from that study as presented in the abstract was "Both water masses were ~0.9°C warmer during the Medieval Warm period than during the Little Ice Age and ~0.65° warmer than in recent decades." Those results completely contradict assertions made by Michael Mann or Trenberth that we experiencing unprecedented warmth. The rate of warming was not such a critical result and therefore was never mentioned in the abstract, yet one sentence about the warming rate became the headline because it buttresses claims of unprecedented climate change. What does that rapid rate tell us? Was it due to CO2 or the unprecedented high solar activity of the 20th century? If the rate is so unusual, why were ocean temperatures during the Medieval Warm period still "~0.65° warmer than in recent decades" when there was much less CO2?? LikeLiked by 2 readers · Reply · Share · Report Abuseelgordodude11/2/2013 2:15 AM EDT So there's a bit more evidence that burning things we find in the ground is bad for us. Surprise, surprise, didn't we figure out a hundred years ago that pollution is bad? Seriously, whether you're worried about climate change or not, is there really a significant portion of the population that thinks burning things we find in the ground is the best we can do? Is the internal combustion engine really the best technology ever? Really?

If you're part of that insignificant part of the population that doesn't see a problem you need to take a big step back and rethink our options. You're a problem, find a solution.Like · Reply · Share · Report Abuse eric65411/2/2013 8:32 AM EDT The main cost behind most materials is energy. As an example there could be a chunk of lithium lying on top of the ground that could be picked up, hooked to a piece of semiconductor material also found on top of the ground, then used to power a motor made from chunks of pure Neodymium and copper wire pounded from nodules found chunks found on top of the ground.

Apart from the copper, none of the elements used in the electric car are found in pure form above ground but instead require enormous amounts of energy to mine and process. The cost of energy is reflected in the price. There is a reason that a decent electric car is so expensive, the processing of lithium salts into pure lithium is extremely energy intensive (same as turning sodium chloride into sodium and chloride.

Bottom line is that viable solutions will come from a variety of market-driven innovations. It is true that schemes like James Hansen's proposed tax on carbon dioxide producing materials, mainly fossil fuels, would spur more market driven innovation. However like many scientists, Hansen has a poor understanding of political reality. So far when countries have tried taxing energy like that, mainly in Europe, they have shifted energy intensive production from their counties to China where manufacturing is much less energy efficient. In the process they have created more CO2 in the atmosphere, not less.

"Solutions" like Kyoto are therefore not solutions but in many cases make the problem worse. Other "solutions" like restriction of fossil fuels by fiat are even worse and lead to human suffering. Britain is a great example of that Still people will point to "solutions" like electric cars without studying the problem of turning lithium salt into a lithium battery, etc.Like · Report Abusesteve66311/1/2013 7:46 PM EDT Many folks -- mostly on the right -- claim global warming is (i) a hoax, (ii) cyclical, or (iii) not caused by humans if it is happening.

What they never, ever mention though is the one reality that essentially proves they are WRONG! Humans and our inventions are the only factor that has changed in the past 10,000 years.

-- There are now 7 BILLION people on earth whereas there were likely less than 1 million 10,000 years ago

-- There are now 1 BILLION vehicles burning fuel and emitting heat

-- There are now more than 10,000 utility plants burning a wide variety of fuels and emitting heat

-- There are now 1000s of airplanes burning fuels and emitting heat

-- There are now MILLIONS of homes with dark roofs, fireplaces, stoves, AC units that emit heat

Everything we do as humans is changing the planet. To INSIST that GW or Climate Change is not caused by HUMANS is SILLY. As for the cyclical case -- also SILLY.

Can we do anything about it? YES but very Unlikely as long as we have folks that insist nothing is happening.Like · Reply · Share · Report Abuse eric65411/1/2013 9:00 PM EDT "claim global warming is (i) a hoax, (ii) cyclical, or (iii) not caused by humans if it is happening."

Sure there are some claims covering just about everything. But look carefully at the critics. People like Anthony Watts, Steve McIntyre, a slew of contrary scientists like Roy Spencer all say global warming is real and includes both manmade warming and natural (cyclical) warming.

On the other side there are zealots who claim there is no such thing as natural warming and that more than 100% of observed warming is manmade. Part of that story is that warming is "Hiding" in the ocean waiting to jump out at us. Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of thermodynamics can see that isn't true, a cooler ocean, even if it warms a little cannot warm a warmer atmosphere.

I could point to lots of other adherents of strange theories about storminess (e.g. more energy makes it stormier). Most of it is overly simplistic, some is pseudoscience.

It's much better to focus on the real issues, how much is it warming (not a lot right now about .0.1C per decade) how much will it warm (no clue and models are GIGO), what are the effects (maybe an inch per decade sea level rise right now). Then ask if it matters. It never ceases to amaze me how obsessed people are about this non-problem. Like · Report Abusedalyplanet11/1/2013 10:58 PM EDT Here is the supplemental material PDF for the paper.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/75831381/Rosenthal%20ocean%20temps%20Supplementary%20Materials.pdf

It is interesting to note that the headline "15 Times Faster" rate of increase comes only from using the smallest estimate of affected ocean volume. The authors also discount this estimate for two reasons, all of their proxy measurements are in 200 year bins or greater, not 60 year non proxy Levitus data, and the estimate of affected ocean range from 25% to 75% giving a range of 5 to 15 times faster using the spliced Levitus reconstruction. This particular area is influenced by ENSO warming and has warmed 3X faster than the oceans in general according to Levitus.Like · Report AbuseGuaire Amalasan11/2/2013 1:20 AM EDT eric654 " Anyone with a modicum of knowledge of thermodynamics can see that isn't true, a cooler ocean, even if it warms a little cannot warm a warmer atmosphere. "

Hmm...no. A warmer ocean is less a heat sink than a cooler ocean, lessening one of the natural ways heat is dissipated resulting in a warmer atmosphere than you would have otherwise.LikeLiked by 1 reader · Report Abuse eric65411/2/2013 8:06 AM EDT Guaire Amalasan, since the ocean has warmed from an average of 36 or 37 (the exact value is unknown) to 0.2 (at most) above that, so it is not that much less of a heat sink. If it continues and becomes a degree or two warmer or more, then I would agree with you.

But as with most things like this, we will find that the little bit of ocean warming we had will stop due to influences from natural cycles. The high solar activity of the 20th century really only ended in 2008 and we have not had enough time to see what effect a quiet sun will have.Like · Report AbuseVenerable Crow11/1/2013 6:42 PM EDT This is more good news on climate change. The Pacific Northwest has gorgeous beaches, but too cold to swim without a wetsuit.LikeLiked by 1 reader · Reply · Share · Report AbuseMittyMo11/1/2013 5:19 PM EDT Scientists have lots of questions. But they're short on answers.

But it's not their faults. It's just that Mother Nature is inscrutable.

And by the time we have all the answers, we'll likely be living somewhere else in the universe.

So, "no," folks, the science isn't settled. And it won't be for a long, long, long time.

http://www.theverge.com/2013/9/5/4698836/immense-v...

http://www.livescience.com/29737-new-deep-sea-vent...

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/10/hydrothermal...
LikeLiked by 1 reader · Reply · Share · Report AbuseMittyMo11/1/2013 5:25 PM EDT Here’s what the most recent IPCC climate report said, “Our grasp of what’s going on in the oceans is still severely limited, and our ability to simulate the dynamics of the Amazonian basin is very poor.”LikeLiked by 1 reader · Report AbuseB2O211/1/2013 12:24 AM EDT Every time I see some nitwit say "but global warming has PAUSED in the last 15 years", I just want to shake the child and ask him what planet he thinks the world's oceans are part of.

What's worse is when that nitwit is some pea-brained journalist struggling to form a coherent scientifically-backed sentence. LikeLiked by 3 readers · Reply · Share · Report AbuseB2O211/1/2013 1:07 AM EDT Just to clarify - that wasn't referring to Jason's article, but the many attempts at science reporting in the media recently that have referred to a "pause in global warming". There has been no pause in warming - not unless you selectively remove the oceans from that globe. Like · Report Abusedalyplanet11/1/2013 1:59 AM EDT Sometimes I wonder B2O2 if you even understand what CO2 does according to radiative physics.LikeLiked by 2 readers · Report Abuse eric65411/1/2013 6:28 AM EDT There are two reasons we don't care how much the oceans are warming. The first reason is that the warmth is gone. When the oceans rise from 36 to 36.2 (on average), there is no physical possibility of that heat returning to the atmosphere. The second reason is that the oceans always warm and cool based mostly on solar cycles. Here's the first sentence of the article referenced above:

"Small, yet persistent perturbations in the balance of incoming solar radiation (insolation) reaching Earth’s surface and outgoing long-wave radiation can lead to substantial climate change. "

The solar radiation is particularly interesting because it is not just the sun that varies, but average cloudiness. Less cloudiness for whatever reason will greatly warm the ocean. One theory about less cloudiness in the MWP and the 20th century is that stronger solar activity leads to less galactic cosmic rays and less GCR leads to less cloudiness. All those steps have been demonstrated in the laboratory and observed in the real world.

The warming from CO2 is estimated to be between 0.5 and 1 W/m2 in the past 20 years, see http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/cas/Trenberth/website-archive/trenberth.papers-moved/Balmaseda_Trenberth_Kallen_grl_13.pdf The ocean warming is shown in that same paper to be about 0.25 to 0.3 W/m2, an example of Trenberth's "missing heat". It stretches credulity to imagine there was no solar contribution to ocean warming until recently (around 2008). So there should be even more ocean warming than we observe in Fig 1 in that paper.

So the question to B2O2 and others, is why is there so little ocean warming? LikeLiked by 2 readers · Report AbuseCrickey711/1/2013 4:51 PM EDT The question is, when the entire universe of people with actual knowledge about climate science agree AGW is happening, why anyone thinks that clever wordplay is anything other that a silly display.LikeLiked by 1 reader · Report Abusedepressionbaby11/1/2013 7:38 PM EDT Boron Oxide? Maybe Boring Oxide. Of course, the sun has essentially no affect on earth's temperature. Consensus is NOT science. Computer programs are ALWAYS GIGO; and the Left is definitely putting Garbage In.LikeLiked by 1 reader · Report Abuse eric65410/31/2013 6:40 PM EDT "Even if the oceans are rapidly storing heat now while surface warming is sluggish, scientists expect some of this heat to eventually emerge in the atmosphere, steepening surface temperature rises."

Scientists mostly expect that heat storage or heat flux into the ocean will vary. They expect that at some future point (e.g. when there is predominant El Nino again) that the atmosphere will warm faster like it did in the 90's.

The actual heat that has been put into the ocean apart from a bit of extra warmth above the thermocline has mostly made very cold water a little bit warmer. On average the temperature of the ocean has risen from very roughly 36 degrees to 36.1 or 36.2 degrees. There is no physical possibility of this heat returning to the atmosphere since it is on average cooler than the atmosphere. There will be, strictly speaking an insignificant diminishing of the cooling from such water. Another way of putting it, the heat is gone for time periods we care about (hundreds of years). Or, we could say that the deep ocean is our dumping ground for extra heat for now.LikeLiked by 1 reader · Reply · Share · Report Abusedalyplanet10/31/2013 10:39 PM EDT It is pretty clear that the theory of global warming is evolving. Some times it is not even recognizable anymore.LikeLiked by 1 reader · Report AbuseB2O211/1/2013 1:11 AM EDT You're right that it's moving along. Scientists used to be 90% sure that we were driving it, and now they're 95% certain. LikeLiked by 6 readers · Report Abusedalyplanet11/1/2013 1:46 AM EDT Sound bites for the simple minded B2 How can one assume statistical accuracy (95%) on an undefined metric (most)?LikeLiked by 3 readers · Report AbuseMittyMo11/1/2013 5:24 PM EDT B2O2,

The most recent IPCC Climate Report states a “95 percent confidence” or certainty of its findings. However, the IPCC sheepishly admits these conclusions were based on a poll of the self-selecting participants in the IPCC review process itself. The IPCC also admits “confidence should not be interpreted probabilistically, and it is distinct from ‘statistical confidence.’ ” (Now, who on earth knows what that means?)LikeLiked by 1 reader · Report AbuseAlan McIntire11/1/2013 5:50 PM EDT http://www.sciencebits.com/AR5-FirstImpressions

The estimated range has widened from 2C to 4.5C in AR4 to 1.5C to 4.5C in AR5. If they were more confident, why increase the uncertainty range?Like · Report AbuseUpperLeftCorner111/1/2013 10:55 PM EDT Those ranges refer to potential temperature ranges in the future, not the certainty that anthropogenic burning of fossil fuels are the driver of the current and future warming.Like · Report Abuseharkin111/2/2013 12:14 AM EDT When all your projections are wrong, if you widen the possibilities and extend the "proof" window out to 30 years, you are attempting to silence anyone pointing out the fallacies in your argument. And oh yeah hopefully keep that grant money flowing in.LikeLiked by 1 reader · Report Abusedalyplanet10/31/2013 5:57 PM EDT I believe my headline would have been much different.

"Mann's Hockey Stick Busted Again"

See also the editor’s comment on sciencemag.org:

""
Deep Heating

Global warming is popularly viewed only as an atmospheric process, when, as shown by marine temperature records covering the last several decades, most heat uptake occurs in the ocean. How did subsurface ocean temperatures vary during past warm and cold intervals? Rosenthal et al. (p. 617) present a temperature record of western equatorial Pacific subsurface and intermediate water masses over the past 10,000 years that shows that heat content varied in step with both northern and southern high-latitude oceans. The findings support the view that the Holocene Thermal Maximum, the Medieval Warm Period, and the Little Ice Age were global events, and they provide a long-term perspective for evaluating the role of ocean heat content in various warming scenarios for the future.

""
Like · Reply · Share · Report Abuse eric65410/31/2013 6:31 PM EDT Yep, Mike is disappointed that they didn't use "Mike's Nature Trick" see http://climateaudit.org/2009/11/20/mike’s-nature-trick/ which is to basically erase the data that is contrary to your hypothesis from your graphic.LikeLiked by 2 readers · Report AbuseB2O211/1/2013 12:57 AM EDT Are you still beating that "climategate" drum, Eric? You have grossly misrepresented what Mann was doing in the graphic. The "tree ring divergence" problem was well known, and Mann was doing the accepted thing in substituting real known data for that time period.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy#Content_of_the_documents

Many commentators quoted one email in which Phil Jones said he had used "Mike's Nature trick" in a 1999 graph for the World Meteorological Organization "to hide the decline" in proxy temperatures derived from tree ring analyses when measured temperatures were actually rising. This 'decline' referred to the well-discussed tree ring divergence problem, but these two phrases were taken out of context by climate change sceptics, including US Senator Jim Inhofe and former Governor of Alaska Sarah Palin, as though they referred to some decline in measured global temperatures, even though they were written when temperatures were at a record high.[32] John Tierney, writing in the New York Times in November 2009, said that the claims by sceptics of "hoax" or "fraud" were incorrect, but that the graph on the cover of a report for policy makers and journalists did not show these non-experts where proxy measurements changed to measured temperatures.[33] The final analyses from various subsequent inquiries concluded that in this context 'trick' was normal scientific or mathematical jargon for a neat way of handling data, in this case a statistical method used to bring two or more different kinds of data sets together in a legitimate fashion.[34][35] The EPA notes that in fact, the evidence shows that the research community was fully aware of these issues and that no one was hiding or concealing them.[36]LikeLiked by 2 readers · Report AbuseB2O211/1/2013 1:04 AM EDT @dalyplanet -

Whether or not the LIA and MWP were regional or global phenomena is in some dispute. There is considerable data on both sides of the answer. But even IF it turns out they were both global (and they can be a hybrid of the two, remember - in which the biggest changes were North Atlantic but those changes were also smeared out globally to a much lesser magnitude), those two climactic changes took an order of magnitude longer to develop.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_Warm_Period

Neither this Post article nor the Science study "busts" Mann's hockey stick - which has been born out by other proxy analyses. We are still in a period of strikingly sharp, fast warming with no credible natural cause.LikeLiked by 1 reader · Report Abusedalyplanet11/1/2013 1:40 AM EDT One of these days B2O2 you will see the bigger picture. My personal opinion for the headline (somewhat tongue in cheek) has nothing to do with the larger picture that an assemblage of new literature on a variety of topics shows. It is no longer Grandfather Hansen's climate theory any longer. It is now some many influences and CO2 rather than CO2 onlyLikeLiked by 2 readers · Report AbuseChipKnappenberger11/1/2013 2:00 PM EDT Jason,

Your headline certainly is attention grabbing. And derives, presumably, from the first figure in your article.

Does is strike you as a fair comparison to compare the rate of change over the most recent 55-yr period with the average rates of change over much larger periods (which are made up of 200-yr time steps)? For example, the rate of change during the most recent 55-yr period (which is derived from direct observations) is compared with 200-yr time step proxy observations (which can’t possibly capture all the short-term variability) for periods of length 370 years, 600 years, and 3500 years.

This certainly doesn’t seem like apples-to-apples to me!

-Chip
Like · Report Abuse Jason-CapitalWeatherGang11/1/2013 5:07 PM EDT I recognize there are uncertainties in the comparisons, but that's what the authors concluded and seemed to be noteworthy about the study... that, and the high OHC of the Medieval Warm Period relative to today, another comparison with considerable methodological uncertainties.Like · Report Abusedalyplanet11/1/2013 5:43 PM EDT Revkin has an interview. These guys are real scientists.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ta-0mo7UjUE Like · Report Abuse Jason-CapitalWeatherGang11/1/2013 5:52 PM EDT Yep-- it's a really good interview... I linked to it above (at the bottom of the post)Like · Report AbuseAlan McIntire11/1/2013 5:52 PM EDT Mike's "Nature Trick" was to show actual recent temperatures, ignoring the fact that the tree rings showed a "cooling" for that recent period- demonstrating that Mann's tree ring proxy was crap!Like · Report AbuseChipKnappenberger11/1/2013 7:20 PM EDT “...but that's what the authors concluded and seemed to be noteworthy about the study.”

True enough, Jason.

But I didn’t think you always just agreed with whatever the authors concluded! :^)

-Chip
Like · Report AbuseView 9 more replies The Post Most:Local

Personal Post Top recommendations for you

More headlines for you >

Radar

Enlarge & Animate Weather Underground Radar DC Webcam At a glanceGo to CWG's Full Forecast

SUN

49 67 precip: 30% MON

61 68 precip: 30% TUE

40 49 WED

33 49 THU

36 55 FRI

41 56 Forecast by National Weather Service

Right nowGo to CWG's Weather Wall

National Airport 52.0 F (11.1 C) Weather: Fog/Mist

Wind: North at 0.0 MPH

Dew Point: 50.0 F

Pressure: 1025.5 mb

Dulles Airport BWI Airport Last Updated on Nov 16 2013, 8:52 pm EST