A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – “Extreme Weather” Update

By WUWT regular “Just The Facts”

Recently there have been increased efforts to link “Climate Change” and “Extreme Weather” e.g., NOAA links extreme weather to climate change CBS – July 10, 2012, “NASA scientist links climate change, extreme weather” CNN – August 6, 2012 and Get used to ‘extreme’ weather, it’s the new normal The Guardian – September 19, 2012.  Per the Guardian article, “Scientists have been warning us for years that a warmer planet would lead to more extreme weather, and now it’s arrived”. These “Extreme Weather” efforts have shifted into high gear with Sandy. Yesterday United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said that “one of the lessons from Superstorm Sandy is the need for global action to deal with future climate shocks.” “He told the U.N. General Assembly on Friday that it is difficult to attribute any single storm to climate change, but the world already knows that “extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal.” U.N. leader: Sandy a lesson in climate change CBS – November 9, 2012

All of these claims and “extreme weather” rhetoric seems to be predicated on the assumption that “Earth’s Temperature” has increased recently, thus causing “extreme weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”. However, does the observational data support this assumption? Let’s take a look…

Global Surface Temperatures:

Generally, when referring to Earth’s “climate” warming, proponents of the Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming (CAGW) narrative refer to Earth’s Surface Temperature, e.g. “Global warming is the unusually rapid increase in Earth’s average surface temperature over the past century primarily due to the greenhouse gases released by people burning fossil fuels.” NASA Earth Observatory

As such, here’s NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Global Monthly Mean Surface Temperature Anomaly – 1996 to Present:

National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) – Click the pic to view at source

Looking across the last 16 years, Global Surface Temperature do not appear to have increased much at all.

For a longer term view, UK Met Office’s – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Annual Global Average Land Temperature Anomaly – 1850 to 2011;

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

and the UK Met Office – Hadley Center – Climate Research Unit (CRU) Monthly Global Average Land Temperature – 1850 to 2011

Met Office – Hadley Center – Click the pic to view at source

Unless the arrival of “extreme weather” occurred in 1997-1998 with the well documented “very strong El Niño”, and the media is just realizing it, there does not seem to be a basis for the “extreme weather” claims in Earth’s recent Land and Surface Temperature record. There does not appear to be much recent change, and if anything the trend is down in the last few years. However, the surface temperature record is burdened with issues of questionable siting, changes in siting, changes in equipment, changes in the number of measurement locations, modeling to fill in gaps in measurement locations, corrections to account for missing, erroneous or biased measurements, and the urban heat island effect. Thus to see the big picture on the temperature “Earth’s Temperature”, it also helps to look up.

Atmospheric Temperatures:

Since 1979 Earth’s “temperature” has also been measured via satellite. “The temperature measurements from space are verified by two direct and independent methods. The first involves actual in-situ measurements of the lower atmosphere made by balloon-borne observations around the world. The second uses intercalibration and comparison among identical experiments on different orbiting platforms. The result is that the satellite temperature measurements are accurate to within three one-hundredths of a degree Centigrade (0.03 C) when compared to ground-launched balloons taking measurements of the same region of the atmosphere at the same time.” NASA

Here is RSS Global Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

and this is the University of Alabama – Hunstville (UAH) Global Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomalies – 1979 to Present:

University of Alabama – Huntsville (UAH) – Dr. Roy Spencer – Click the pic to view at source

Note: Per John Christy, RSS and UAH anomalies are not comparable because they use different base periods, i.e., “RSS only uses 1979-1998 (20 years) while UAH uses the WMO standard of 1981-2010.”

The September UAH Lower Atmosphere Temperature Anomaly was .33 degrees C above the 30 year average and RSS Global Global Lower Troposphere shows a .133  degrees C increase per decade. “Earth’s Temperature” varies naturally by numerous degrees and has been significantly warmer than it is today:

NOAA – National Climate Data Center – Click the pic to view at source

Are we to believe that 3 or 4 tenths of a degree C warming over the last 30 years has brought us to the precipice of “extreme weather”? Seems implausible. Maybe there are significant regional variations that portended the arrival of “extreme weather”?

Looking at the RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

and RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

neither seem indicative of warming that would have caused “extreme weather” to arrive.

Furthermore, RSS Southern Polar Temperature Lower Troposphere (TLT) Brightness Temperature Anomaly;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

is currently negative and shows a .013 K/C per decade decrease. Should we assume that Antarctica is experiencing less “extreme weather” at the moment?…

To this point we’ve only addressed the Lower Troposphere Temperatures, but one never knows where this “extreme weather” might be coming from, the following Temperature Anomaly plots from RSS will increase in altitude as is illustrated here:

Here is RSS Temperature Middle Troposphere (TMT)- Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

According to Remote Sensing Systems, “For Channel (TLT) (Lower Troposphere) and Channel (TMT) (Middle Troposphere), the anomaly time series is dominated by ENSO events and slow tropospheric warming. The three primary El Niños during the past 20 years are clearly evident as peaks in the time series occurring during 1982-83, 1987-88, and 1997-98, with the most recent one being the largest.” RSS

Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to show slow warming overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including several comparatively large El Niño events. Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication of a recent change in Earth’s Temperature that could cause “extreme weather” to become the “new normal.

Moving higher in the atmosphere, RSS Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been flat since 1987, with a trend of just -.008 K/C per decade. Perhaps this is the “new normal”?…

The 1997-98 and 2009 – 10 El Niño events are still readily apparent in the Troposphere / Stratosphere plot above, as is a spike from the 1991 eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. Note that the effect of Mt. Pinatubo is the opposite in the Lower and Middle Troposphere versus the Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS), i.e. “Large volcanic eruptions inject sulfur gases into the stratosphere; the gases convert into submicron particles (aerosol) with an e-folding time scale of about 1 year. The climate response to large eruptions (in historical times) lasts for several (2-3) years. The aerosol cloud causes cooling at the Earth’s surface, warming in stratosphere.”
Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University

It is interesting that, incorporating the impact of three significant surface driven warming events, Troposphere / Stratosphere Temperatures (TTS) have been quite stable, however there is a bit of regional variation here, e.g.:

RSS Northern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been increasing by .044 K/C per decade, whereas the RSS Southern Hemisphere Temperature Troposphere / Stratosphere (TTS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly- 1987 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

has been decreasing by -.061 K/C per decade. However, Southern Hemisphere Troposphere / Stratosphere Temperature does show a significant increase in 2012, perhaps it is this increase that caused “extreme weather” to arrive? Or maybe not…

Moving higher still in the atmosphere, the RSS Temperature Lower Stratosphere (TLS) – Brightness Temperature Anomaly – 1979 to Present;

Remote Sensing Systems (RSS) – Microwave Sounding Units (MSU) – Click the pic to view at source

“is dominated by stratospheric cooling, punctuated by dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS

The eruptions of El Chichon and Mt Pinatubo are readily apparent in the Apparent Atmospheric Transmission of Solar Radiation at Mauna Loa, Hawaii:

National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – Earth System Research Laboratory (ESRL) – Click the pic to view at source

“The stratosphere” … “in contrast to the troposphere, is heated, as the result of near infrared absorption of solar energy at the top of the aerosol cloud, and increased infra-red absorption of long-wave radiation from the Earth’s surface.”

“The stratospheric warming in the region of the stratospheric cloud increases the latitudinal temperature gradient after an eruption at low latitudes, disturbing the stratospheric-troposphere circulation, increasing the difference in height of the troposphere between high and low latitudes, and increasing the strength of the jet stream (polar vortex, especially in the northern hemisphere). This leads to warming during the northern hemisphere winter following a tropical eruption, and this warming effect tends to be larger than the cooling effect described above.” Ellen Thomas, PHD Wesleyan University

The Lower Stratosphere experienced “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).” RSS “The long-term, global-mean cooling of the lower stratosphere stems from two downward steps in temperature, both of which are coincident with the cessation of transient warming after the volcanic eruptions of El Chichon and Mt. Pinatubo.” … “Here we provide observational analyses that yield new insight into three key aspects of recent stratospheric climate change. First, we provide evidence that the unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures is dependent not only upon the trend but also on the temporal variability in global-mean ozone immediately following volcanic eruptions. Second, we argue that the warming/cooling pattern in global-mean temperatures following major volcanic eruptions is consistent with the competing radiative and chemical effects of volcanic eruptions on stratospheric temperature and ozone. Third, we reveal the contrasting latitudinal structures of recent stratospheric temperature and ozone trends are consistent with large-scale increases in the stratospheric overturning Brewer-Dobson circulation” David W. J. Thompson Colorado State University

Above the Stratosphere we have the Mesosphere and Thermosphere, neither of which have I identified current temperature time series for, but of note is that on “July 15, 2010″ “A Puzzling Collapse of Earth’s Upper Atmosphere” occurred when “high above Earth’s surface where the atmosphere meets space, a rarefied layer of gas called “the thermosphere” recently collapsed and now is rebounding again.”

“This is the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years,” says John Emmert of the Naval Research Lab, lead author of a paper announcing the finding in the June 19th issue of the Geophysical Research Letters (GRL). “It’s a Space Age record.”

The collapse happened during the deep solar minimum of 2008-2009—a fact which comes as little surprise to researchers. The thermosphere always cools and contracts when solar activity is low. In this case, however, the magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.

“Something is going on that we do not understand,” says Emmert.

The thermosphere ranges in altitude from 90 km to 600+ km. It is a realm of meteors, auroras and satellites, which skim through the thermosphere as they circle Earth. It is also where solar radiation makes first contact with our planet. The thermosphere intercepts extreme ultraviolet (EUV) photons from the sun before they can reach the ground. When solar activity is high, solar EUV warms the thermosphere, causing it to puff up like a marshmallow held over a camp fire. (This heating can raise temperatures as high as 1400 K—hence the name thermosphere.) When solar activity is low, the opposite happens.” NASA

In summary, Earth’s Lower and Middle Troposphere appear to have warmed slowly, overlaid with the El Niño/La Niña Southern Oscillation (ENSO) cycle, including four comparatively large El Niño events, and tempered by the cooling effects of the eruption of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991). Lower and Middle Tropospheric temperatures appear to have flattened since the large El Niño in 1998 and offer no indication of changes that could be causing “extreme weather”. Tropospheric / Stratospheric temperatures appear to have been influenced by at least three significant surface driven warming events, the 1997-98 El Niño, and the eruptions of El Chichon in 1982 and Mt Pinatubo in 1991, but have maintained a stable overall trajectory. Stratospheric temperatures appear to have experienced two “dramatic warming events caused by the eruptions of El Chichon (1982) and Mt Pinatubo (1991).”, and “unusual step-like behavior of global-mean stratospheric temperatures” which has resulted in a significant stratospheric cooling during the last 30 years. Lastly, “during deep solar minimum of 2008-2009″ “the biggest contraction of the thermosphere in at least 43 years” occurred and “The magnitude of the collapse was two to three times greater than low solar activity could explain.” Unless someone can demonstrate a causative relationship between “Climate Change”, the collapse of the thermosphere and “Extreme Weather”, there does not seem to be any support with the atmospheric temperature records for “extreme weather” arrival and “new normal” rhetoric.

Ocean Temperatures:

“The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Bureau of Meteorology

As such, changes in Ocean Heat Content are important in understanding “Earth’s Temperature”. Here is NOAA’s NODC Global Ocean Heat Content from 0-700 Meters – 1955 to Present;

National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) – National Oceanographic Data Center (NODC) – Click the pic to view at source

and here is the same from Ole Humlum’s valuable climate data site Climate4you.com, NODC Global Ocean Heat Content – 0-700 Meters – 1979 to Present:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

It seems apparent from the plots above that Global Ocean Heat has increased over the last several decades, however Global Ocean Heat does not appear to show a recent increase that could lead to “extreme weather”. Furthermore, in his recent article Bob Tisdale demonstrated that “sea surface temperatures for Sandy’s path haven’t warmed in 70+ years” WUWT.

Sea Level:

“Global sea level is currently rising as a result of both ocean thermal expansion and glacier melt, with each accounting for about half of the observed sea level rise, and each caused by recent increases in global mean temperature. For the period 1961-2003, the observed sea level rise due to thermal expansion was 0.42 millimeters per year and 0.69 millimeters per year due to total glacier melt (small glaciers, ice caps, ice sheets) (IPCC 2007). Between 1993 and 2003, the contribution to sea level rise increased for both sources to 1.60 millimeters per year and 1.19 millimeters per year respectively (IPCC 2007).” Source NSIDC

Global Mean Sea Level Change – 1993 to Present:

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Global Mean Sea Level Change Map with a “Correction” of 0.3 mm/year added May, 5th 2011, due to a “Glacial Isostatic Adjustment (GIA)” – 1993 to Present:

University of Colorado at Boulder – Click the pic to view at source

It seems doubtful that “extreme weather” arrived because of the 5.5 Centimeter increase in Sea Level since 1993. Sandy’s storm surge topped “out at 14 feet (4.3 meters)” Huffington Post, would Sandy have been less extreme if the surge had only been 4.245 meters?…

Snow and Ice:

A proxy often cited when measuring “Earth’s Temperature” is amount of Snow and Ice on Earth. According to the United States Geological Survey (USGS), “The vast majority, almost 90 percent, of Earth’s ice mass is in Antarctica, while the Greenland ice cap contains 10 percent of the total global ice mass.” Source USGA

However, there is currently no generally accepted measure of ice volume, as Cryosat is still in validation and the accuracy of measurements from Grace are still being challenged. Sea Ice Area and Extent are cited as proxies for “Earth’s Temperature”, however there is significant evidence that the primary influences on Sea Ice Area and Extent are in fact wind and Atmospheric Oscillations. With this said, here are

Global, Arctic & Antarctic Sea Ice Area from 1979 to Present;

climate4you.com – Ole Humlum – Professor, University of Oslo Department of Geosciences – Click the pic to view at source

Global Sea Ice Area Anomaly – 1979 to Present:

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area Anomaly, 1979 to Present;

Cryosphere Today – Arctic Climate Research at the University of Illinois – Click the pic to view at source

Arctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or greater

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – click to view at source

Antarctic Sea Ice Extent – 15% or Greater

National Snow & Ice Data Center (NSIDC) – Click the pic to view at source

There appears to have been a negative trend in Northern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent and a positive trend in Southern Hemisphere Sea Ice Area and Extent, thus the resultant Global Sea Ice Area trend appears to be slightly negative.

In terms of land based data, here is 20 Year Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover with 1995 – 2009 Climatology from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Snow Cover Anomalies 1966 – Present from NCEP/NCAR;

Florida State University – Department of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Science – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Winter Snow Extent – 1967 to Present from Rutgers University;

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Spring Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

 alt=

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

Northern Hemisphere Fall Snow Extent – 1967 to Present:

Rutgers University – Global Snow Lab (GSL) – Click the pic to view at source

While none of the Snow plots offers a global perspective, when looking at the Northern Hemisphere, there appears to have been a slight increase in Snowcover and Winter Snow Extent, a decrease in Spring Snow Extent and no change in Fall Snow Extent over the historical record.

Based on the limited Global Ice and Snow measurements available, and noting the questionable value of Sea Ice Area and Extent as a proxy for temperature, not much inference can currently be drawn from Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements. However, there does not appear to be any evidence of change in Earth’s Ice and Snow measurements indicative of the arrival of “Extreme Weather”.

Conclusion:

There is no evidence of a recent increase in “Earth’s Temperature” due to “Climate Change,” which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”. Claims and rhetoric that recent “Extreme Weather” is caused by or associated with “Climate Change” are not supported by the observational data.

Additional information on “Earth’s Temperature” can be found in the WUWT Reference Pages, including the Global Temperature Page and Global Climatic History Page

Please note that WUWT cannot vouch for the accuracy of the data/graphics within this article, nor influence the format or form of any of the graphics, as they are all linked from third party sources and WUWT is simply an aggregator. You can view each graphic at its source by simply clicking on it.

About these ads

125 thoughts on “A Big Picture Look At “Earth’s Temperature” – “Extreme Weather” Update

  1. The Earth being a pretty big place, the experts can always claim that some other part of the world is warmer, even while I’m sat here freezing my nuts off.

  2. It strikes me, as a Scientist, that a cooling climate is more likely to be a violent climate than a warming one is.
    An that’s just what we are seeing – climate shifts to a cooling climate.

  3. Now if we can somehow get all those unstable Climate Catastrophists to become regulars of WUWT, they’d have nothing to complain about. But since they like to complain, they most likely won’t come. It just doesn’t make sense.

  4. My understanding of the global warming concept is that the poles warm more than the tropics. It is also my understanding that more violent weather is associated in general with the differences in temperature among air masses in addition to pressure gradients and other factors. Since global warming would tend to reduce the temperature differences, it seems counterintuitive that global warming and extreme weather would go hand in hand.

  5. We act on behalf of the Global Warming Industry.

    Our client advises that this article is defamatory to its members and threatens to derail their gravy train.

    We demand this article is withdrawn and an immediate public apology published, including with it the statement that “only the interpretation of computer models by experts is relevant in climate science, while the use of actual facts and observations are a fallacious distraction and dangerously confusing to the general public.”

    Yours truly
    Philip Hansen-Mann
    Sue, Grabbit and Runne – Litigators for the Climate Establishment

  6. We must live in the best of all possible worlds, because in 1975 cooling was also anticipated to create more extreme weather.

    The principal weather change likely to accompany the cooling trend is increased variability — alternating extremes of temperature and precipitation in any given area — which would almost certainly lower average crop yields. The cause of this increased variability can best be seen by examining upper atmosphere wind patterns that accompany cooler climate. During warm periods a “zonal circulation” predominates, in which the prevailing westerly winds of the temperate zones are swept over long distances by a few powerful high and low pressure centers. The result is a more evenly distributed pattern of weather, varying relatively little from month to month or season to season. During cooler climatic periods, however, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.

  7. “He told the U.N. General Assembly on Friday that it is difficult to attribute any single storm to climate change, but the world already knows that “extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal.”

    If it’s so “difficult” to attribute any single storm to climate change, why are warmists so quick to do so? Are they promoting science or self-interest?

  8. The responce may well be, “Facts? We don’t need no stinkin’ facts.”

    However keep it up. The slow drip, drip, drip of facts, facts, facts is a sort of water torture, and eventually falsehood cracks.

  9. omnologos says:

    “There is no scientific definition of ‘extreme weather’. What are we talking about when nobody knows what we’re talking about?”

    This is just an end run around the climate Null Hypothesis, which has never been falsified. Every current weather event has happened throughout the Holocene, andHolocene parameters are not being exceeded now.

  10. “The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering the 1961–1990 period. However, many WMO members, including the UK, update their averages at the completion of each decade. Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/

    HadCRUT4 30 year trend peaked in December 2003, at 0.199c/decade since then it has been in a downward trend setting subsequent lower highs and lower lows and at September 2012 it now stands at 0.165c/decade a reduction of 17%.

    By the Met Office’s own chosen metrics the rate by which this planet is warming is reducing significantly.

    Without printing new absolute highs each month the 30 year WMO/Met Office “Gold Standard” rate can only continue to reduce.

  11. The IPCC says:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

    “Extreme weather event
    An extreme weather event is an event that is rare within its statistical reference distribution at a particular place. Definitions of �rare� vary, but an extreme weather event would normally be as rare as or rarer than the 10th or 90th percentile. By definition, the characteristics of what is called extreme weather may vary from place to place.
    An extreme climate event is an average of a number of weather events over a certain period of time, an average which is itself extreme (e.g. rainfall over a season).”

    Dr. John Christy says:
    “there will be numerous “extreme events” in every year”
    …. ….. …..
    “One could conclude, if they were so inclined, that the climate of the US is becoming less
    extreme because the occurrence of state extremes of hot and cold has diminished
    dramatically since 1955.”

    http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=66585975-a507-4d81-b750-def3ec74913d

  12. Largely all this fuss relative to climatic conditions, warmer or cooler, are essentially within the normal range of long term variability. Then we geologists and most non politicized/dogmatized earth scientists understand time and history. Something few others in the society seem to have any clue about. On the other hand we could be, just not sacrificing a sufficient number of our children to the apprpoiate god(s).

  13. Heresy, facts we don’t need no stinking facts…After changing the meme from catastrophic anthropogenic global warming to climate change then global climatic disruption now extreme weather..they are running out of time and space, each change has been more banal than that that went before it.
    Now we are back to huddling before the lightning praying to Zeus,Thor or the deity of your choice. And the crowd who see fear of the weather as a path to power are the same types who have always sought ways to live at the expense of the mob.
    Divining the future from the intestines of small furry animals I tell you the end is nigh, give me a chunk of your catch and I will pay off the gods for you.
    Maybe its time for human sacrifice again? Can’t find any virgins so we might have to substitute climate scientists/ scryers.

  14. “He told the U.N. General Assembly on Friday that it is difficult to attribute any single storm to climate change, but the world already knows that “extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal.”

    Well Kimbo, the world does not “know” that and just pretending that is the case will not make it so.

    If you want us all to chip in to your $100 BILLION PER YEAR slush fund with not accountability, vetting and free from any legal controls, you’d better come up with a new scare story. This one has done its time.

    (Not saying that the money could have coloured what you’re claiming of course).

  15. Note the negative trend in stratospheric temperature (punctuated by upward spikes from volcanoes). That’s a good place to look for a GHG signal as it isn’t as confounded as the surface by our very heterogeneous earth, multiple oscillations driven by god-knows-what, and by land use changes, and it is very consistent with a GHG effect. The point on surface warming is not “whether” but “how much”, which increasingly appears to be “not much” despite the surety of Kevin Trenberth.

    Solar-only proponents (and Dragon Slayers) have yet to explain the stratospheric cooling. I asked a prominent one (and one of the civil ones) about it and he admitted that he didn’t have an answer.

  16. Some more facts about RSS:
    With the RSS anomaly for October at 0.294, the average for the first ten months of the year is (-0.059 -0.122 + 0.072 + 0.331 + 0.232 + 0.338 + 0.291 + 0.255 + 0.383 + 0.294)/10 = 0.202. This would rank 11th if it stayed this way. 1998 was the warmest at 0.55. The highest ever monthly anomaly of 0.857 was reached in April of 1998.
    The slope of RSS is flat since January 1997 or 15 years, 10 months (goes to October)
    RSS is 190/204 or 93.1% of the way to Santer’s 17 years.

    See: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend

  17. micaelspj says:

    “Solar-only proponents (and Dragon Slayers) have yet to explain the stratospheric cooling.”

    I am neither of those. But if AGW exists — and it might — it’s effect is too minuscule to measure. There are no empirical measurements of AGW. There is global warming, which remains on the same long term trend line from the LIA. But since there has been no acceleration of warming despite a large increase in CO2, explain where the GHG signal is. Because there doesn’t seem to be one.

  18. If weather doesn’t benefit catastrophists, their gravy train, their desire for power and control, it’s not climate.

    If it does, it is.

    If a skeptic can be obliquely linked with an oil company, they are shills.

    If a believer gets funds directly from an oil company, they’re a hero.

    You know, if we had a press corps even half awake we would not have got this far. Not to mention the cliquish “identity scientists.”

  19. “We act on behalf of the Global Warming Industry”

    Very clever Peter. My favourite group of litigation lawyers is Hotch, Potch, and Balzup,

    Robert

  20. Well that’s a pretty good summary of the temperature records.

    Let’s look at this “conclusion”:
    Are we to believe that 3 or 4 tenths of a degree C warming over the last 30 years has brought us to the precipice of “extreme weather”?

    If you need to prove/disprove that extreme weather is or is not associated with higher temperatures the obvious thing to do is look at the frequency of extreme weather events in the past and correlate that with the long term historical temperature record. Just the facts has not done that. His conclusion is just wind.

    Recently some research has been published that looks at the frequency of storm surges as measured by tidal gauges. The historical record they cover is quite long. Ocean storms are one facet of extreme weather. Guess what the conclusions were!

  21. It has been determined that CO2 is the pollutant causing global warming by the EPA. No amount of facts will stop the EPA from killing the U.S. by skyrocketing the costs of energy. The ride will continue to be very painful until the economy has been bludgeoned to death by the CO2 driven, green inspired, government agenda.

  22. Anthony, your post took quite a bit of work, thanks! As I read it, I kept coming up with questions that you eventually answered. You tied it all together very effectively. Happy Weekend, Charles the DrPH

  23. As usual Lazy Teenager is a moron. Throughout the Holocene all current climate parameters have been repeatedly exceeded. Therefore, nothing unusual or unprecedented is happening now.

    The Null Hypothesis has never been falsified. Lazy probably has no clue about what that means.

  24. LazyTeenager says: November 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm (Edit)

    If you need to prove/disprove that extreme weather is or is not associated with higher temperatures the obvious thing to do is look at the frequency of extreme weather events in the past and correlate that with the long term historical temperature record. Just the facts has not done that. His conclusion is just wind.

    If there are no higher temperatures, then there’s nothing to associate extreme whether to. Why would there be more “Extreme Weather” now if “Global Temperature” is about the same it was 10 or 15 years ago?

    Recently some research has been published that looks at the frequency of storm surges as measured by tidal gauges. The historical record they cover is quite long. Ocean storms are one facet of extreme weather. Guess what the conclusions were!

    Guess is all we can do, because you didn’t provide any evidence to support your assertions. Post links to facts that demonstrate higher temperatures have arrived and caused “Extreme Weather”. We await your evidence with bated breath…

  25. The temperature of the planet does NOT have to increase for weather to become exacerbated by increases of energy input. In actual fact, if the temperature DID increase, the weather would change little, as most weather is driven by the variance between low and high temperatures experienced in the areas of generation.

    The truth is that the Earth’s atmosphere is NOT a closed system – the high temperature is regulated in the most part by gravity itself – and will expand with any actual global increase in heat input so as to maintain balance in the law of thermodynamics.

    You cannot have “extreme weather” and “global warming” at the same time.

    If the CO2 is indeed capturing more heat energy into the atmosphere, it will simply increase the aggression between high concentrations and low concentrations. Thus more speed to redistributing the CO2 to where it isn’t generated OR is consumed quicker.

    The atmosphere itself, outside of inversion layers, does not tolerate localized sudden heat increases. I do wonder just how much insulation and over-heat such inversion layers have caused in the UHI issue beyond the simple UHI effect from population and power consumption.

  26. LazyTeenager says:
    November 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    Well that’s a pretty good summary of the temperature records.

    His conclusion is just wind.

    Please, don’t denigrate “wind”–wind is the common denominator of all weather phenomena.

    Or had you forgotten?

  27. prjindigo;
    If the CO2 is indeed capturing more heat energy into the atmosphere, it will simply increase the aggression between high concentrations and low concentrations.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    There are two misunderstandings in the statement above.

    1. CO2 does not capture more heat energy into the atmosphere, at least not by an amount worth arguing about. The equilibrium blackbody temperature of earth is exactly the same after CO2 doubling as it is before. The increase in CO2 perturbs the system, but once it reaches equilibrium, an observer from space would see an earth with precisely the same temperature before and after. Not even the IPCC disputes this. What does happen (in theory, to date nobody has been able to measure this) is that the temperature gradient is altered from earth surface to top of atmosphere.

    2. Co2 capturing and re-radiating energy cannot increase the the differences between high and low concentrations. In fact, the most likely effect is to reduce the differences. There are multiple mechanisms to consider, but the most important is Stefan-Boltzmann law, which shows that the number of watts/m2 at equilibrium is equal to 5.67*10^-8*T^4. With T in degrees K being raised to the power of four, the temperature rise at high temps is less than the temp rise at low temps. For example, at -40C, an extra 3.7 w/m2 would raise temps by 1.3 degrees. But at plus 30C, that same 3.7 w/m2 would raise temps by only 0.6 degrees. In other words, colder regions would warm faster than hot regions, reducing the temperature difference between them.

  28. “The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Parliamentary Library
    This brings up a page 404 error. I would like to know the source, thanks.

  29. I still have little regard for data sets and graphs that begin around 1975–1980 (low point for global temps of a cool period).

  30. Keith Minto says: November 10, 2012 at 8:12 pm (Edit)

    “The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air.” Commonwealth of Australia – Parliamentary Library
    This brings up a page 404 error. I would like to know the source, thanks.

    Source: Bureau of Meteorology, The greenhouse effect and climate change, Bureau of Meteorology, 2003, p. 9.

    The oceans can hold much more heat than the atmosphere. Just the top 3.2 metres of ocean holds as much heat as all the world’s air. This large heat capacity acts to buffer temperature changes in the atmosphere, while ocean circulation redistributes heat around the globe and influences regional climates. Energy used in evaporation of water from the ocean also represents a major influence on the earth’s heat balance.

    http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/Browse_by_Topic/ClimateChange/whyClimate/naturalClimate/oceanAtmosphere

    Link and Source updated within the article, thank you.

  31. Our climate scientists are telling us that global warming of the order of 1 or 2 degrees per century is causing extreme weather events. However at home here, every day, we experience temperature changes of the order of 10 or 15 degrees without any sign of extreme weather events. In fact it is a beautiful, warm sunny day with a few light clouds drifting overhead. Surely this reality makes a mockery of climate science predictions.

    What has happened to science throughout the world that research institutes, universities, editors and reviewers produce papers and predictions that are on a par with that of any astrologer or tarot card reader? When are the taxpayers of the world going to wake up to the giant scam that is being perpetrated by the UN/IPCC to the great benefit of the associated bureaucrats who are using the same methods of pending doom to control the populace as did the high priests of ancient Egypt?

  32. I think Lazy has a point. Anthony only looked at one side of the issue, namely that there hasn’t been any warming in about 15 years, which makes the “global warming is producing more extreme weather” meme a lie. But what about the extreme weather part. Are we having more extreme weather now than we have had in the past?

    The peer reviewed research I have seen says ‘NO”! While damage amounts from severe weather have been increasing, this a function of having more stuff in harms way, not increasing events. The only thing trending up, as I recall, is a slight increase in heavy downpours.

    Lazy mentions something about tide gauges and implies that a study of tide records indicates increasing severe weather events. That is like measuring rainfall by examining the degradation of cow patties, when there is a perfectly good record from a nearby rain gauge. The latter is a legitimate measurement of the element in question, the former is just butts#@t.

    There has been no increase in temperature recently and there has been no increase in extreme weather events. The ‘new normal’ is just like the old normal. It is very normal.

    The hype, spin and just plan lying, however, are (exponentially) going off the charts!

  33. More “Extreme Warming” messaging:

    Sandy and the Rise of Extreme Weather, The New Yorker – November 1, 2012

    As Elizabeth Kolbert pointed out in a recent post, Sandy fits a general pattern both in North America, and around the world, toward more extreme weather—a pattern which can partly be attributed to climate change. According to a recent study by the insurance firm Munich Re, Kolbert writes, the number of weather-related disasters in North America has quintupled over the last three decades.

    The Munich Re report identifies global warming as one of the major culprits in the rise of extreme weather. The New Yorker has written several landmark articles on climate change and global warming over the years. In 1989, William McKibben wrote a sweeping piece, “The End of Nature,” about the impact of the greenhouse effect and the rise of extreme weather around the globe.

    Read more: http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/backissues/2012/11/sandy-and-the-rise-of-extreme-weather.html#ixzz2BtTpxUzJ

  34. I am holding in my hands a Natural History magazine from January of 1989 where on page 44 none other than Kevin E. Trenberth assures me that weather is not climate. It’s the ENSO, don’tcha know.

  35. Jim Clarke says: November 10, 2012 at 10:00 pm

    I think Lazy has a point. Anthony only looked at one side of the issue, namely that there hasn’t been any warming in about 15 years, which makes the “global warming is producing more extreme weather” meme a lie.

    Not Anthony, but yes, I only challenged “Extreme Weather” from the lack of warming perspective in the article.

    But what about the extreme weather part. Are we having more extreme weather now than we have had in the past?

    I haven’t found any evidence yet indicating more frequent or severe “Extreme Weather”.

    Hurricanes:
    “Dr. Ryan Maue releases new hurricane frequency data showing a negative trend in the last 30 years” WUWT – http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/01/dr-ryan-maue-releases-new-hurricane-frequency-data-showing-a-negative-trend-in-the-last-30-years/

    Tornadoes:
    “The bar chart below indicates there has been little trend in the frequency of the strongest tornadoes over the past 55 years” – NOAA – http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/severeweather/tornadoes.html

  36. justthefactswuwt at November 10, 2012 at 10:47 pm relates the study by the firm Munich Re about weather-related disasters. He fails to elaborate that Munich Re, as an insurance company, will experience a disaster when an event compromises their profits. This happens when personal and infrastructure damages are in excess of their predicted insurance claims and arises because there are now greater population numbers and man-made structures in the path of any weather event. By attributing the event to climate change they can try a weasel their way out of paying on claims via the old “act-of-God” clause.

    That brings us to the crux of the matter, namely, that the rapidly increasing human population is unsustainable under current economic, industrial and political conditions irregardless of what happens to the climate.

  37. LazyTeenager says:
    November 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm

    If you need to prove/disprove that extreme weather is or is not associated with higher temperatures the obvious thing to do is look at the frequency of extreme weather events in the past and correlate that with the long term historical temperature record. Just the facts has not done that. His conclusion is just wind.

    I am still wating to see proof of your assertion that rapid warming causes mass extinctions.

    Some of us are tracking your activity at WUWT and we noticed that you stopped posting for a while when we told you that it was rapid cooling what caused mass extinctions. We noticed your absence when we asked you to prove your assertion. Do not think we forget so easily.

    Anyway, it seems that you still do not understand that the ones who have to provide proof of a theory are the proponents of said theory, not the skeptics.

    I give you an easy example: Suppose you say that pigs can fly by flapping their ears. You cannot pretend that your assertion is true unless we prove you wrong. You are the one who has to proof what you are claiming, not the ones who do not believe what you are saying. You are the one who:
    a. Has to prove that pigs can fly.
    b. That they do so by flapping their ears. (to prove causation).

    The burden of the proof remains on the proponents of a theory, not on the skpetics.

    So far the only thing CAGW proponents have done to prove their theory is to change hadcrut from version 3 to 4 so the warmest year on record does not fall on last century. And even with the unexplained adjustments, temperatures do not follow the CAWG theory during this century.

  38. Jim Clarke says:
    November 10, 2012 at 10:00 pm
    I think Lazy has a point. Anthony only looked at one side of the issue,..

    It was not Anthony, it was “just the facts” (unless “just the facts” name is also Anthony.) :p

  39. Davidmhoffer says:

    I did not know this – do you have any references? – as it blows a huge hole in CAGW theory.

    1. CO2 does not capture more heat energy into the atmosphere, at least not by an amount worth arguing about. The equilibrium blackbody temperature of earth is exactly the same after CO2 doubling as it is before. The increase in CO2 perturbs the system, but once it reaches equilibrium, an observer from space would see an earth with precisely the same temperature before and after. Not even the IPCC disputes this. What does happen (in theory, to date nobody has been able to measure this) is that the temperature gradient is altered from earth surface to top of atmosphere.

    2. Co2 capturing and re-radiating energy cannot increase the the differences between high and low concentrations. In fact, the most likely effect is to reduce the differences. There are multiple mechanisms to consider, but the most important is Stefan-Boltzmann law, which shows that the number of watts/m2 at equilibrium is equal to 5.67*10^-8*T^4. With T in degrees K being raised to the power of four, the temperature rise at high temps is less than the temp rise at low temps. For example, at -40C, an extra 3.7 w/m2 would raise temps by 1.3 degrees. But at plus 30C, that same 3.7 w/m2 would raise temps by only 0.6 degrees. In other words, colder regions would warm faster than hot regions, reducing the temperature difference between them.

  40. Given history’s accounts of storms to consider Sandy the worst ever is very ignorant. Sandy failed the hurricane criteria at landfall and may not even be the storm with the largest area given our satellite data is only 33 years old. Your explanation is valid and thorough and shows no reason for the tabloid alarmism now being banded about.

  41. The idea that we’ve changed our climate is not new. Published in 1806, the book “The Climate of Great Britain: or Remarks on the Change it has Undergone, Particularly within the last Fifty Years.” John Williams, Esq., London ,1806.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=HsoCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+climate+of+great+britain&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ioifUIvfE9LW0gHQl4CAAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Within the text is a quote ” Hence while this change has been observed, the greater part of the observers have attributed it to that outrageously impious act of our legislature in the year 1752; for to change the style with them, is to alter the seasons”

    So there was a consensus that the climate changed over 50 years and it was due to an act of the legislature. Sound eerily familiar?

  42. Conclusion:

    There is no evidence of a recent increase in “Earth’s Temperature” due to “Climate Change,” which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”.

    Claims and rhetoric that recent “Extreme Weather” is caused by or associated with “Climate Change” are not supported by the observational data.

    That says nothing.

    There is evidence that the present (last ten years) global temperatures are on a high level in respect to temperatures thirty, hundred or four hundred years ago.

    Because weather is related to the global temperature it is not out of the question that the present greater heat power loading the Earth surface and atmosphere can have greater physical effects on the local weather.

    However, this does not mean that the present high level is man made.

    The claimed conclusion is a claim, but not an argument, because there is no reason argued.

    BTW. I have seen all the many graphs a hundred times. What do should tell me 30+ (copy/paste) graphs? I don’t know.

    . The term ‘climate’ is a social defined local term and says nothing; same with ‘climate change’.

    The causes of the heat power frequencies in the range of 100 ky to 0.1 year and its magnitudes to supply the terrestrial global temperatures are still unknown and not mentioned in all the data, neither explained.

    I think it would be great to explain the physical causes of heat power frequencies using one (or two) graph(s). It is evident that a spectrum of solar tide functions of 6, or 11, or 12 synodic couples can explain the terrestrial global temperature function.

    V.

  43. Needless to say, the real definition of Extreme is as follows:

    Extreme weather is weather that strikes Manhattan Island. Normal weather is weather that does not strike Manhattan Island.

    Thus the 1938 hurricane, of very similar size to Superstorm Snooki, was Normal Weather because it only hit a glancing blow to Manhattan Island. Agnes, also of similar size, was Normal Weather because it missed Manhattan Island. Superstorm Snooki is Extreme because it hit Manhattan Island hard.

  44. HaroldW says:
    November 10, 2012 at 12:02 pm

    We must live in the best of all possible worlds, because in 1975 cooling was also anticipated to create more extreme weather.

    …..The cause of this increased variability can best be seen by examining upper atmosphere wind patterns that accompany cooler climate. During warm periods a “zonal circulation” predominates, in which the prevailing westerly winds of the temperate zones are swept over long distances by a few powerful high and low pressure centers. The result is a more evenly distributed pattern of weather, varying relatively little from month to month or season to season. During cooler climatic periods, however, the high-altitude winds are broken up into irregular cells by weaker and more plentiful pressure centers, causing formation of a “meridional circulation” pattern. These small, weak cells may stagnate over vast areas for many months, bringing unseasonably cold weather on one side and unseasonably warm weather on the other. Droughts and floods become more frequent and may alternate season to season, as they did last year in India. Thus, while the hemisphere as a whole is cooler, individual areas may alternately break temperature and precipitation records at both extremes.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I am repeating that because it is close to reality and written by climate scientists before they were corrupted. It is also what we see happening today and for the last few years.

    I have check the weather at Wunderground just about every day for close to twenty years. This includes the Jet stream which came straight from the Rockies to the Appalachian Mountains until a few years ago. As their animated graph shows the jets are in a “meridional circulation” pattern and have been for the last few years. This explains the Russian Drought, Pakistan Floods, US Midwest Drought and Sandy.

    As is shown in this media spin piece the Climastrologists know darn well the Weird Weather is from the changes in the Jet stream but they are not about to fess-up and tell us this indicates the earth is going into a cooling cycle. Russian Drought, Pakistan Floods, Chinese Landslides All Linked To Bizarre Jet Stream Change Mon, 09 Aug 2010 17:45 CDT and for this year Europe Heat Wave Wilting Corn Adds to U.S. Drought Jul 24, 2012 1:32 PM GMT… The jet stream moved north over the U.S. and Canada and south under Europe… NOAA even links the change in the Jets to ENSO

    State of the Climate Synoptic Discussion, August 2012, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Climatic Data Center

    Note: This Synoptic Discussion describes recent weather events and climate anomalies in relation to the phenomena that cause the weather. These phenomena include the jet stream, fronts and low pressure systems that bring precipitation, high pressure systems that bring dry weather, and the mechanisms which control these features — such as El Niño, La Niña, and other oceanic and atmospheric drivers (PNA, NAO, AO, and others).

    But that does not stop climate scientist, Thomas Karl from the same organization, from pinning the blame on humans when interviewed by a reporter.

    Drought Puts Modified Corn Seed to the Test

    Technology Review asked a prominent climate scientist, Thomas Karl, director of the National Climatic Data Center in Asheville, North Carolina, to weigh in.

    1. What’s causing the recent heat waves and droughts?

    This heat wave has a contribution from human activities, and you can expect these kinds of things to become even more extreme during both your and my lifetimes as we continue to increase greenhouse gases. As temperatures warm, they affect extreme weather events. It’s quite clear that we’re seeing, not only here in the U.S., but across the globe, events that we’ve never before witnessed in our instrumental record, and it’s quite apparent there’s a human contribution.

    2. The connection between global warming and heat waves is obvious. What’s the connection between increased temperatures and drought?

    In the drought in Texas last year, the extra heat evaporated more water, and that then made the drought more intense, so there was a bit of a feedback effect. But also, there are changes in the patterns of precipitation. If you’re in the subtropics, those are areas that are going to get drier as subtropical weather systems move north in response to warmer temperatures, and the jet streams move north.

    You actually see more precipitation in the mid and high latitudes like Canada and the northern U.S. border, less precipitation in the southwestern U.S. and along the subtropics. You’re seeing a whole shift in the atmospheric circulation system. But the models aren’t as clear in terms of precipitation as they are for temperature. I suspect it will be really difficult to show how much these changing patterns contributed to the drought in the Midwest this year.

    3. Climate scientists have been reluctant to make connections between specific weather events and climate change. But a recent study on the Texas heat wave from your organization suggested it was 20 times more likely. Why are scientists making more specific claims now?

    People latch on to statements like the heat wave was 20 times more likely. But there were caveats in the study. The important statement there is that the heat wave was stronger than it otherwise would have been were it not for the burning of fossil fuels and the increase in greenhouse gases.

    These studies are possible today because you have faster computing. You couldn’t do this five to 10 years ago. You need to run models numerous times to get the right number of samples. Also, the data are much more easily available now. And, quite frankly, the signal, the climate signal from greenhouse gases and human activities, continues to get stronger. When the levels of greenhouse gas are higher, it becomes easier to say that certain kinds of events are going to be more intense.

  45. omnologos says:
    November 10, 2012 at 12:12 pm

    There is no scientific definition of “extreme weather”. What are we talking about when nobody knows what we’re talking about?
    ____________________________________
    Actually you get “extreme weather” or stuff you can call “extreme weather” when the Jet Stream changes from polar (straight) to a meridional circulation pattern (loopy and wandering all over the place) A loopy jet means the weather is not as consistent.

    When the Jets were polar I could look at the weather map and predict what weather we were going to get with decent accuracy. Witt a loopy Jet I have to look at the Jet stream and GUESS. (I was correct when I told my Saturday and Sunday customers to forget Sandy it would not hit mid North Carolina because of the jets and only one canceled )

    I have also noticed the weather forecasts lately have been off more often for the exact same reason, loopy jets. It is a real pain when your business depends on the weather and the accuracy of the weather forecasts.

  46. So we can conclude that the only significant warming is by hot air leaving activists’ mouths and the only extreme thing resulting from it is the height of the heap of bullshit they are stacking. This, however, is the new normal since the media is either complicit or out to lunch instead of calling them on the whole thing.

  47. David L says:
    November 11, 2012 at 3:23 am
    The idea that we’ve changed our climate is not new. Published in 1806, the book “The Climate of Great Britain: or Remarks on the Change it has Undergone, Particularly within the last Fifty Years.” John Williams, Esq., London ,1806.

    http://books.google.com/books?id=HsoCAAAAYAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=The+climate+of+great+britain&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ioifUIvfE9LW0gHQl4CAAw&ved=0CD0Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false

    Within the text is a quote ” Hence while this change has been observed, the greater part of the observers have attributed it to that outrageously impious act of our legislature in the year 1752; for to change the style with them, is to alter the seasons”

    So there was a consensus that the climate changed over 50 years and it was due to an act of the legislature. Sound eerily familiar?

    It referred to the change in Britain from the Julian to the (Pope) Gregorian calendar, which the Catholic countries of Europe had done much earlier. “Impious” probably alluded to following a Catholic standard.

  48. The entire global warming scenario consists of assuming a desired answer and going to any extreme and dishonest convolutions to try and prove the answer correct completely disregarding and bastardizing science along the way.

  49. Green Sand says:
    November 10, 2012 at 1:54 pm

    “The World Meteorological Organization (WMO) requires the calculation of averages for consecutive periods of 30 years, with the latest covering the 1961–1990 period. However, many WMO members, including the UK, update their averages at the completion of each decade. Thirty years was chosen as a period long enough to eliminate year-to-year variations.”

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/averages/

    <

    blockquote>
    John West says: @ November 10, 2012 at 1:58 pm

    The IPCC says:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/518.htm

    “Extreme weather event
    An extreme weather event is an event that is rare within its statistical reference distribution at a particular place….

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    And there you have the complete basis for the “BIG LIE” It is all in the definitions. The earth went into a warming trend after the 1970’s so that gives us a very nice 30 years of warming (Polar Jets) to use as the statistical basis for ‘Normal’ but it is NOT normal for a meridional circulation pattern.

    We got “extreme weather events” in the late 1960’s early 1970’s in New York. Hurricanes, blizzards and weather so cold I got frostbite. Blazing hot summers with temperatures over 100F. I remember because I rode most days and it was too cold some winter afternoons to take the blankets off the horse (-30F and below) and so hot some summer days the horses broke out in stall sweat (~ 100F and above) and we spent our riding lessons hand walking the horses in the shade while getting a lecture on horse care. When you are horse mad little girl these type of events stick in your mind and so do the temperature at which the adults make their decisions.

    Climastrologist are banking on the fact that those over 40 years of age have fuzzy memories or live in a different area and those under 40 are sufficiently brainwashed.

  50. michaelspj says:
    November 10, 2012 at 2:35 pm
    ….Solar-only proponents (and Dragon Slayers) have yet to explain the stratospheric cooling. I asked a prominent one (and one of the civil ones) about it and he admitted that he didn’t have an answer.
    ________________________________
    If there was only one factor controlling climate we would have figured it out by now. The fact that we have not indicates climate is controlled by a lot of confounding factors. Changes in the sun energy as it falls on the earth is only one of those factors. Water in all its forms is another biggie as is the configuration of the continents and the geomagnetic field. (Without a magnetic field the earth could not deflect harmful energy and it does change The Gothenburg Magnetic Excursion )

    With Climastrologists focused on CO2 as the quickest way to extract cash from taxpayer pockets investigation into the real causes of ‘climate change’ has been ignored or actively blocked.

  51. Here is a stooopid question that I can not seem to find an answer to:

    Once the CO2 molecule absorbs energy – what happens? I mean like really does it warm up and stay warm? Or, does it warm up then release energy to cool off? If it cools off and releases energy and warms the surrounding molecules, how much ‘extra’ energy can they absorb before they start to cool. Space is very cold and devoid of energy so the thermo has to kick in sometime. And if that is the path of energy what happens to that energy? What happens if there is more IR radiation available then CO2 molecules?

    Is there a limit to how much the atmosphere can absorb? Is there a physical limit to the distance from the earth’s surface at which IR energy becomes ineffective? Is all IR energy available for absorption by GHGs even absorbed?

    IS all energy the same? Or, is the energy there and be accounted for, but it just does not have any effect on the temperature?

    It just seems to me that the energy pathway for the IR to CO2 to atmosphere is talked about alot yet I fail to find anything real explanation of the pathways.

    Tanx!

  52. michaelspj says: November 10, 2012 at 2:35 pm
    The point on surface warming is not “whether” but “how much”, which increasingly appears to be “not much” despite the surety of Kevin Trenberth….
    ____________________________
    Unfortunately since you are close to my age you may not live long enough to eat those words but your grandkids will. As this paleotemperature graph above shows the Holocene has been very steady in temperature. However it also shows we are towards the end of the Holocene and even if the TSI from the sun is constant as Dr. Leif Svalgaard keeps insisting, the amount falling on the earth is not as Milankovitch has shown and Gerard Roe has recently reminded us. link Here is the graph showing we are at about the bottom of the decrease in ice.

    Lesson from the past: present insolation minimum holds potential for glacial inception

    …Because the intensities of the 397 ka BP and present insolation minima are very similar, we conclude that under natural boundary conditions the present insolation minimum holds the potential to terminate the Holocene interglacial. Our findings support the Ruddiman hypothesis [Ruddiman, W., 2003. The Anthropogenic Greenhouse Era began thousands of years ago. Climate Change 61, 261–293], which proposes that early anthropogenic greenhouse gas emission prevented the inception of a glacial that would otherwise already have started….”

    Another paper:

    Temperature and precipitation history of the Arctic

    ….Solar energy reached a summer maximum (9% higher than at present) ca 11 ka ago and has been decreasing since then, primarily in response to the precession of the equinoxes. The extra energy elevated early Holocene summer temperatures throughout the Arctic 1-3° C above 20th century averages, enough to completely melt many small glaciers throughout the Arctic, although the Greenland Ice Sheet was only slightly smaller than at present… As summer solar energy decreased in the second half of the Holocene, glaciers reestablished or advanced, sea ice expanded, and the flow of warm Atlantic water into the Arctic Ocean diminished. Late Holocene cooling reached its nadir during the Little Ice Age (about 1250-1850 AD), when sun-blocking volcanic eruptions and perhaps other causes added to the orbital cooling, allowing most Arctic glaciers to reach their maximum Holocene extent…

    According to NASA and the Solar Dynamics Observatory Mission News

    We want to compare the sun’s brightness now to its brightness during previous minima and ask: is the sun getting brighter or dimmer?”

    The answer seems to be dimmer. Measurements by a variety of spacecraft indicate a 12-year lessening of the sun’s “irradiance” by about 0.02% at visible wavelengths and 6% at EUV wavelengths.”

    The Greenland ice core paleotemperature graph (10,000 yrs) and the Vostok ice core paleotemperature graph (10,000 yrs) both show a gradual cooling.

    As Dennis Nikols said @ November 10, 2012 at 2:03 pm, geologists and most non politicized/dogmatized earth scientists understand time and history.

    So yes we had a minor excursion up in the historic temperature record but the general trend is DOWN in the geologic record.

  53. Merovign says:
    November 10, 2012 at 3:09 pm

    ….You know, if we had a press corps even half awake we would not have got this far. Not to mention the cliquish “identity scientists.”
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The Media was subject to a massive propaganda campaign. Just do a search on the words [“Communicating Climate Change” 2006] and see how many conferences there were to which the press was invited.

    The fact we are seen as being a ["well-funded, professional climate deniers"] is utterly laughable but that is the belief being pushed…. Interesting when you start typing [climate deniers] in Google the first thing to pop-up to finish the phrase is [climate deniers mentally ill] SHEESH

  54. The despots of the world have used propaganda, misdirection, and a well spoken puppet whose name currently escapes my lips, but will be up against a formidable opponent next week, to feed the sheep of the world. What these despots ultimate goal is well only they know and what ever it is, it will not bode well for humanity.

  55. Robert says:
    November 10, 2012 at 3:49 pm

    “We act on behalf of the Global Warming Industry”

    Very clever Peter. My favourite group of litigation lawyers is Hotch, Potch, and Balzup,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    I always likes Dewey, Cheatham and Howe.

  56. Box of Rocks:

    At November 11, 2012 at 5:47 am you ask

    Here is a stooopid question that I can not seem to find an answer to:

    Once the CO2 molecule absorbs energy – what happens? I mean like really does it warm up and stay warm? Or, does it warm up then release energy to cool off? If it cools off and releases energy and warms the surrounding molecules, how much ‘extra’ energy can they absorb before they start to cool. Space is very cold and devoid of energy so the thermo has to kick in sometime. And if that is the path of energy what happens to that energy? What happens if there is more IR radiation available then CO2 molecules?

    Is there a limit to how much the atmosphere can absorb? Is there a physical limit to the distance from the earth’s surface at which IR energy becomes ineffective? Is all IR energy available for absorption by GHGs even absorbed?

    IS all energy the same? Or, is the energy there and be accounted for, but it just does not have any effect on the temperature?

    It just seems to me that the energy pathway for the IR to CO2 to atmosphere is talked about alot yet I fail to find anything real explanation of the pathways.

    Your questions are not “stooopid” and others may be interested so I write to provide brief answers to the vast subject which you raise. I take your questions in turn.

    Once the CO2 molecule absorbs energy – what happens?
    I am assuming you are asking about an atmospheric CO2 molecule absorbing the energy of an IR photon. In that case, the molecule is raised to a higher energy state; i.e. a ‘bending’ vibration state or a rotational state.

    I mean like really does it warm up and stay warm?
    It does not change its kinetic energy so it does not warm: it obtains a higher vibrational or rotational energy state and is said to be “excited”. (The temperature of a gas is the average kinetic energy of its molecules.)

    Or, does it warm up then release energy to cool off?
    The excited molecule usually releases a photon (in a random direction) to lose its excitation (i.e. its vibrational or rotational) energy. This loss of energy returns it to its ground state (i.e. returns it to its not excited state). However, it may be returned to its ground state by collision with another molecule. There is a period of time between its absorbtion of a photon and its release of another photon, and it may collide with another molecule during that time. It may transfer its excitation energy to the other molecule and thus return to its ground state.

    If it cools off and releases energy and warms the surrounding molecules, how much ‘extra’ energy can they absorb before they start to cool.
    Your question is not clear to me so I will answer what I think you are asking.
    Most molecules in the atmosphere are nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2). Hence, a CO2 molecule which collides with another molecule is very likely to collide with an N2 or O2 molecule. And N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases so (simplistically) they do not absorb IR photons and do not have excitation states. Therefore, a CO2 molecule which returns to its ground state by collision with an N2 or O2 molecule adds kinetic energy to the N2 or O2 molecule and, thus, warms the atmosphere. Additionally, it should be noted that a CO2 molecule (or any other greenhouse gas molecule) can accept energy from a collision and, thus, become excited without absorbing a photon. However, (again, simplistically) only greenhouse gas molecules absorb IR photons and, therefore, on average the greenhouse gas molecules will have more energy than N2 or O2 molecules so the net effect of collisions is to warm the N2 and O2 molecules.

    Space is very cold and devoid of energy so the thermo has to kick in sometime. And if that is the path of energy what happens to that energy?
    The only way significant amounts of energy can be lost to space is by radiation. Photons are quanta of radiation. Photons from CO2 molecules are released in all directions so about half will be released towards space. If not absorbed in the atmosphere then they escape to space.

    What happens if there is more IR radiation available then CO2 molecules?
    CO2 molecules in the atmosphere only absorb IR in two narrow wave bands around 15 microns and 4 microns. Almost all is absorbed in the 15 micron band. Water vapour (H2O) absorbs across all the IR spectrum including over the bands which CO2 absorbs. Hence, almost all the IR which CO2 can absorb in the atmosphere is absorbed, and this is why additional atmospheric CO2 has no discernible effect on the absorbtion: it is not possible to absorb more than all. Additional atmospheric CO2 induces some band broadening which enables the small additional IR absorbtion (i.e. additional greenhouse effect) of additional CO2.

    I think the above answers include answers to your other questions. If not – or if my answers are not clear – then please get back to me.

    I hope this helps.

    Richard

  57. “What has happened to science throughout the world that research institutes, universities, editors and reviewers produce papers and predictions that are on a par with that of any astrologer or tarot card reader? When are the taxpayers of the world going to wake up to the giant scam that is being perpetrated by the UN/IPCC to the great benefit of the associated bureaucrats who are using the same methods of pending doom to control the populace as did the high priests of ancient Egypt?”

    Yup ALL real science will suffer for these charlatans. A taste of the dark ages is soon to come.

  58. As I was writing about this topic in another post on another site, a quip went through my mind for a one line zinger: “The most common sound heard within the empty crania of Global Warmists is the “whooosh” of facts rocketing straight over their heads.” Yeah, Lazy, I’m talkin’ about you…

  59. Peter Miller says:
    November 11, 2012 at 2:31 am
    Davidmhoffer says:
    I did not know this – do you have any references? – as it blows a huge hole in CAGW theory.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>

    My explanation is just basic physics. Look up Stefan-Boltzmann Law in any physics text book or even in sketchy information resources such as wikipedia.

    This doesn’t blow the hole in CAGW theory per se. It is part of the physics that the IPCC accepts. But the manner in which the science is represented by them is rather confusing.

  60. Wow. I guess the 10s of millions of people who died from natural disaster but less “extreme weather” last century before the co2 onslaught would have been much higher if the “extreme weather” we are having now had struck them. I mean just think of the flood that killed 10 million people last century strikes china again this year? What about the droughts that killed millions in Africa last century happen now? Or the hurricanes that killed millions. Jeesh these storms today are so much worse than what people had to deal with in the calm weather of the past. I wonder where these terms like tropical cyclone even came about before global warming because I have the impression that weather in the past was this bucolic lovely thing that was never extreme. Just one lovely day to the next until co2 came into the picture.

  61. This is a very poorly reasoned post, certainly by WUWT standards. Looking at a graph and saying “it doesn’t look like” there’s extreme weather is completely unscientific. I’ve come to expect better from here.

  62. Peter Miller;
    Suggest also that you read richardscourtney’s explanation at 8:18AM.

    Stefan-Boltzmann Law describes the behaviour of the system as a whole. Since the amount of energy that the earth system as a whole absorbs from the Sun is unchanged by the increase in CO2, then for energy to balance, the amount of energy radiated from the earth system as a whole to space also doesn’t change. What does change is the path any given photon takes from earth surface to space.

    richardscourtney’s summarizes this nicely. I think he left out one issue. At sea level in the tropics, water vapour may be as much as 40,000 ppm while CO2 is only 400 ppm. So Richard is quite correct to point out that water vapour’s absorption spectrum not only overlaps CO2’s, but given the relative concentrations, makes CO2 a rounding error.

    That said, when we consider higher elevations, things change. At 14,000 feet, even above the tropics, temperatures are more like -20C. Air that cold can hold a few hundred ppm of H2O at most, so at higher elevations, the effects of CO2 absorbing and re-radiating photons rises to a significant percentage in comparison to water vapour. Similarly, high latitudes are cold at any elevation, and hence have little water vapour at any elevation, so CO2’s effects are more pronounced.

    All of the above however doesn’t take into account secondary processes. If CO2 intercepts some photons at elevation, re-radiating them so some of them escape to space from a different elevation than they otherwise would have, plus xferring some energy to non-radiating gases such as N2, then there must be follow on effects in terms of changes to convection and so on also. Figuring out those is above my pay grade.

  63. richardscourtney says:
    November 11, 2012 at 8:18 am


    Once the CO2 molecule absorbs energy – what happens?
    I am assuming you are asking about an atmospheric CO2 molecule absorbing the energy of an IR photon. In that case, the molecule is raised to a higher energy state; i.e. a ‘bending’ vibration state or a rotational state.

    I mean like really does it warm up and stay warm?
    It does not change its kinetic energy so it does not warm: it obtains a higher vibrational or rotational energy state and is said to be “excited”. (The temperature of a gas is the average kinetic energy of its molecules.)

    Yes, I am wondering about atmospheric CO2.

    And no, it make no sense. To me, you have described what “happens” i.e. the physics of how how,

    So what you are saying that when a N2 molecule collides with a CO2 molecule energy is transferred.

    How? How much? is 100% of the ‘excess’ energy transferred all the time or is just some (that varies) transferred some of the time? Is there a mathematical model that one could use to model the system and track the energy?

    How does one define the energy of a molecule. It has to be more than just KE = 1/2MV^2, right?

  64. A history of earth’s extreme weather can be found at:

    http://books.google.com/books?id=RaFcPgAACAAJ&dq=a+general+chronological+history+of+the+air&hl=en&sa=X&ei=f-SfUKuwOePC0QHx14CIAQ&ved=0CDMQ6AEwAQ

    Here’s an interesting entry:

    “Was an exessive hot and droughty summer in England, etc. Navigable rivers were so dried up in many places that they might be walked over on foot. Fountains and wells in France were so dried that many laborers died of thirst. From the excessive heat, many towns took fire, and were totally burnt down, as Moguntia, Spira, Glossaria, all the same day. Trithem. Chr. Saxon. Vincent. Martin. Polonus.
    From this drought and the inexpressible cruelties and barbarities of King Stephen’s reign, arose a great dearth and famine in England.” Year 1137.

    This book (in 2 volumes) is filled with weather and earthquake calamaties starting in Biblical times and ending in the 18th century.

  65. Volker Doormann says: November 11, 2012 at 4:03 am

    “Conclusion:

    There is no evidence of a recent increase in “Earth’s Temperature” due to “Climate Change,” which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”.

    Claims and rhetoric that recent “Extreme Weather” is caused by or associated with “Climate Change” are not supported by the observational data.”

    That says nothing.

    Ummm, it clearly say something. You may disagree with it and you may ignore it, but it is still there…

    There is evidence that the present (last ten years) global temperatures are on a high level in respect to temperatures thirty, hundred or four hundred years ago.

    Are you arguing that “Extreme Weather” kicked in “thirty, hundred or four hundred years ago” and we are just noticing it now?

    Because weather is related to the global temperature it is not out of the question that the present greater heat power loading the Earth surface and atmosphere can have greater physical effects on the local weather.

    It is also not out of the question that aliens will land on Earth today, but until someone presents some compelling evidence to support either possibility, the prudent course of action is to assume that both are not true.

    The claimed conclusion is a claim, but not an argument, because there is no reason argued.

    That’s completely incoherent…

    BTW. I have seen all the many graphs a hundred times. What do should tell me 30+ (copy/paste) graphs? I don’t know.

    The graphs of current observational data are provided for the edification of our readers. If you do not find benefit in keeping apprised of current climatic conditions, I would recommend Skeptical Science, Climate Progress or Real Climate…

  66. Mughal says:
    November 11, 2012 at 9:45 am
    This is a very poorly reasoned post, certainly by WUWT standards. Looking at a graph and saying “it doesn’t look like” there’s extreme weather is completely unscientific. I’ve come to expect better from here.

    Extreme weather itself is not scientific either, me thinks. How do you measure extreme? Where is the cut?

  67. Scott Supak (@ssupak) says: November 11, 2012 at 7:20 am

    What a shame that people like Justthefactswuwt don’t go to Intrade and take the warmists’ money by betting on these things… I hear there are some really smug liberals there who refuse to face “the facts” as you have laid them out here!

    https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20

    Seem like suckers bets to me, Earth’s climate system is ridiculously complex and we have a rudimentary understanding of it:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/02/19/crowdsourced-climate-complexity-compiling-the-wuwt-potential-climatic-variables-reference-page/

    “Earth’s Temperature” could increase, could decrease or could stay the same. “Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future.” – Niels Bohr

  68. Mughal says: November 11, 2012 at 9:45 am

    This is a very poorly reasoned post, certainly by WUWT standards. Looking at a graph and saying “it doesn’t look like” there’s extreme weather is completely unscientific. I’ve come to expect better from here.

    Perhaps if you read the article you might have a different opinion… BTW, ‘“it doesn’t look like” there’s extreme weather’, doesn’t appear anywhere in the article. Building ‘em straw-men and then knocking ‘em down, very impressive…

  69. Don’t see how intelligent people can consider global temperature an important issue with the world winding down to the end. (this should be obvious to everybody with common sense)

  70. Mughal says:
    November 11, 2012 at 9:45 am

    This is a very poorly reasoned post, certainly by WUWT standards. Looking at a graph and saying “it doesn’t look like” there’s extreme weather is completely unscientific. I’ve come to expect better from here.
    ———–
    I have seen this wording a number of times here on different threads. Another is “I thought this is a science blog”. Are these limp insults cut and paste from a climatist WUWT troll resource manual? They seem to be written by the same person. Are the true believers required to bear witness before the sinners one day per month like JW’s? Lazy was on duty yesterday.
    (I do respect freedom of religion. Warmies not so much.)

  71. I red the book STATE OF FEAR of MICHAEL CRICHTON in 2005. Yes it is a sciencefiction book, but so is GLOBAL WARMING.
    “No, a rise of the global temperature of 2 or 5 degrees in 100 years will not convince people” said the marketing consultant to Greenpeace. “You must use the EXTREME WEATHER EVENTS, these happen every year and people have a bad memory . That will convince the market”.
    So they did, especially now the temperature does not rise ar all.

  72. So have there been more extreme weather events in recent years than historically? It doesn’t seem so to me, but this paper did not appear to mention anything about this.

  73. RichardSCourtney gives a detailed explanation in this post explaining how there may be slight net warming of oxygen and nitrogen molecules resulting from prior absorption of IR by carbon dioxide molecules. Clearly he agrees that the effect is only slight.

    But what then happens to the additional kinetic energy in the oxygen and nitrogen molecules? Well, firstly, assuming they are cooler than the surface below, the thermal energy cannot be transferred back to the surface by non-radiative processes. One way or another it must eventually escape to space.

    But why to space? Don’t the energy diagrams show (more than) half being returned to the warmer surface by radiation? This is where the biggest misunderstand occurs. Radiation from a cooler source can do one and only one thing when it strikes a warmer surface. It slows the rate of that portion of surface cooling which is due to radiation. It does not do this by transferring heat to the surface. Because there is no heat transfer, there can be no slowing of non-radiative cooling processes. In fact, these processes can and do accelerate to compensate for the slower radiative cooling. What happens is that the energy in the radiation from the cooler atmosphere can only be used to supply equivalent energy to the surface which can only be used for the purpose of creating equivalent upwelling radiation with the same frequencies and intensities. This energy is thus used by the surface (instead of some of its own thermal energy) to meet some of its Planck “quota” of radiation. Its own Planck curve always fully contains the Planck curve of the radiation from the cooler atmosphere. But the radiation corresponding to the area above the ccoler Planck curve, but under the warmer one will transfer heat. This is an empirically confirmed result, demonstrated over and over again. The area between the Planck curves represents the one-way heat transfer from the warmer body to the cooler one. There is no physical heat transfer the other way. The radiation from the cooler body is immediately re-radiated without any of its electro-magnetic energy ever being converted to thermal energy in the target.

    Hence most of the observed (or calculated) upwelling radiation from the surface is not actually transferring heat from the surface. Rather it is merely sending back the energy that was in the backradiation. The whole process is very-similar energy-wise to diffuse reflection.

    What then are the consequences of this discussion? Well, firstly the heat that is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere is mostly transferred by non-radiative physical processes such as molecular collisions which may be called conduction or diffusion. Using K-T energy diagrams, and remembering that that the amount of backradiation should be deducted from the upwelling radiation from the surface (because this amount is not transferring energy from the surface) then we can calculate that less than 15% of all energy transferring from the surface to the atmosphere does so by radiation.

    Now we start to see the role of carbon dioxide in perspective. For a start it probably has less than 1% the effect of all the water vapor which radiates with far more spectral lines and thus slows radiative cooling much more effectively. (Yes, low clouds do slow radiative cooling noticeably, but that doesn’t mean carbon dioxide’s effect will be noticeable.)

    But, more importantly, the non-radiative cooling processes significantly dominate the actual transfer of energy from the surface to the atmosphere. Any slowing of radiative cooling will leave a bigger temperature “step down” between the surface and the adjoining air. So non-radiative cooling processes will simply accelerate (as physics tells us) and have a compensating effect. So there will be absolutely no net overall effect on surface cooling. That is reality.

  74. Box of Rocks:

    Thankyou for your comment at November 11, 2012 at 9:55 am in reply to the explanations I tried to provide for you at November 11, 2012 at 8:18 am.

    I apologise that my explanation “make no sense”. It was the best I could do to provide a simple explanation in words the quantum effects.

    I think the problem may be that you are asking about interaction of IR with an individual CO2 molecule. At least, that is the impression I gain from the question in your comment which asks me

    How does one define the energy of a molecule. It has to be more than just KE = 1/2MV^2, right?

    Your equation is for the kinetic energy of a molecule which – as I explained – is not altered by absorbtion of a photon. As I said, the absorbtion raises the molecule to a higher energy state.

    If my impression is correct then you may obtain the understanding you want from consideration of the bulk effects of IR absorbtion. As it happens,
    davidmhoffer has outlined those issues in this thread in his posts at
    November 10, 2012 at 7:08 pm,
    November 11, 2012 at 8:47 am and
    November 11, 2012 at 9:49 am.

    Please read his posts and see if that helps. And please understand that I am trying to help.

    Richard

  75. justthefactswuwt says:
    November 10, 2012 at 4:52 pm
    LazyTeenager says: November 10, 2012 at 4:30 pm (Edit)
    “Recently some research has been published that looks at the frequency of storm surges as measured by tidal gauges. The historical record they cover is quite long. Ocean storms are one facet of extreme weather. Guess what the conclusions were!”

    Guess is all we can do, because you didn’t provide any evidence to support your assertions. Post links to facts that demonstrate higher temperatures have arrived and caused “Extreme Weather”. We await your evidence with bated breath…

    I hope you’re not holding you breath jtf. We wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to you.

  76. NaturalCyclist:

    Your post at November 11, 2012 at 2:03 pm begins saying

    RichardSCourtney gives a detailed explanation in this post explaining how there may be slight net warming of oxygen and nitrogen molecules resulting from prior absorption of IR by carbon dioxide molecules. Clearly he agrees that the effect is only slight.

    I write to make clear to others that
    (a) I agree your statement that I quote except that my explanation was not “detailed”
    but
    (b) the subsequent argument in your post is yours – not mine – and I do not agree it although I accept that it may be true.

    Richard

  77. Bevan asks-
    What has happened to science throughout the world that research institutes, universities, editors and reviewers produce papers and predictions that are on a par with that of any astrologer or tarot card reader?

    Well first you have to take control of the overarching paradigm in which new scientists coming through the system will find themselves operating under and on that note I’ll let Andrew Bolt describe exactly how it is in our neck of the woods-

    http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/how_did_journalism_courses_become_schools_for_the_left/

    After a while the old school scientists retire and die off and astrology and tarot card reading becomes the new post normal science. What about your neck of the woods?

  78. Davidmhoffer

    I am trying to grips with this, please correct me if I am wrong::

    1. The greater the altitude, the greater the forcing effect of rising CO2 levels will be on temperature.

    2. The greater the humidity, the lesser the forcing effect will be on temperatures in response to rising CO2 levels.

    3. The higher the original temperature, the lesser will be the forcing impact of rising CO2 levels.

    4. The forcing effect of rising CO2 levels on temperature at the elevations at which most humans live is negligible when compared with that of water vapour.

    And yet we have no idea of the temperature forcing ‘gradients’ in response to rising CO2 levels, or even if they are linear or exponential, of any of these factors in response to varying altitudes and humidity.

    Hmm Well, good luck to anyone trying to design a computer model that can accurately model 1, 2 & 3 above.

    Then there are the feedback factors, which no one really knows how to quantify or measure, except that that many IPCC authors seem to like to confuse those which are negative with.those which are positive feedbacks.

    Obviously, this is all taken account of in the latest IPCC climate models!

    PS You are right this does not add further discredit to CAGW theories, but it does indicate current climate models are………hmm, perhaps more than a tad lacking in their relation to reality.

  79. justthefactswuwt says:
    November 11, 2012 at 10:03 am
    Volker Doormann says: November 11, 2012 at 4:03 am

    “Conclusion:
    There is no evidence of a recent increase in “Earth’s Temperature” due to “Climate Change,” which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”.
    Claims and rhetoric that recent “Extreme Weather” is caused by or associated with “Climate Change” are not supported by the observational data.”

    That says nothing.

    Ummm, it clearly say something. You may disagree with it and you may ignore it, but it is still there…

    You are talking nonsense, because ‘no evidence’ is nothing, zero, no_thing. NO_thing is not still there, it is NOT.

    There is evidence that the present (last ten years) global temperatures are on a high level in respect to temperatures thirty, hundred or four hundred years ago
    .
    Are you arguing that “Extreme Weather” kicked in “thirty, hundred or four hundred years ago” and we are just noticing it now?

    No Sir.

    Because weather is related to the global temperature it is not out of the question that the present greater heat power loading the Earth surface and atmosphere can have greater physical effects on the local weather.

    It is also not out of the question that aliens will land on Earth today, but until someone presents some compelling evidence to support either possibility, the prudent course of action is to assume that both are not true.

    A.) Irrelevant. Bifurcation, also referred to as the “black and white” fallacy and “false dichotomy,” bifurcation occurs if someone presents a situation as having only two alternatives, where in fact other alternatives exist or can exist. “

    B.)“Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion. The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion. Sadly, these kinds of irrelevant arguments are often successful, because they make people to view the supposed conclusion in a more favorable light.”

    The claimed conclusion is a claim, but not an argument, because there is no reason argued.

    That’s completely incoherent…

    No Sir. “An argument is, to quote the Monty Python sketch, “a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.”

    Many types of argument exist. Deductive arguments are generally viewed as the most precise and the most persuasive; they provide conclusive proof of their conclusion, and are either valid or invalid.”

    Incoherence is the case if there is no reason argued which would have a coherence to the claim.

    BTW. I have seen all the many graphs a hundred times. What do should tell me 30+ (copy/paste) graphs? I don’t know.

    The graphs of current observational data are provided for the edification of our readers.

    Yes,30+ public copy pasted data. But that is not the point. The point is that you claim a ‘conclusion’ without making the three stages: premises, inference, and conclusion.

    I have shown to you an alternative to this copy paste stuff. You have ignored it.

    I’m off.

    V.

  80. Scott Supak (@ssupak) says:
    November 11, 2012 at 7:20 am
    What a shame that people like Justthefactswuwt don’t go to Intrade and take the warmists’ money by betting on these things… I hear there are some really smug liberals there who refuse to face “the facts” as you have laid them out here!

    https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20

    Here’s an Intrade bet that you won’t win, based on “the facts” so far:
    Will Global Average Temperature for 2010-2014 exceed 2005-2009 by 0.1 degree C?
    You likely won’t win it even with the last four words lopped off; i.e., even if it were a bet on the last five years (in two years and two months time) exceeding the previous five years by any amount..

  81. Bevan says:
    November 11, 2012 at 1:12 am

    ….That brings us to the crux of the matter, namely, that the rapidly increasing human population is unsustainable under current economic, industrial and political conditions irregardless of what happens to the climate.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    That is true only if the CAGW/Neo-luddites insist on pushing us back into an era of scare energy resources, sequestering of the plant food called CO2 and government controlled science continues to be used for propaganda instead of increasing the standard of living.. With higher CO2 levels, modern agricultural techniques and nuclear power (especially mini thorium power plants ) the world can feed the increasing population. The USA has pretty much HALVED the amount of land needed to produce a bushel of corn or wheat link getting rid of the idiocy of using crops for bio-fuels would certainly help. link (One of the few times I agree with the NY Times)

    A high standard of living/education yields a low to negative population growth. link “…Global fertility rates are in general decline and this trend is most pronounced in industrialized countries, especially Western Europe, where populations are projected to decline dramatically over the next 50 years….” The world population is expected to peak and then decline IF we manage to drag the backward countries on the top of the list into the 21 Century. The best birth control is education and a decent standard of living and it is working. From 360.org of all places – A generation ago, the world fertility rate was around six kids per woman. Today it is 2.6, which is getting close to the level needed just to maintain the current population long-term. Allowing for girls who don’t make it to adulthood, that is around 2.3.

    I consider the whole “sustainability craze” another government scam. Sure we should farm in an intelligent manner (grass strips, windbreaks, no-till, overseed for the winter with green manure, rotate crops/livestock) recycle and use stuff wisely but just because mankind uses a material does not mean it “vanishes” Heck the earth is a giant recycling machine with oceanic trenches, subducting slabs and volcanoes.

  82. NaturalCyclist says:
    November 11, 2012 at 3:36 am

    In this comment I discuss reasons for the above-mentioned cooling since 1998.
    __________________________________
    Gerard Roe’s recent update on the Milankovitch cycles points out that there has been a trivial mistake.

    …The problem is that people confuse functions and their derivatives; they say that something is “warm” even though they mean that it’s “getting warmer” or vice versa.

    In this case, the basic correct observation is the following: If you suddenly get more sunshine near the Arctic circle, you don’t immediately change the ice volume. Instead, you increase the rate with which the ice volume is decreasing (ice is melting). Isn’t this comment trivial?

    Nigel Calder knew that this was the right comparison to be made back in 1974….

    Now apply the same reasoning to what we are seeing in temperature. Numerous times skeptics have pointed out that the Rate of Change in the temperature increase since the Little Ice age has not changed…. but now it has with 15 years of NO Change in temperature. – Think about it.

  83. Volker Doormann says:
    November 11, 2012 at 4:03 am

    ….That says nothing.

    There is evidence that the present (last ten years) global temperatures are on a high level in respect to temperatures thirty, hundred or four hundred years ago….
    _________________________
    ERRRrrr, I am afraid you are wrong.

    This is the big lie, that the earth is “warming” when in actual fact we are in an overall cooling trend with a bit of noise added in. (+/- 1C is noise and in most cases the error is that great or greater despite what the Climastrologist want us to believe.)
    graph and this graph from John Daly’s website link

  84. Peter Miller says:
    November 11, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    Davidmhoffer
    I am trying to grips with this, please correct me if I am wrong::
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You’re not wrong per se. The problem is trying to summarize a rather complex issue into brief blog posts.

    1. The greater the altitude, the greater the forcing effect of rising CO2 levels will be on temperature.
    REPLY – The forcing effect remains the same, but becomes more significant in comparison to water vapour. Think of it as a ratio (I’m making numbers up for illustrative purposes). Suppose at sea level the effects of water vapour are 10,000 and CO2 is 1. Total is 10,001. Big deal. But at high altitude, water vapour is 1 and CO2 is also 1. Total is 2, double water vapour alone. That may sound small, but remember that you also have to take into account the shear scale of the atmospheric air column. A photon travelling upward may have to be absorbed and re-emitted hundreds or thousands of times before it escapes, even considering just that portion above the layer at which water vapour is significant. So, 2 is a lot more than 1, even though 10,001 is pretty much the same as 10,000.

    2. The greater the humidity, the lesser the forcing effect will be on temperatures in response to rising CO2 levels.
    REPLY – per above, the significance of CO2 at a given humidity is what changes.

    3. The higher the original temperature, the lesser will be the forcing impact of rising CO2 levels.
    REPLY – the higher the original temperature, the less it will change for a given forcing in w/m2. CO2 forcing in w/m2 isn’t uniform as it has more to work with at higher temps…but then it saturates sooner…and then again CO2’s affects are logarithmic, meaning they are subject to the law of diminishing returns. This is why the IPCC talks about “doubling” without going into a lot of detail as to what that means. CO2 doubling = 3.7 w/m2 = +1 degree. OK, starting from where? Starting from where we are now, about 400, we’d need to get to 800 for +1 degree. But to get to +2 degrees we’d need to get to 1600 ppm and to get to 3 degrees we’d need to get to 3200 ppm. This is a big part of what makes the whole “run away warming” meme nonsense, but the warmists will always counter with feedback discussions (which is a whole other complexity unto itself)

    4. The forcing effect of rising CO2 levels on temperature at the elevations at which most humans live is negligible when compared with that of water vapour.
    REPLY – I’d agree with that, certainly the data seems to support that. The question is what happens to the system as a whole? The CAGW meme is based on a combination of feedbacks and changes to the lapse rate that they insist result in elevated temperatures at surface. I don’t buy that, the explanations of the physical processes which would result in this don’t make sense to me and the data we ought to be able to measure by now doesn’t seem to be there.

    If you want to dig deeper into this stuff, I suggest chapters 2 and 10 of IPCC AR4 WG1. Most certainly a dry read, but if you wade through it, you’ll be rather surprised at how much of this stuff they admit to, but spin into a completely different story to the media.

  85. Peter Miller;
    If you read nothing else, read this:

    http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-9-1.html

    The IPCC openly admits that their level of scientific understanding of almost all the factors regarding radiative forcing are either “low” or “very low”. That’s just radiative forcing issues! They also openly admit that they can’t model ENSO or cloud feedback processes. How anyone can claim anything with any certainty regarding surface temps while simultaneously admitting that they don’t know how must of the system as a whole works it beyond me.

  86. “Scientists have been warning us of extreme weather for years” — you really mean since global warming stopped a decade and a half ago. How come they can’t predict anything right “before” it happens, only after then claim that it fits in with CAGW nicely and all the models have shown it to be. TOTAL BS

  87. davidmhoffer says:
    November 11, 2012 at 5:17 pm
    Peter Miller says:
    November 11, 2012 at 3:09 pm
    Davidmhoffer
    I am trying to grips with this, please correct me if I am wrong::
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    You’re not wrong per se. The problem is trying to summarize a rather complex issue into brief blog posts.

    1. The greater the altitude, the greater the forcing effect of rising CO2 levels will be on temperature.
    REPLY – The forcing effect remains the same, but becomes more significant in comparison to water vapour. Think of it as a ratio (I’m making numbers up for illustrative purposes). Suppose at sea level the effects of water vapour are 10,000 and CO2 is 1. Total is 10,001. Big deal. But at high altitude, water vapour is 1 and CO2 is also 1. Total is 2, double water vapour alone. That may sound small, but remember that you also have to take into account the shear scale of the atmospheric air column. A photon travelling upward may have to be absorbed and re-emitted hundreds or thousands of times before it escapes, even considering just that portion above the layer at which water vapour is significant. So, 2 is a lot more than 1, even though 10,001 is pretty much the same as 10,000.

    A couple of mopre questions….

    Is it the same photon that gets absorbs and re-emitted or is it the just the same quanta of energy?

    Seems to me that once the photon is absorbed, it is no longer a photon.

    Also, is the process of absorption/remittance a 100% efficient? If it is not, what happens to the energy? I kinda of thinking of a ‘friction’ type thing going on…

    What happens if the a quanta of energy does not make it to space and just goes into a big ‘black hole’ and is lost. How do you account for that?

  88. I really dislike the use of “anomaly” implying a deviation from “normal”. Why not just say “variation” from some baseline, such as the value at some arbitrary date, or the average over a certain period. Similar issue with “forcing” to describe one of many inputs to a very complex system.

    If I’m analyzing an electronic circuit, I don’t call the power supply voltage or the ambient temperature a “forcing”

  89. Volker Doormann says: November 11, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    “There is no evidence of a recent increase in “Earth’s Temperature” due to “Climate Change,” which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”.”

    You are talking nonsense, because ‘no evidence’ is nothing, zero, no_thing. NO_thing is not still there, it is NOT.

    We can play semantics with the word “recent”, but in the last 10 to 15 years there is “nothing, zero, no_thing” warming, thus there is “no evidence of a recent increase in ‘Earth’s Temperature'” “which could have caused “Extreme Weather” to arrive and become the “new normal”.

    “Are you arguing that “Extreme Weather” kicked in “thirty, hundred or four hundred years ago” and we are just noticing it now?

    No Sir.

    Then what are you arguing?

    Yes,30+ public copy pasted data. But that is not the point. The point is that you claim a ‘conclusion’ without making the three stages: premises, inference, and conclusion.

    Seriously, did you read the article?

    I have shown to you an alternative to this copy paste stuff.

    Funny, I didn’t know that there was an alternate to the empirical evidence, but I think I’ll stick with the real stuff…

    I’m off.

    On this we can agree…

  90. Gail Combs

    As it happens I have made a study of rates of change of temperatures. I consider it necessary to eliminate the effect of the superimposed 60 year cycle first. When you do this, and consider data from around the period 1880 or 1900 to the present, it is possible to detect the rate of change in the long-term ~1,000 year cycle. As it is approaching a maximum (perhaps 50 to 200 years from now) it is not surprising to find that the rate of change was about 0.06 K/decade around 1900, but has decreased to about 0.05 K/decade in recent times. The first plot in this post is helpful.

  91. David Jones says: November 11, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    I hope you’re not holding you breath jtf. We wouldn’t want anything bad to happen to you.

    Yes, it is quite sad that whenever we ask for facts from the Warmists we end up blue in the face. If what Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon said is true, and “the world already knows that ‘extreme weather due to climate change is the new normal.'” then why can’t any of them provide evidence in support their “Extreme Weather” hypotheses? There are teams of scientists working for Global Warming Inc. and yet I can’t find any credible evidence that support an increase of “Extreme Weather”.

  92. Another recent article on the Extreme Weather front:

    Scientific America – September 30, 2012 – Is There a Strong Link between Extreme Weather Events and Climate Change?

    “Extreme weather does not prove the existence of global warming, but climate change is likely to exaggerate it—by messing with ocean currents, providing extra heat to forming tornadoes, bolstering heat waves, lengthening droughts and causing more precipitation and flooding.”

    “A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events,” reports the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), an independent group of leading climate scientists convened by the United Nations to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

    While most scientists don’t dispute the link between global warming and extreme weather, the once skeptical public is now starting to come around—especially following 2011, when floods, droughts, heat waves and tornadoes took a heavy toll on the U.S.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-change-and-extreme-weather

    I am not sure how we will be able to validate if “Climate Change” is “messing with ocean currents”. Perhaps someone can offer an objective measure of how messy ocean currents are?…

  93. Gail Combs says:
    November 11, 2012 at 4:57 pm
    Volker Doormann says:
    November 11, 2012 at 4:03 am
    ….That says nothing.
    There is evidence that the present (last ten years) global temperatures are on a high level in respect to temperatures thirty, hundred or four hundred years ago….
    _________________________
    ERRRrrr, I am afraid you are wrong.
    This is the big lie, that the earth is “warming” when in actual fact we are in an overall cooling trend with a bit of noise added in. (+/- 1C is noise and in most cases the error is that great or greater despite what the Climastrologist want us to believe.)
    graph and this graph from John Daly’s website link

    “Ignoratio elenchi / Irrelevant conclusion: The fallacy of Irrelevant Conclusion consists of claiming that an argument supports a particular conclusion when it is actually logically nothing to do with that conclusion.”

    I have argued on a temperature difference of the present (last ten years) minus the temperatures four hundred years ago.

    Your term “overall cooling trend” using GISP2 data is a polynom 3rd grade of a time interval of 10000 years, but the truth is that your linked graph show in a red line the temperatures after the Little Ice Age ~four hundred years ago is rising +2.0° C from -32° C. to -30° C. to the year 1950 AD.

    Is that true? Yes or Yes?

    Your “overall cooling trend” suggests that it is a scientific fact, but it is not. It is a mathematical polynom for entertainment for dummies. It ignores the real measured data. The real measured data in the sense of science or engineering are not noise. Noise suggests, that the data are superimposed by thermal resistance noise created in the detector, like in a microphone. But that is not the case here.

    You are arguing with a big lie in this blog as an authority. People belief in your competence, but the truth is that your reply is not helpful to understand the physical causes of the global temperature spectra in high resolution of month, because it leads people to bias because it is easier to argue lies than strong scientific arguments.

    V.

  94. Box of Rocks:

    My reply to you (at November 11, 2012 at 2:35 pm) said I thought your problem may be that you were asking about quantum effects when you were really interested in bulk effects that davidmhoffer had addressed in this thread.

    You had been asking about interactions of individual molecules with individual photons and I tried to answer that. From your response to my attempt to answer your questions it was not – and still is not – clear to me what you wanted to know. I gained the impression that you were trying to understand how the atmosphere interacts with radiative energy from the Earth’s surface, so I suggested you read David’s comments about that. But it seems I was wrong because you have again asked about interactions of individual molecules with individual photons.

    Your post at November 11, 2012 at 6:18 pm indicates that I deflected your questions about quantum effects from me on to davidmhoffer. That was not my intention and, therefore, I apologise to him and to you for that.

    I write in attempt to provide answers for you to questions which you ask at November 11, 2012 at 6:18 pm: i.e.

    A couple of mopre questions….

    Is it the same photon that gets absorbs and re-emitted or is it the just the same quanta of energy?

    Seems to me that once the photon is absorbed, it is no longer a photon.

    Also, is the process of absorption/remittance a 100% efficient? If it is not, what happens to the energy? I kinda of thinking of a ‘friction’ type thing going on…

    What happens if the a quanta of energy does not make it to space and just goes into a big ‘black hole’ and is lost. How do you account for that?

    It is a philosophical question as to whether a photon “exists”.
    A photon is a quantum of energy in the form of electromagnetic radiation.

    Energy cannot be created or destroyed. It was all formed at the ‘Big Bang’. However, energy exists in various forms and can be converted from one of its forms to another or others. (Think of a piece of modelling clay. The clay can have many shapes – a car, a tree, a pot, etc.- but it is the same piece of clay).

    When a photon is absorbed by a molecule then the electromagnetic energy becomes vibrational or rotational energy within the molecule. No energy is “lost”: the energy converts from one form to another.

    Similarly, when the molecule returns to its ground state by emitting a photon then no energy is “lost”: the energy converts from one form to another (i.e. from vibrational or rotational energy to electromagnetic energy).

    Energy can be lost to the universe by becoming trapped in a Black Hole, but (fortunately) there is no Black Hole near the Earth so energy in the Earth’s atmosphere cannot enter one and “get lost”.

    Let me try an (imperfect) analogy.
    1.
    Think of a quantum of energy as being like the ball in a pin ball machine.
    2.
    The pin ball machine launches the ball on its way
    (as the Earth’s surface emits a quantum of energy – a photon – on its way).
    2.
    The ball interacts with many things on its path around the surface of the machine so bounces about
    (as the quantum of energy interacts with many molecules on its path through the atmosphere so ‘bounces’ about).
    3.
    Eventually the ball escapes down a hole and is ‘gone’ from the surface of the machine
    (as eventually the quantum of energy escapes to space and is ‘gone’ from the atmosphere).

    I hope this clarifies things for you. I repeat, I am trying to help and my failure is not from lack of effort.

    Richard

  95. Volker Doormann:

    Your post at November 12, 2012 at 12:03 am concludes by saying

    it is easier to argue lies than strong scientific arguments.

    That is the only statement in your post that I agree. Indeed, your post demonstrates its truth.

    Please be so kind as to start providing posts which present scientific information and/or scientific arguments.

    Richard

  96. http://www.disastercenter.com/disaster/TOP100K.html

    This is a list of the worst disasters of the 20th century … One will note the trend is not for more but fewer and with less and less consequences. One will see that it is NOT since the introduction of massive co2 that natural disasters started nor is the increase of co2 related to increases in droughts or floods. It is unclear when agw enthusiasts speak of increasing extreme events is this what they are referring to? I am pretty sure that the 20th century is not unique in natural disasters. There were never comments in the 20th century that these disasters were more frequent that I am aware of. So I am confused. Given the millions and millions that died before our massive production of co2 which was accompanied by rising living standards worldwide the consequences of extreme events were quite severe. Now it seems if 10 or 15 people die because of bad preparedness we are supposed to freak out and run around that the heavens are falling down.

    I think it is safe to assume that additional improvements in living standards, technology, warning and general preparedness would essentially make any extreme event wether they happen more or less frequently essentially irrelevant in the scope of things. In just the us 40,000/year die from car accidents and 400,000 from cancer. If NYC and New Jersey got storms like this year with any frequency wouldn’t it be fairly straightforward to essentially reduce the consequences of the storms to less and less? This just seems like a non-problem. Sure we should be better prepared. The consequences of being better prepared even a little would totally outweigh any increase in frequency that anyone is worried about so it just seems like something we should do anyway is be better prepared no tater what so this is simply irrelevant. Where am I wrong here?

  97. The pinball analogy is fine if you consider all the collisions to be inelastic.

    Where does the energy go or what form does it take?

    What happens when you have a lot of pinballs and nothing to bounce off of i.e. a thunderstorm?

  98. Box of Rocks:

    re your post at November 12, 2012 at 6:51 am.

    Please read my posts addressed to you and ponder what they say. They answer your recent questions.

    Richard

  99. Box of Rocks says:
    November 12, 2012 at 6:51 am
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    Your questions are actually answered in this thread already, as Richard has indicated. My suggestion is if you want to understand these matters in greater detail, that you read through some entry level physics text books on radiative physics. We can discuss science here, but teaching a physics course is not something this medium is suited for.

  100. A lot of confusion for one post. Try going over to “Tamino” for some graphs of ‘extreme weather.” If the question is really: Is extreme weather increasing?” Then you need ways that have already been developed by scientists for summarizing “extreme weather.” For those of you who have lost faith in US and international science, try reading some of the actual original scientific papers and try learning enough to understand what they are saying. Talking about second, third and fourth hand commentary is really confusing, I definitely agree with that. However, the conclusions of the original scientific papers are well-supported by evidence and data..

  101. BillD says: November 12, 2012 at 12:08 pm

    Try going over to “Tamino” for some graphs of ‘extreme weather.”

    Yes, funny stuff going on over there. Tamino wrote a reply to this article here:

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/11/11/extreme-denial/

    In it he claims a “dramatic increase in weather-related catastrophes worldwide” and then all he have to offer is a graph from an insurance company and three from the US, which represents less than 2% of Earth’s surface area. Very compelling…

    I’ve started compiling “Extreme Weather” observations in this thread here;

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-extreme-weather-update/#comment-1143238

    and here:

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/10/a-big-picture-look-at-earths-temperature-extreme-weather-update/#comment-1143249

    If you can offer any “original scientific papers” on Extreme Weather that “are well-supported by evidence and data”, they are most welcome.

  102. This is a very angry column full of a lot of invective, numerous mixed topics and a lot of confusion about what is being said. I believe that the reason denialist are gaining credibility is because of simple facts. Yes I know temperatures are going up but not fast enough over any time period you pick that includes the present to justify a prediction of 3C by 2100. It’s just unbelievable how you get there. I’ve been told by PBS programs, science articles of all types that sea level will be rising 3-6 ft by 2100 and I’ve looked at the numbers and no matter how you cut it sea level is not rising any faster than about 1/12th that amount. You can argue all you want about what is and what isn’t extreme weather but on a scale of 1 to 10 in the worlds problems I don’t think it’s a 10 (the bottom). These extreme weather events have an impact but worldwide they are decreasing at a phenomenal rate in death. Just check out the worst disasters of the 20th century to get a perspective. This “extreme weather” thing is a losing argument. If this all you have then mitigation is the answer. It’s very cheap, we need to do it anyway. The French heat wave of 2003 killed 15,000. First that was rather dumb of them. An embarrassment frankly. 3 years later they had another heat wave as bad and 15 people died. That’s 99.9% mitigation in 3 years at almost no cost. Some fans, telling people what to do. Maybe a little ice. I see your statistics and agree yes there appears to be a trend but the answer to that problem is mitigation not changing our energy sources and way of life. The way we mitigated a lot of these disasters impact over the last century (98% decrease in loss of life) was because of our lifestyle. The cost of changing our lifestyle and our energy is much much more than simply mitigating. Much of this will be done anyway no matter whether the incidence of natural / extreme weather was going up or down. Much of it happens naturally as we improve our science, our technology, our engineering. Much happens as part of normal upgrades and rebuilding after natural disasters and lots of it is helped by the improvement in living standards worldwide. So the question is if temperatures are going up as we all agree but at a slow rate and sea levels aren’t rising fast and extreme weather is something we are mitigating anyway what’s left to do? What do you want to do about 1C by 2100? What would you be willing to do or spend on that or trying to lower the seas so we don’t get the 6″ expected. I’m serious. You can’t tell me 6′ and not explain when and how we get a discontinuous massive acceleration and show me that is proved by any scientifically established means. The same goes for all this. The reason the skeptic community is growing and winning is because frankly it looks like much ado about nothing.

  103. @- richardscourtney

    There seems to be some confusion over whether a dipolar molecule can transfer a higher energy state created by absorbing upwelling LWR as vibrational modes in the bond linkages to other atmospheric molecules as thermal energy.

    Obviously this must happen otherwise water vapour molecules could not transfer their energy to the oxygen and nitrogen they collide with and condense into clouds.
    The existence of clouds is proof positive that molecules exchange energy in this way in the atmosphere.

  104. Izen:

    In my simplistic explanation for ‘Box Of Rocks’ at November 11, 2012 at 8:18 am I wrote

    Most molecules in the atmosphere are nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2). Hence, a CO2 molecule which collides with another molecule is very likely to collide with an N2 or O2 molecule. And N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases so (simplistically) they do not absorb IR photons and do not have excitation states. Therefore, a CO2 molecule which returns to its ground state by collision with an N2 or O2 molecule adds kinetic energy to the N2 or O2 molecule and, thus, warms the atmosphere. Additionally, it should be noted that a CO2 molecule (or any other greenhouse gas molecule) can accept energy from a collision and, thus, become excited without absorbing a photon. However, (again, simplistically) only greenhouse gas molecules absorb IR photons and, therefore, on average the greenhouse gas molecules will have more energy than N2 or O2 molecules so the net effect of collisions is to warm the N2 and O2 molecules.

    In that same post I also wrote

    CO2 molecules in the atmosphere only absorb IR in two narrow wave bands around 15 microns and 4 microns. Almost all is absorbed in the 15 micron band. Water vapour (H2O) absorbs across all the IR spectrum including over the bands which CO2 absorbs. Hence, almost all the IR which CO2 can absorb in the atmosphere is absorbed, and this is why additional atmospheric CO2 has no discernible effect on the absorbtion: it is not possible to absorb more than all. Additional atmospheric CO2 induces some band broadening which enables the small additional IR absorbtion (i.e. additional greenhouse effect) of additional CO2.

    But at November 13, 2012 at 3:24 am you have written in total

    @- richardscourtney
    There seems to be some confusion over whether a dipolar molecule can transfer a higher energy state created by absorbing upwelling LWR as vibrational modes in the bond linkages to other atmospheric molecules as thermal energy.

    Obviously this must happen otherwise water vapour molecules could not transfer their energy to the oxygen and nitrogen they collide with and condense into clouds.
    The existence of clouds is proof positive that molecules exchange energy in this way in the atmosphere.

    I am at a loss to understand what you are disputing in what I wrote because your post agrees it.

    It seems the only “confusion” is that which you are deliberately trying to create in the minds of onlookers.

    Richard


  105. izen says:
    November 13, 2012 at 3:24 am
    @- richardscourtney

    There seems to be some confusion over whether a dipolar molecule can transfer a higher energy state created by absorbing upwelling LWR as vibrational modes in the bond linkages to other atmospheric molecules as thermal energy.

    Obviously this must happen otherwise water vapour molecules could not transfer their energy to the oxygen and nitrogen they collide with and condense into clouds.
    The existence of clouds is proof positive that molecules exchange energy in this way in the atmosphere.”

    I thought clouds were merely an manifestation of 100% relative humidity.

    And does it not make more sense to say – “There seems to be some confusion over whether the energy from a dipolar molecule at a higher energy state, created by absorbing upwelling LWR, can transfer that excess energy to the oxygen, nitrogen and to it’s surrounding environment.. ?

    So what happens to the vibrational energy when the bipolar molecule (CO2) along with the nitrogen and oxygen are all losing energy? Aren’t there several types of energy present?

    If the CO2 molecules gives up energy and it’s environment is losing energy too, then what happens?

    Is all energy created equal and useable? (NO!)

    This is not a physics class . I have yet to get a good explanation from an AGW believer of energy pathway from the earth’s surface to space.

  106. Gail Combs says: November 11, 2012 at 4:27 pm

    ………..The world population is expected to peak and then decline IF we manage to drag the
    backward countries on the top of the list into the 21 Century………

    My concern with population growth is the ever increasing pollution of the oceans and the
    destruction of habitat for native fauna and flora. The indications so far are that there will soon
    be very little of this left in its original evolved state of a century or more ago.

    Amongst mankind there are some people who have the most amazing relationship with and
    understanding of plants and animals. I am in awe of their abilities but I worry that mankind is in
    the process of losing these connections with nature and thereby losing part of our humanity. The signs to date are that, when confined to giant cities out of touch with nature, the populace is becoming greedy, inconsiderate and plain nasty with self-interest taking priority.

  107. Bevan:

    At November 13, 2012 at 5:52 pm you say

    “The indications so far are that there will soon be very little of this left in its original evolved state of a century or more ago.”

    Really!?
    There are “indications” of that? What “indications” are those? Please say.

    Richard

  108. richardscourtney says: November 14, 2012 at 12:34 am
    ……………What “indications” are those? Please say……..

    Certainly Richard. I read reports of vast gyres in the world’s oceans topped by a thick layer of micro-chips of plastic. I see Internet video of beaches in Hawaii where they dig through a thick layer of micro-chips of plastic to view the underlying beach sand. Surely this will cause ocean wave action to be moderated, result in decreased evaporation from the sea surface giving higher sea surface temperatures.

    I read reports of pharmaceuticals, particularly birth control hormones, from human sewerage causing distortions to the reproductive systems of fishes. Then there is the collapse of some fish populations due to over-fishing, for example, the cod banks in the North Atlantic.

    I walk along remote beaches and see all manner of flotsam and jetsam of human origin. I have walked, driven and flown over Kalimantan, Borneo, and seen vast areas of waste land that once was rain forest. I have walked through forest in Sarawak believing that I was in a rain forest. That was, until I realised that all of the trees were in rows. I was in a rubber plantation that was no longer harvested for its rubber because so many plantations had been created that the price for latex had collapsed. Since then the old plantations and surrounds have been destroyed to make way for palm oil plantations.

    I read of the demise of the world’s tiger, rhinoceros and elephant populations due to human greed and ancient superstitions, basically ignorance.

    This is the situation when the human population is about 7 billion people. Some say that they care for the environment but the litter in streets, country-side, oceans and beaches show us the real extent of their environmental concern. How much worse will it be when the population reaches 10 billion, the vast majority of whom will live in giant cities with little or no contact with nature?

  109. Bevan,

    Everything you describe is either outside the U.S., or comes from sources outside the U.S.

    America [and pretty much all of Europe & the UK] has cleaned up 99%+ of their own pollution.

    So, are you protesting in front of the Indian, Chinese, Russian, and Indonesian embassies?

    Didn’t think so.

    You have been spoon-fed so much enviro propaganda that you no longer think clearly. You just regurgitate Greenpeace talking points.

  110. “””””……richardscourtney says:

    November 13, 2012 at 4:45 am

    Izen:

    In my simplistic explanation for ‘Box Of Rocks’ at November 11, 2012 at 8:18 am I wrote

    Most molecules in the atmosphere are nitrogen (N2) and oxygen (O2). Hence, a CO2 molecule which collides with another molecule is very likely to collide with an N2 or O2 molecule. And N2 and O2 are not greenhouse gases so (simplistically) they do not absorb IR photons and do not have excitation states. Therefore, a CO2 molecule which returns to its ground state by collision with an N2 or O2 molecule adds kinetic energy to the N2 or O2 molecule and, thus, warms the atmosphere. Additionally, it should be noted that a CO2 molecule (or any other greenhouse gas molecule) can accept energy from a collision and, thus, become excited without absorbing a photon. However, (again, simplistically) only greenhouse gas molecules absorb IR photons and, therefore, on average the greenhouse gas molecules will have more energy than N2 or O2 molecules so the net effect of collisions is to warm the N2 and O2 molecules……”””””

    Homo-diatomic molecules such as H2, N2, O2 in free flight remain symmetrical in their center of mass space, so they have no net electric dipole moment, by means of which to radiate electromagnetic waves per Maxwell’equations, or the Hertz or Heavyside variants thereof. But they do have chemical bonds, of known elasticity, so they are perfectly capable of internal oscillations, for example in a bond stretch mode. So such molecules do have excited states, with calculable resonance frequencies. Since each atom of the pair does have separated positive and negative charges, they can have a dipole moment, if the electron “cloud” is not in a spherical symmetry shape (izzat an ‘s’ state ?). So the pair of atoms could also have a quadrupole moment, which may not always be zero.

    I seem to recall that quadrupole radiation decays faster than 1 d^2, being basically a difference between two dipoles.

    When such molecules (which are physically huge structures, in the general scheme of things) are in collisions as a result of the local gas Temperature, then the atoms and molecules distort during the collision, and as a result both non-zero quadrupole and dipole electric moments can occur during the collision, which is also an eternity, in the time scale of things.

    So Homo-diatomic molecules can and do emit and absorb electromagnetic Radiation, directly attributable to the acceleration of electric charges ,during collisions, which is the equivalent of a varying electric current in an antenna; same way radio and TV EM propagation works. But that is a continuum spectrum dependent on the Temperature, and not a set of molecular resonance frequencies.

    I noticed quite a few people in this thread, invoking the Stefan-Boltzmann ‘law’ to explain EM radiation from the Earth surface.
    The S-B formula is simply the integral of the Planck Black Body radiation formula.

    A Black body is of course a complete fictional artifice, and Planck’s equation is obtained quite independently of the physical properties, such as electron energy states, of ANY real actual material.

    Moreover no physical material known can meet the conditions for a Black Body. No Physical real material has a characteristic impedance of 377 Ohms (120 PI) at all EM frequencies from down to but not including zero, and up to but not including infinity, so any real material has a refractive index at some frequencies, that is greater than unity, and hence it must have a Fresnel polarized reflection coefficient that is greater than zero.
    r = ((N-1) / (N+1))^2 at normal incidence.

    So Black Bodies don’t exist, and by inference no real material radiates or absorbs according to the Stefan-Boltzmann law. Fortunately, we can make fairly good ersatz Black Body look alikes over some frequency ranges, such as anechoic cavities, so SB and Planck assumptions are often good starting assumptions; but we must always be aware that they aren’t real. A BB radiates 98% of its total energy between half the spectral peak wavelength and eight times the peak wavelength, so high absorption over that limited wavelength range, is sufficient to give close to black body characteristics.

    So rumors of the demise of Hertz / Maxwell / Heaviside electromagnetic wave radiation in this quantum era are somewhat premature. I’m not aware of anything in quantum mechanics that has an exact value; well they borrow c I guess.

    Incidently 377 Ohms = 120 PI is sqrt (mu nought / epsilon nought). Mu nought and Epsilon nought are with (c) the only fundamental Physical constants with exact values. Well I guess I should also say they are the permeability and permitivity of free space respectively, and yield (c) as 1 / 2pi sqrt (mu nought x epsilon nought).

  111. That of course should be 1 / d^2 for the decay rate of EM intensity with distance for a radiating electric dipole.

    I can’t remember whether quadrupole radiation goes down as 1/ d^3 or faster. I haven’t needed to know for over half a century.

    Speaking of capturing photons; does anybody know what the radius of a photon is, or for example what would be the CO2 molecule capture crossection for a 15 micron ( about 80 meV) photon ??

    Seems like an electron doesn’t have any finite radius, or at least QM says it can occupy all of space, so why should a photon have some finite size. They do seem to get captured quite readily.

    The associated EM wave must be of some finite wave train length commensurate with the uncertainty in the photon energy, so maybe photons are smeared ou all over the place, and can’t help but run into a molecule.

  112. George,

    It seems the radius of a photon would be at least as wide as the slits in the double slit experiment, since they have to decide which slit to go through if an observer is present. But what do I know? It also seems that a photon experiences zero elapsed time between emission and absorption, even if it travels billions of light years across the observable universe, because of time dilation. Photons are strange critters.

Comments are closed.