Recent Differences Between GISS and NCDC SST Anomaly Data And A Look At The Multiple NCDC SST Datasets

Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way? As Lindzen observed “To be sure, models and data are often uncertain, but that correcting data always leads to consistency with models is highly unlikely.” One could say the same for corrections which always seem to lead to more warming. How implausible can you get?

Thanks Bob, for making this clear. It is getting tiresome of the same upward adjustments, effectively so if a downward adjustment is removed, to a dataset. It wouldn’t be so obvious if it wasn’t done every single time. How smart is that?

@ Bob Tisdale
Have you read this?
http://theresilientearth.com/?q=content/conveyor-belt-model-broken

Bob Tisdale,
Thank you for your very thorough analysis of this recent data set divergence. While I find the manipulation of data to maintain the illusion of dangerous warming to be distressing, I now accept that this behavior has become routine for many involved in climatology. If global temperatures were remaining stable I would be more concerned, as these manipulations could keep the hoax going for many more years. However as temperatures continue to fall, manipulations to show warming trends become increasingly futile. A long hard battle against the continuing malfeasance of some climatologists may not be necessary in a cooling world. It is necessary to record the actions of those playing these games with data, and helpful to let it be publicly known that these records are being made. Thank you for your effort.

The AGW camp seem to follow the following code: “If observation doesnt fit your hypothesis, than the data must be wrong”.
The missing hotspot is there only the thermometors are wrong
The satellites are wrong as they show cooling
The sun doesnt drive climate because there was no MWP
etc… etc…
I was told a temperature station was a “bad site” recently as it showed cooling!
As einstein once said: “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/ghazards/ghaz.shtml
Have ya seen the NWS Climate Services Customer Satisfaction Survey?

Good stuff. Interesting thing is, when I combined HadCrut3 till 1978 and MSUAH since, it looks a lot like SST trend. It is clearly visible that the strongest temp. rise was in 1907-1942 and 2008 is similar to 40ties again.

Sorry but the only significant “anomaly” in the difference between GISS and NCDC that I can see is the sudden drop roughly 203 months ago (around month 397), see my graph of the last 50 years
http://lh6.ggpht.com/_4ruQ7t4zrFA/ShJlvNl_vlI/AAAAAAAACcg/7w16Hg-JBR4/giss-ncdc-difference-50-years.JPG
Visually, there is no statistically significant change of the behavior in recent years.

It’s a familiar story. See also
Global ocean heat content 1955–2008 in light of recently revealed instrumentation problems.
Levitus et al, Geophys res lett 36, L07608 (2009)
“We provide estimates of the warming of the world ocean for 1955–2008 based on historical data not previously available, additional modern data, correcting for instrumental biases of bathythermograph data, and correcting or excluding some Argo float data”.
Perhaps someone should collate all these examples of inconvenient data being deleted or ‘adjusted’ upward. It would be a long list.

The data manipulation appears to be scientific fraud. But since it is done to protect political and religious beliefs it is done with a clear conscience. It is much more then funding that the data manipulators are protecting. They are protecting a worldview that is vital to their belief structure. Many true believers would have a psychic breakdown if they objectively looked at the science. I believe there is no amount of falsification that can dissuade the true believers. It took the Catholic Church 400 years to admit that the helio-centrists were correct. The same helio versus geo battle is taking place today.

Slightly OT. I find it somewhat disconcerting when I open up WUWT and see a Google Ad for Carbon Offsets. Isn’t there already enough scizophrenia in the world ?

I suspect that this is less a case of intentional fraudulent data manipulation than it is a case of belief in their models blinding them to reality. The graph they provide shows a clear offset with the satellite data. Adhering to the simplest explanation being the correct one approach, either the earlier record is wrong, or the satellite record is wrong. They are so married to their belief in AGW, they can’t accept that it is possible for the earlier record to be wrong. I don’t think it’s intentional fraud, just blinders.
Unfortunately, it will probably take many years or perhaps even decades of this kind of divergence before they will be able (if ever) to accept that the earlier data, and their AGW religion, were wrong.

Hmm. In reading the first group of comments, there’s lots of use of the strong words fraud and manipulation. While it seems unusual that recent corrections always seem to increase trends, consider a few things.
All of the long term SST datasets (ERSST.v2, ERSST.v3b, HADSST, HADISST, Kaplan) are all based on COADS data. The biggest correction that’s made is to raise the SST anomalies before 1941 (or lower it after, depending on your point of view) by approximately 0.3 deg C. This is done in agreement with the 1995 Folland and Parker paper “Correction of instrumental biases in historical sea surface temperature data.” Without that correction, the linear trend would be almost twice what it is now for the NCDC SST anomaly datasets.
http://i41.tinypic.com/20jo96t.jpg
Also, with the updates and corrections come things that many of us consider positives. Look at the Southern Ocean data, for example. Here’s a graph from one of my early SST posts that compares the ERSST.v2 and ERSST.v3 versions of the Southern Ocean SST anomaly data.
http://i36.tinypic.com/25g5pgz.jpg
And here’s the ERSST.v3 graph of the Southern Ocean SST anomalies alone:
http://i37.tinypic.com/315bzad.jpg
That entire post is here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/ersstv3-version-of-southern-ocean-sst.html
When there are complaints about the recent high Antarctic temperatures, the ERSST.v3b version clearly shows that the Southern Oceans SST anomalies were higher 100+ years ago.

“Although, the satellite data were corrected with respect to the in situ data as described in reprint, there was a residual cold bias that remained as shown in Figure 4 there. The bias was strongest in the middle and high latitude Southern Hemisphere where in situ data are sparse. THE RESIDAL BIAS LED TO A MODEST DECREASE IN THE GLOBAL WARMING TREND AND MODIFIED GLOBAL ANNUAL TEMPERATURE RANKINGS.”
If the data were corrected once, and this correction was valid, what exactly is a “residual bias”? And, since the in situ data are inherently sparse (not to mention probably located in human-habitat micro-climates), can they really consider the warmer in situ data to be more accurate than the satellite data?

All of us should read http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm this speech by Richard Feynman (the late nobel prize winning physicist) before we start yelling fraud! This speech gives a deep insight into what is required for getting good science. A small excerpt:
Now it behooves me, of course, to tell you what they’re missing.
But it would be just about as difficult to explain to the South Sea
Islanders how they have to arrange things so that they get some
wealth in their system. It is not something simple like telling
them how to improve the shapes of the earphones. But there is one
feature I notice that is generally missing in cargo cult science.
That is the idea that we all hope you have learned in studying
science in school–we never explicitly say what this is, but just
hope that you catch on by all the examples of scientific
investigation. It is interesting, therefore, to bring it out now
and speak of it explicitly. It’s a kind of scientific integrity,
a principle of scientific thought that corresponds to a kind of
utter honesty–a kind of leaning over backwards. For example, if
you’re doing an experiment, you should report everything that you
think might make it invalid–not only what you think is right about
it: other causes that could possibly explain your results; and
things you thought of that you’ve eliminated by some other
experiment, and how they worked–to make sure the other fellow can
tell they have been eliminated.
Details that could throw doubt on your interpretation must be
given, if you know them. You must do the best you can–if you know
anything at all wrong, or possibly wrong–to explain it. If you
make a theory, for example, and advertise it, or put it out, then
you must also put down all the facts that disagree with it, as well
as those that agree with it. There is also a more subtle problem.
When you have put a lot of ideas together to make an elaborate
theory, you want to make sure, when explaining what it fits, that
those things it fits are not just the things that gave you the idea
for the theory; but that the finished theory makes something else
come out right, in addition.
In summary, the idea is to try to give all of the information to
help others to judge the value of your contribution; not just the
information that leads to judgment in one particular direction or
another.

Gary Pearse: You asked, “What kind of lag is there between any atmospheric warming or cooling and SST? Or is the air rather being warmed by the sea (seems most likely).”
The global surface air temperature lags changes in SST (primarily ENSO variations) by 3 to 6 months.
And changes in global temperature (from 1880 to present) appear to simply be a function of ENSO SST variations. The warming periods and the cooling periods, the year-to-year and decade-to-decade changes in global temp, can all be shown to be responses to changes in the frequency and magnitude of ENSO. In fact, here’s one of my posts that shows that global temperature anomalies can be reproduced with NINO3.4 SST anomalies, volcanic aerosols, and solar variations.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/reproducing-global-temperature.html

So is Smith et al 2008 invalid due to missing data making it unconfirmable? Has Journal of Climate published a retraction of the paper?

AAARRRRGGGhhhhh! O/T, but any slight hopes that I had for a pleasant summer have been dashed to the floor. ‘Prepare for a heatwave’ UK told.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/8057528.stm
They just can’t leave well enough alone.

NOAA: Fifth Warmest April for Globe
The combined average global land and ocean surface temperatures for April 2009 ranked fifth warmest since worldwide records began in 1880, according to NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, N.C.

Is Noaa an official SPA for massaging temperatures?

Perry Debell (08:11:49) :
AAARRRRGGGhhhhh! O/T, but any slight hopes that I had for a pleasant summer have been dashed to the floor. ‘Prepare for a heatwave’ UK told.
From the article you linked:
In London, this (my note: “a very hot summer”) would mean daytime temperatures had exceeded 32C and night-time temperatures were over 18C degrees. In the North West, it would be 30C and 15C, respectively.
“Piece of cake” for us in Monterrey where usual temperatures in summer are ~40 °C at the peak during daytime and ~25 °C during nighttime. 🙂

Talking of strange anomolies:
“the Earth’s gravity field would weaken in the southern hemisphere and strengthen in the northern hemisphere, causing water to pile up in the northern oceans”.
Water pile up?
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/climate-change/melting-ice-could-cause-gravity-shift-1685201.html

“”” Allan M R MacRae (03:02:08) :
Sallie Baliunas, Tim Patterson and I wrote in 2003:
“Computer models that predict catastrophic human-induced global warming have consistently failed to accurately reproduce past and present climate changes, so their 100-year forecasts are suspect. These models speculate that the air’s increased carbon dioxide concentration is a major driver of atmospheric warming, by way of amplification processes. Without these speculative processes, even a doubling of CO2 concentration would lead to a theoretical surface warming of only approximately 1 degree (C).”
http://www.apegga.org/Members/Publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
__________________
More recent data and analyses suggests to me that even this 1 degree C is high due to negative feedbacks, and actual “climate sensitivity” to atmospheric CO2 is so close to zero as to be practically inconsequential.
The only known impact of increased atmospheric CO2 is improved plant yields.
Furthermore, CO2 lags temperature at all time scales, so we don’t even know if CO2 drives temperature at all, and the evidence suggests that temperature drives CO2. When I wrote this conclusion in January 2008 I was criticized by both sides of the global warming debate, but we’ll see who is right.
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
Place your bets, ladies and gentlemen. Faites vos jeux.
Regards, Allan “””
Well Allan, you won’t get any dispute from me. When people talk about “amplifications” to CO2 it is often “water vapor feedback” they are alluding to. I’m of the belief that water vapor is perfectly capable of doing its own atmospheric warming via the so-called greenhouse effect without any help or stimulus by CO2 or any other GHG. It is water vapor that drags us up from the equiilbrium orbital black body temperature we would have sans water; and I don’t think we’d be at any different place with no CO2 at all; other than we would have a slightly different cloud cover situation.
In any case, to me the whole concept of “climate sensitivity” is just silly, and nonsensical. We know that the earth’s surface IR emittance varies by more than an order of magnitude from the hottest surface locations to the coldest surface locations; about 12:1 in the extreme case; and that is not taking spectral emissivities into account; and that means that the possible warming effect (forcing) due to CO2 absorption would be expected to have a similar range; so the notion that there is a constant temperature rise due to a doubling of CO2 is plain nonsense.
In the end ONLY H2O in the earth atmosphere exists in all three phases, vapor, liquid, and solid; so clouds are a uniquely water phenomenon that produce (on climate time scales) a strong negative feedback cooling effect, due to albedo modulation, and blcoking of further solar energy from the ground. Nobody ever observed it to warm up when a cloud passes in front of the sun; it always cools down. In particular it always cools down at night when there are clouds in the sky; it never warms up after the sun goes down; cloud or no cloud (assuming some new warm air mass doesn’t move in from some other place).
I think your estimate of a “Climate sensitivity” due to CO2 doubling, of near zero, is closer to the truth than any one degree notion; and of course the IPCC always throws in a 3:1 fudge factor.
Arrhenius dreamed up a monster when he invented “climate sensitivity”, and it’s time to stick a fork in that monster; and the same goes for “forcingS” which I can’t find in any handbook of Chemistry and Physics.
If “climatology” wants to dissociate itself from the likes of “economics” and ancient “astrology”, and join the real world of science; it needs to abandon these primitive trappings; which belong to the era of epicyclic orbital theory; and caloric, and ether ages.

Perry Debell (08:11:49) :
From the BBC “news” story:
Wayne Elliott, Head of Health Forecasting at the Met Office, said: “Summer is nearly with us and it’s a good time to prepare for the high temperatures that we can experience in this country.”
—
I wonder how folks in Britain were ever able to prepare for summer in the past without the sage wisdom from the MET office to guide them…
Imagine that – a summer with warm temperatures!! Next thing you know, they’re going to predict a winter with cold temperatures…

They are at it again.
Gubment Cheddar funds study at MIT that concludes:
Climate Odds Much Worse Than Thought.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm
This is getting out of hand. WWUT is gonna have a big, I Told You So and soon!
The Boy of John

“Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way?”
Because they are only human: If things go the way they expect, then they don’t bother scrutinising the data/method. But if it goes contrary to what the expect, then they look for errors, and of course *sometimes* find them (no malice required). The upshot of this is that there are a LOT of errors going in the *other* direction that have not been spotted!

“This is getting out of hand. WWUT is gonna have a big, I Told You So and soon!”
There is never going to be an I told you so…..Obama is on the move and your life will change forever. I was wondering why the auto compaines were in of today’s announcment…there is the answer
Today’s bitter deal was sweetened with further funds: $15bn in loan guarantees in the economic recovery plan and the prospect of a further $50bn in allowances under the climate change bill now making its way through Congress.
We are going to pay for it all……once oil usage drops, higher taxes will be needed to replace less fuel sold.

They are pretty slippery there at MIT, Frank!
Thanks,
The Boy of John

Did you notice how MIT tried to legitimize thier ‘research’?
400 runs of the model with each run using slight variations in input parameters (see below for a good laugh),
selected so that each run has about an equal probability of being correct based on present observations and knowledge… (scoff!)
the MIT model is the only one that interactively includes detailed treatment of possible changes in human activities as well – such as the degree of economic growth, with its associated energy use, in different countries
AND here’s the real kicker!!
they supposedly based their runs on ‘peer reviewed literature’ for economic activity, atmospheric, oceanic and biological systems.
So they supposedly used peer reviewed values for economic, oceanic, and atmospheric variables and looked at 400 different scenarios. And they used our tax dollars to do it!
What a waste!
The Boy of John

Thanks a lot, dbstealey moderator… I think what the reason was; I’m sorry. 🙂

“”” Mike McMillan (13:38:02) :
George E. Smith (10:22:15) :
. . . In particular it always cools down at night when there are clouds in the sky; it never warms up after the sun goes down; cloud or no cloud (assuming some new warm air mass doesn’t move in from some other place).
Nighttime clouds act as a blanket. You get the coldest temps on cloudless nights due to radiative cooling. “””
Mike you also get cold temperatures on cloudy nights due to radiative cooling; you just don’t get as much cooling. You get the coldest nights where it is also dryest since you don’t get water vapor warming either; and just look at how ineffective CO2 is at warming the surface on a cold dry night when there is no water vapor around. So much for CO2 greenhouse warming !
My objection to this cloudy night thing being traipsed out by the warming crowd; is that they offer this night time “blanket”, which I don’t disagree with, as a positve feedback cloud warming effect. Baloney, or BALONEY; that was last night’s weather not climate; and the isssue is if you have an increase in cloud cover over climatically significant time frames (why not 30 years) IT COOLS DOWN ! It NEVER warms up, when total global cloud cover increases; because those cloud increases that do slow down the night time cooling, (it still cools) block a whole lot of sunlight, and reflect more, during the daylight hours; which cools the surface.
And it is surface temperatures which determine any feedback effects.
You need hotter surface temperatures to get more water vapor evaporation; and you need hotter surface temperatures to get more oceanic CO2 outgassing. Hotter atmospheric temperatures may eventually warm the ground a little but they also enhance the radiation to space, which is ultimately the only significant global cooling mechanism.
I read a paper by some British University “rocket scientists” who modelled cloud behavior on their playstation in the presence of a CO2 doubling. In their computer model run, that caused clouds to evaporate so they put that down as a positive feedback cloud effect; ergo clouds are positive feedback.
Did I mention that during this computer video game run; they clamped the surface temperature AT A FIXED VALUE !!!
Who licensed them to make up their own Physics laws like that ? If they had left well enough alone; and not clamped the surface temperature; they would have discovered the obvious, that you can discover with a stick on a sandy beach on a desert island. If you double the CO2, and don’t clamp the surface temperature; it will increase slightly, which will evaporate more water vapor; which will increase the atmospheric water content, and eventually lead to more clouds and more precipitation and those extra clouds will cool the surface wiping out nearly every vestige of the CO2 induced warming.
How do people get grant money to do such totally dumb things ?
Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.
Water as a vapor is a positive feedback warming effect; which also has some negative feedback cooling connecvtions since water vapor absorbs some of the incoming solar spectrum energy (maybe as much as 20%) thereby reducing ground level insolation; but water in liquid and solid form as clouds is always a negative feedback, since more clouds mean higher albedo, and more solar absorptions so lower ground level insolation; and it is this cloud cover ratio (or fraction if you will) that regulates the mean global temperature;
Yes things like CO2, aerosols, cosmic rays, dust, microbes, etc can all affect cloud formation and so modify cloud coverage ; but ultimately the oceans are in total control, and simply adjust the cloud cover to stop whatever temperature changes were happening.

It’s snowing, well really it’s dumping snow in huge quantities, upon the Edmonton area! Wow! Snow in mid May!
I compiled a little summary here: http://pathstoknowledge.wordpress.com/2009/05/19/its-weather-and-climate-20cm-of-snow-in-edmonton-area-may-19th-2009/

“Why do the “corrections” always seem to go one way?”
Because they have an agenda and are liars.

“Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”
Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live, but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. So, if winter cloudiness were to increase because of other climate changes, that would be…?
I’ll be interested to see just how you reconcile facts like that with your beliefs.

Nasif Nahle: You wrote in a comment directed at me, “BTW, saying that the fluctuations of the solar energy have nothing to do with Earth’s climate is misguided…”
When did I say that?

Mr Boy (12:23:30) kindly drew our attention to this:
“Climate Odds Much Worse Than Thought.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090519134843.htm ”
What enormous fun these computerised sausage machines are.
Back here in the real world of FatBigot Towers it is 2009. Yes, there’s a nine at the end not a zero. We’re almost a decade into the century of perpetually increasing heat. I have been sitting here in my little house like a plump potato in a saucepan of water, waiting to be cooked to perfection over the course of a century so that at the end I can be doused in butter and served to a passing cannibal. The water started out tepid, now it’s got colder.
It’s all very well telling me that the great forces of warming will mean that I will be overcooked whereas previously I would have been done to perfection. I might be able to believe it because there is a theory, hypothesis if you prefer, and I am just an ignorant potato.
But I can’t believe it unless it is explained why I have been getting colder for almost a decade when it was promised that I would be almost a tenth of the way to culinary readiness by now.
Now, in 2009, the same theory / hypothesis is used to justify a prediction that I will get hotter over the next 91 years (following 9 years of getting colder) than I was told I would get over 100 years when I was originally placed into the saucepan of luke warm water 9 years ago.
It’s a jolly good thing I am only a potato and wholly ignorant of matters scientific, were it otherwise I might think the theory / hypothesis is just patent twaddle.

This blog might be worth a look:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2009/mar/10/blogpost1
Strap line is “facts are sacred” so maybe they’d take this story on. I had a look back over 4 or 5 pages and didn’t find any temperature info.

Steven Hill (12:56:23) :
“We are going to pay for it all……once oil usage drops, higher taxes will be needed to replace less fuel sold.”
What makes you think they’re going to wait for oil usage to drop?

Nasif, I read your paper, linked above.
I especially liked your last line in the conclusions:
” The influence of “greenhouse gases” on the climate is irrelevant.”

“”” RW (16:25:36) :
“Clouds are ALWAYS (climatically) NEGATIVE feedback; and that is the crux of the whole global mean temperature question.”
Nope. Who licensed you to make up your own physical law like that? I have no idea where you live, but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. So, if winter cloudiness were to increase because of other climate changes, that would be…?
I’ll be interested to see just how you reconcile facts like that with your beliefs. “””
>>> “but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that cloudy winter days are much warmer than clear winter days. ” <>but those of us who live at temperate latitudes know very well that warmer winter days are much cloudier than cold winter days. <<<
There now RW; I didn't change the accuracy of your statement one iota.
I rest my case.
George

Don’t ask me what happened; but the aboves just vanished on pressing “Submit Comment”. some sort of poultrygeist I expect.
George

George E. Smith: have a look at Figure 5.10 here. If your beliefs were correct, all six lines on the graph would point down to the right. I advise you to reconsider your beliefs, taking into account the observational evidence that contradicts your present ones.

From http://www.seablogger.com/?p=14494
Pacific Shift
climate by seablogger
The surface temperature pattern of the Pacific Ocean has been remarkably stable for the last couple of years, since the flip to cold phase of the Pacific decadal oscillation. Now, for the first time, it is undergoing a major shift. The cold pool in the northeast Pacific is shrinking markedly, and the mid-ocean, mid-latitude warm pool has grown. There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific. Meanwhile warm swatches have shrunk in the South Pacific (a larger expanse of water than the North Pacific). Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now. What does this change portend? I have no idea, but I will be watching our downstream jet closely for pattern changes ensuing from the Pacific shift.

Ron de Haan: seablogger linked this map to make his observations. It opened to a map dated 5/21/09:
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/climo.html
Most of his comments could be related to weather. SST anomaly patterns vary daily, weekly, monthly.
His statement, “There is also a La Nina developing (off season) in the equatorial Pacific,” is wrong. NINO3.4 SST anomalies have risen above zero over the last month and while they’re still ENSO neutral, they show no sign of heading toward a La Nina. Refer to my ENSO update:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/05/mid-may-2009-enso-and-amo-update.html
Also subsurface temperarture anomalies below the equatorial Pacific are positive, implying an El Nino in the future.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_update/wkxzteq.shtml
He wrote, “Nearly all this vast watery region is painted anomalous chilly blue now.”
Is he referring to the map he linked? The following link is the expanded map dated 5/21/09, the same date that appeared when I followed his link. Looks like a lot of positive anomalies in there too.
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomnight.5.21.2009.gif

Just a few weeks ago, we had the Santa Barbara fire that was fanned by some high temperatures and winds; then suddenly we were back to wintry cold clear days, with a chill breeze (slight) from the North.
I went out to my car in the morning with just my office business shirt on, not long after sunrise; with the sun still low in a crystal clear sky. The north breeze was cold on my face, while the low sun was warm on my sunlit skin, but I shivered inside my shirt. It was cold liike that for several days, with chilly clear cloudless nights, and that slight but always noticeable north wind.
And then came the heat, with tempertaures into the 90s. On that hot morning after a 90 plus day high as I walked outside it w, but now it was quite different.
Same warm sun low in the cloudless sky; but now I could feel the heating effect of the hot air and ground, with no wind at all; yet the sun hadn’t had time to warm anything up. so we got 90s again and later in the day some high clouds appeared, so the sun set with high clouds, and it remained hot all night; no need for blankets.
And then after a few days it was back to the wintery cold with the wind chill and cloudless sky’s.
Well of course now I know why. With no high clouds on those cold days and nights, the earth cooled due to lack of man made CO2 in the sky, which is known to cause positive water vapor feedback when there are high clouds (R W Says so). Evidently natural CO2 doesn’t cause poitive feedback because even though that cold breeze from the north came straight over San Brancisco Bay waters; just ripe for positive feedback, the enhancement never started. It seems that CO2 by itself has a problem starting the positive feedback; but once you do get those high clouds, the ground warming effect is dramatic, even before the sun gets up very high.
Of course there is another way to explain all this; but of course it isn’t very fashionable to do so.
On that cold slightly breezy morning, with the cold air coming down from the north, the humidity was very low, and with the air so cold, it didn’t pick up any significant amount of water vapor, the other Green house gas as it crossed SF Bay to Sunnyvale.
So when I walked outside with the sun on my skin, and generating “heat” inside my torso, moisture evaporated from my skin, even under my dress shirt, so I shivered as my body tried to raise the humidity of this waterless air from the north. And by sunset, there simply wasn’t enough water vapor in the atmosphere to form any of those high altitude warming clouds, or to trap infra-red from the surface, so it stayed cold all night.
But then came the hot air (from somewhere) and plenty of humidity too, so even though the low sun hadn’t had time to heat anything, everything; the ground and the air seemed hot because with plenty of water vapor in the air, my body didn’t evaporate moisture, so that 545 calorie per gram refrigerator couldn’t operate.
As the temperatures climbed during the day, into the 90s, and now the Bay could give up additional moisture, all that hot air laden with moisture rose, as it is wont to do; but of course the upepr air was also plenty warm (where did that come from) so the air and moisture continued to rise, until evnetually, and later in the day, the moisture got to an altitude that was high enough that clouds finally could form; high clouds that is, so all through that night of hot air (from somewhere) those high clouds persisted. Well it still cooled down overnight anyhow; always seems to do that after sunset.
So there you have it; either CO2 heats the surface causing water vapor positive feedback, and high clouds do the same, keeping it warm at night; or just maybe, it is the warm moist air that comes from somewhere else; that eventually forms those high clouds that persist overnight; and don’t have anything to do with having made it warm in the first place.
So it’s like AlGore’s CO2 and Temperature graphs which he suggests are correlated. Well they are; but it is the temperature change that is causing the CO2 change (which for some reason doesn’t happen till after the temperature changed.
So high clouds are associated with warmer temperatures and nights, so there seems to be a correlation; but once again it seems difficult for some people to see which is the cause and which is the effect.
If the high clouds cause the warming; the temperature rise would only vary with the log of the forcing; which is either increase in GHG such as CO2 or water vapor; or increase in cloud cover fraction, which determines how much of the sky is still free to radiate to space. Well you get the point, even though I haven’t explained it very well; if the clouds cause the temperature rise, the temperature rise wouldn’t be linear with cloud coverage; but more logarithmic, and John Houghton, in The Global Climate says that the temperature rise for high clouds is linear with cloud coverage.
Doesn’t seem to matter that the hotter the surface temperatures go and by inference the normal atmospheric gradient; the higher the water vapor has to go in the atmosphere before it can finally condense into clouds.
Yes high clouds and warmer temperatures go hand in hand; but which is the cause; and which is the effect.
Seems that it all depends on how man made CO2 knows to trigger water vapor positive feedback, which apparnetly natural CO2 is reluctant to do; at least near San Francisco Bay anyway.