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

The contraption there at wikipedia is pretty fancy. The ones I’ve seen are just the canvas bag hanging in the shade. It would cool to pretty chilly even on scorching days if there was a bit of a breeze. First time I saw one and had a drink from it, it did seem like magic.

If you have a canvas bag of the right weave, a thermomoeter and a low spinning fan, you could do your own experiment right now. Take the temperature of the water (whatever volume they used to pull up the side of the boat) from a solid container, transfer to canvas bag, turn on the fan (move it to a distance you think would be an average wind-speed for a boat at sea, allowing for traveling speed etc), stick the thermometer back in for three and a half minutes and see if there’s a difference. You’d want to approximate the shape and size of the canvas bucket, too. If it’s thin, the water cools more quickly.

They’re canvas buckets. Here in Australia we used to put water in a canvas bag and hang it in the breeze. It would cool very rapidly. The stronger the wind, the quicker the cool. If there was a breeze at sea, or if the ship was traveling (I read that they often were for these bucket hauls – hard on the arms!), then the water in the canvas bucket would start cooling the moment it broke the surface. How fast I don’t know, but I know that water in canvas cools pretty damned quick.

I see from the graph that the peak difference is 0.2C. They kept the thermometer in for three minutes – that’s after hauling the bucket out of the water, so let’s say the bucket was getting sea breeze for 3 and a half minutes. Doesn’t sound too far fetched to me that this resulted in a measurable drop. How much capacity did they have?

The article’s pretty vague on the terminology. ‘Global temperature’? Is that ocean temps, land and ocean, surface temps?

It’s rarely useful to haggle over the science in a newspaper article.

If the match was already great, how come there was need of a substantial improvement?

The models might attain a degree of credibility if they could forecast such long-lived phenomena as the decadel oscillations in the Atlantic, Arctic, and Pacific Oceans. They must also show the impact of solar activity on climate and not make the unwarranted assumption that because we’ve experienced a certain similar though varying level of solar activity over past century, that such activity will continue into the future. This assumption is sure to haunt the modelers in coming decades as solar activity declines to levels not seen in over a century.

Bob, this is excellent work. http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/05/will-corrections-to-global-temperature.html

Could you also show the trend lines without the PDO scaling factor?

It might be a 2nd project, but if the point of this exercise is in seeing what trend line is left after all the noise is canceled from the various other natural sources, it’d lend to a hierarchical linear regression that’d leave us with the CO2 signal. Other efforts I’ve seen leave a very marginal effect (Jan Janssens has a similar effort on his website).

Solar forcing would have increased ocean temperatures, el Nino & AMO+ magnitudes over the past century until about 1990-1995, when the sun started dimming again. I would assume then that PDO & AMO magnitudes could be phase adjusted. Perhaps it’s feasible to, in a stepped fashion, de-noise the solar impact on the troposphere, PDO & AMO which in turn would provide their own subtractive phase adjustments against the general trend. PDO & AMO perturbations put back into the solar column would leave CO2 or other factors in the PDO & AMO column, etc.

I’m guessing the remaining trend line would leave noise from two remaining factors: Aerosols (which in fact cause a net warming — see Ramanathan & Carmichael, 2008), soot deposition in the Arctic (19 percent of all AGW since 1850) and CO2 (with its natural effect Temperature = Temperature0 + ln(1 + 1.2x + 0.005x^2 + 0.0000014x^3) ).

I have *yet* to see a warmist explicate the contributory phase adjustments on the various climate factors.

It may also be notable that the ionosphere contributes terawatts of energy into the global environment, potentially stronger at the poles.

During his brief stint in the USN back in the ’80′s my friend remarked how darn cold the hull was even down next to the boilers.

This publish-or-perish data half-bakery looks awfully desperate to me. Anything to clean up unexplained anomalies, it’s like rectifying the Ptolemaic system with epicycles. That Newton was just as guilty of cramming epicycles into his celestial model just goes to demonstrate how tempting such chicanery is. Sometimes some phenomena are best left unexplained until better science can address current perturbations. And some data are best left as mysteries never to be solved.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.D.lrg.gif

As reported at Climate Audit and this website, Dr. Hansen and gone to great lengths to make “homogeneity adjustment” to this data so that it would yield the desired results. I am going to be very interested to see what the data for 2008 shows on this graphic.

Mike

Eppure, si rinfresca

Thanks for answering. So, I’m not reading that wrong. They are actually taking water temps and using it as a proxie for air temp.

That being said, did they measure water temp. exactly 5 ft. below the water at the same location over many years? Seems to me if air temp. was taken then “proxied back, (if that’s a phrase), that would have better attributes then water temp. At least then one could time, date, location, etc. stamp the measurement and adjust accordingly. If one were trying to measure the ocean heat content, measuring water temps would make sense to me. But you can get such rapid changes in air temp. and for intent and purpose zero change in water temp. over the relatively short term, to use water temp. as a proxie to air temp. just sounds “fishy” to me.

Again, thanks for answering.