RSS July Global Temperature Anomaly – up a bit

6 08 2008

RSS (Remote Sensing Systems of Santa Rosa, CA) RSS Microwave Sounder Unit (MSU) lower troposphere global temperature anomaly data for July 2008 was published today and has moved a bit above the zero anomaly line, with a value of 0.147°C for a positive change (∆T) of  0.112°C globally from June 2008.

RSS
2008 1 -0.070
2008 2 -0.002
2008 3   0.079
2008 4   0.080
2008 5 -0.083
2008  6  0.035
2008  7  0.147

I rather expected it to go up a bit, given that La Nina has diminsihed, plus the NH has a greater landmass than the SH, and we are in summer. But compared though to July 2007, at 0.363, it is still lower, down 0.216.


Click for larger image


Comments : 98 Comments »

Categories : Science, climate_change

An important call for public comment on the NASA Climate Change Science Program

6 08 2008

Foreword: For all of my readers, I can’t stress enough how important Dr. Herman’s message is. Please consider his requests for public comments. Something that most people don’t know is that you do not need to be a citizen of the USA to submit a comment. Time is of the essence, as comments close on August 14th, and there will not be another opportunity. For other bloggers and website operators, this post can be duplicated verbatim, and I encourage you to do so. Thank you for your consideration. – Anthony

A guest Post by Dr. Ben Herman

I recently received a NASA Climate Change Science Program (CCSP) preliminary report that I imagine many of you have also received,  For those who may not have received it, I’ve included a link at the end of this comment. NASA is asking for responses to this report for those who have comments, suggestions, etc that they would like to pass on to the CCSP committee. I have read through the report personally and feel there is much in the report that requires additional clarification.

On pages 6 and 7 of the report there are several “bullets” which summarize the issues and findings. More detail on each of these points may be found in the report. It is my feeling that these bullets and the additional detail discussions contain much information that requires further input due to it being still controversial, incomplete, and in some instances very misleading.

This report will undoubtedly play an important role in future climate related research programs supported by both NASA and NOAA, and therefore it is very important that all issues identified as important in the report be clearly and completely explained, and where controversial, both sides of the issue be included. This is important to ensure all important aspects of future research are given equal opportunity for funding, which is the basic reason I am requesting your input.  Instructions for submitting comments to the CCSP are in the link below.

Thanks for your cooperation.
Ben Herman

Instructions for submitting comments can be found in the following link:

http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/instructions.php

The complete CCSP report may be found in the following link.
http://www.climatescience.gov/Library/sap/usp/public-review-draft/

Dr. Herman is past director of the Institute of Atmospheric Physics and former Head of the Department of Atmospheric Sciences at the University of Arizona. See his list of publications here.


Comments : 58 Comments »

Categories : Announcements, climate_change

Post mortem on the Mauna Loa CO2 data eruption

6 08 2008

ObservatoryAs most readers of this blog already know, there has been a posting and revision of CO2 data on the Mauna Loa observatory website in the past day that has generated quite a lot of controversy.Now after having been in touch with Dr. Pieter Tan at MLO through several emails I hope to shed some light on what happened.

It all started Sunday August 3rd when a revision of data was posted that showed a clear drop between January and July of this year.  I did a story on the January to July trend reversal of CO2 at Mauna Loa, The post on that highlighted what the data published by MLO said at that time. What it said was that there was an unusual, never before seen in the history of the dataset lower CO2 PPM value in July than was measured in January.

Then yesterday, Monday August 4th, there was an abrupt change in the MLO data published on their website that very nearly erased the trend highlighted in the previous story, and there was no mention of the change on the NOAA web page for Mauna Loa Observatory. There still isn’t.

So I did another story using a blink comparator to highlight the change in the data and made note of the mystery hoping to get more info from the curator of the MLO CO2 dataset, Dr. Pieter Tans.

Meanwhile, quite a lot of speculation occurred, much of it critical of the entire process MLO used to publish and revise this data. There were also some commenters on this blog that looked at the change in the data to reverse engineer what happened and figure out plausible reasons for it.

Early today, 08/05 8:55AM PST, I received my first communications from Dr. Tans on the subject:

Anthony,

We appreciate your interest in the CO2 data.  The reason was simply that
we had a problem with the equipment for the first half of July, with the
result that the earlier monthly average consisted of only the last 10
days.  Since CO2 always goes down fast during July the monthly average
came out low.  I have now changed the program to take this effect into
account, and adjusting back to the middle of the month using the
multi-year average seasonal cycle.  This change also affected the entire
record because there are missing days here and there.  The other
adjustments were minor, typically less than 0.1 ppm.

Best regards,
Pieter Tans

That left more questions, most notably as to “what happened to the rest of the monthly data” and I followed up with a request for more information:

> Hello Pieter,
>
> Thank you very much for your prompt response. I appreciate you taking
> time from your busy schedule to answer.
>
> Can you elaborate on the problem with the equipment?
>
> And do you keep a public changelog or publish notices of such changes as
> occurred yesterday?
>
> Thank you for your consideration.
>
> Anthony Watts

To which he responded with a blunt one-liner:

From: “Pieter Tans” <Pieter.Tans@xxxx.xxx>
To: “Anthony Watts – TVWeather” <awatts@xxxxxxx.xxx>
Sent: Tuesday, August 05, 2008 9:30 AM
Subject: Re: question on ML CO2 monthly mean data change

The computer disc crashed…

When I read that, I was simply floored. Here we have what is considered the crown jewel of all surface based CO2 measurement stations suddenly missing 20 days of data, and it was all due to a hard disk crash. In this day and age of cheap storage and RAID systems it seemed unfathomable that such a thing could happen, especially to something so important as this data.

So I asked again: Read the rest of this entry »


Comments : 52 Comments »

Categories : Science, climate_change

APS Fellow supports Monckton’s position

6 08 2008

The following letter is from an APS member, Roger W. Cohen, and is in support of Lord Monckton’s paper published in the July APS newsletter. For more information on this, see my posting  American Physical Society and Monckton at odds over paper

I found this passage in the essay below to be most compelling:

“…I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is.”

Here is the paper by Cohen in PDF form complete with footnotes and figures.

I have been involved in climate change for nearly 30 years. In 1980, a few of us in the research organization of a large multinational energy corporation realized that the climate issue was likely to affect our future business environment. We subsequently started the only industrial research activity in the basic science of climate change. The move was justified by the fact that the best way to really understand a complex technical issue is to actually work in the area, interacting with other scientists. I have supervised climate scientists working in the area of climate change and have followed the area closely. Over the years our researchers have served as authors of key IPCC report chapters. I would like to share some perspectives with you.

I retired four years ago, and at the time of my retirement I was well convinced, as were most technically trained people, that the IPCC’s case for Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is very tight. However, upon taking the time to get into the details of the science, I was appalled at how flimsy the case really is. I was also appalled at the behavior of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it. In particular I am referring to the arrogance; the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defense of bogus science, and the politicization of the IPCC process and the science process itself.

At this point there is little doubt that the IPCC position is seriously flawed in its central position that humanity is responsible for most of the observed warming of the last third of the 20th century, and in its projections for effects in the 21st century. Here are five key reasons for this:

  1. The recorded temperature rise is neither exceptional nor persistent. For example, the earth has not warmed since around 1997 and may in fact be in a cooling trend. Also, in particular, the Arctic and contiguous 48 states are at about the same temperature as they were in the 1930s. Also in particular the rate of global warming in the early 20th century was as great as the last third of the century, and no one seriously ascribes the early century increase to greenhouse gas emissions. Read the rest of this entry »

Comments : 41 Comments »

Categories : climate_change

Earth Warms to 812F, experts baffled

6 08 2008

Southern California Hot Spot Hits 812 Degrees, Baffles Experts

Photo:  Ventura County Fire Department

From FoxNews: The ground is so hot in one part of Southern California it can melt the shoes right off your feet.

An unexplained “thermal anomaly” caused a patch of land in Ventura County to reach a temperature of over 800 degrees on Friday, baffling experts who have been monitoring the area for weeks.

The anomaly was discovered after the land got so hot, it started a brush fire and burned three acres last month. Firefighters were brought to the scene after reports of a blaze, but by the time they arrived only smoldering dirt and brush remained.

Firefighters took no chances with the smoking ground, clearing brush near the fumes and cutting a fire line around the area to prevent a blaze from igniting.


Photo by Karen Quincy Loberg

“We are a little perplexed at this point, to tell you the truth,” the Ventura County Star quoted geologist David Panaro as saying. “This is not your usual geological detective story.”

The area has recorded high temperatures at least five times since 1987, Allen King, a retired geologist with the U.S. Forest Service told the newspaper.

The hot spot is located in steep, rugged terrain a few miles north of the town of Fillmore on land owned by the U.S. Bureau of Land Management and leased by Seneca Resources Corp.

Officials who are familiar with the patch of land, which is near the large Sespe Oil Field, have come up with a few theories as to why the ground soared to 812 degrees fahrenheit on August 1.

One theory is that natural hydrocarbons, such as oil or gas, are burning deep in the earth and seeping out through cracks in the area, causing the surface to rapidly heat and generate smoke.

According to the Star, Allen King, a former geologist with the U.S. Forest Service recently stuck a thermometer into the ground and got a reading of 550 degrees — so hot that it melted the glue holding the sole of his boots together.

“After that we were more cautious about standing in one place for too long,” he said.

h/t Gary Boden


Comments : 54 Comments »

Categories : Uncategorized