Behave yourselves.
I’ll be checking in from time to time and making reports from the road. Just remember that some comments with links might end up in the spam filter and may take some time before I notice them.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Anthony: I ran across a NCDC zonal temperature anomaly data set, which appears to be based on the recently revised (2007) Smith and Reynolds ERSST.v3. In the following graphs, I refer to it as “NCDC ERSST.v3”. This month it was updated on the 12th, a few days earlier than their standard data.
ftp://eclipse.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/ersst/pdo
Reference:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ersstv3.php
The list is broken down into monthly and annual data. Surface temperatures are divided into land only, ocean only, and land and ocean, which are further subdivided by latitude. There are also ENSO and PDO data. The base years are different.
The usual thing happens with the ERSST.v3 update. Over the 20th century, the data using the newer SST analysis has a slightly higher trend than the standard NCDC data. It’s not a major change, but it’s still a rise. Here’s Global SST.
http://i30.tinypic.com/2iid2qv.jpg
With the land data remaining relatively constant, the effect is less when comparing the new and old global land plus ocean data.
http://i29.tinypic.com/v336rm.jpg
There’s something novel in the March update. Note the decline in the ERSST.v3 version while the standard data skyrockets.
http://i31.tinypic.com/fw3erc.jpg
If we look at the other indices for the past two years, the March 2008 rise in the NCDC ERSST.v3 data (green) looks like an error. All the others rise, but it falls.
http://i26.tinypic.com/20t2b2o.jpg
Weed out the GISS, HADCrut and Standard NCDC data, leaving the two MSU sources and the newer NCDC, and the downtick in the NCDC ERSST.v3 doesn’t look unusual.
http://i30.tinypic.com/34pzzuc.jpg
Extending the graph of the satellite and NCDC ERSST.v3 data back to 1979, the variance it the NCDC ERSST.v3 doesn’t look strange at all.
http://i26.tinypic.com/23vygao.jpg
The reason the NCDC ERSST.v3 data mimics the satellite data is, “Beginning in 1985 improvements are due to the inclusion of bias-adjusted satellite data.”
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/papers/Merged.Recon.v8.pdf
Further explained: “Since most of the oceans are adequately sampled by in situ data, the influence of satellite data is greatest in the Southern Oceans. South of about 45ºS the satellite data cause a slight cooling of the SSTs, which results in a slight reduction in the near-global
(In Situ + Sats) average compared to the in situ analysis (Fig. 4). ”
Regards
There is a Bruce Cobb whom I have seen post here before. If you are out there, Bruce, is this yours?
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080417/OPINION/804170324/1029/OPINION03
I would love to see the responses to that! *g* Way to tell them!
‘Open Thread’
Oy. I get it now. I was afrayed you would say something like that. Way to string us along. Just want you to know that was a sew sew pun. Almost cosmic. Not for high-strung types-
Ok. I know. You said behave. I’ll move on before I bring someone to the end of their rope.
Ok, I’ll give it a whirl.
What I find revealing about the false claims of CO2 cultists is that they never state the concentration of that gas in our atmosphere. It’s only a little over .03%. That is a very small amount, leaving me with a sense of wonder; wondering how plants survive at all, that is. Think about it. If the Earth’s atmosphere could be represented by a gallon jug of water, and you removed a quarter-teaspoon of liquid, you’d have .03%! When I see a tree or a crop-field, I’m amazed that the Carbon contained there came from cracking that minuscule portion of our atmosphere.
Then, consider that Earth is covered by about five sevenths water. Out of the remaining two sevenths, there are deserts, mountains, glacier, poles, etc., where plant respiration is little or none. The Earth’s oceans are where the majority of this conversion takes place. The CO2 that remains in the atmosphere is the remnant that isn’t dissolved into the oceans!
There has never been any confirmation that this tiny amount of trace gas has even a remotely measurable effect on Earth’s atmospheric temperatures. None. Nada. Zip. Yes, there are theories, models, inferences, etc., etc. However, if that tiny .03% concentration of CO2 had anywhere near the heat-trapping effect claimed by the cultists, it could be easily be demonstrated in the laboratory. Guess what: It hasn’t.
All of the Oxygen in the atmosphere came from plant respiration, and that concentration is about 21%, or 700 times the CO2 concentration. The scope of this imbalance amazes me. If plants on land and in the sea can steadily metabolise such a small concentration of CO2, and leave us with such a bulwark of Oxygen, why should anyone care if CO2 levels increase to .04, .05, or, (gasp), even double to .06%? The plants would greedily convert the “extra” CO2, and give us even more of their highly reactive elemental waste product to wallow in!
And don’t get me started on volcanoes.
Thanks for allowing the rant of a non-scientist, from one who appreciates the work all of you do here, especially the young-uns.
Australia has had a drought for six years. Antarctic sea ice area has been increasing for the last five years. This year it is well ahead of the mean and could give us six years of increases.
Most of the attention is on the Northern hemisphere but the southern one seems to be telling us something. Even the Arctic seems to be doing something different.
First we have the lowest level ever recorded then we have the largest refreeze ever recorded..11 million sq. Kilometers. That means a lot of sea water cooled which means a lot of heat was taken out of the Arctic.
The media tells us that “open sea water absorbs a lot more solar energy than sea ice thus contributing to global warming but this is when the sun is shining. What about when the sun isn’t shining?
Sea water at the poles, from what I have been able to find out radiates 10 to 100 times what is radiated from sea ice… 100 to 1000 watts per square meter versus 10 watts per square for sea ice. I know it seems a bit strange but there is the distinct possibility that sea ice contributes to global warming by preventing sea water from cooling, while open sea water at the poles contributes to global cooling by radiating more energy into space.
Just an aside, but it is snowing right now in Tacoma, WA, USA. It’s not sticking, but it is snowing, cold and blustery. I can’t remember a single late April in my lifetime where it has snowed here in Western, WA.
Lol, hey Jeff B. I’m up in Everett. It’s been snowing off and on (mostly on) all day here. Stuck for a while, then melted then stuck for a while again. Not sticking to the roads, but I’ve got about three inches on my railing.
Jeff & Jeff,
I’m a Washington native, now in Aloha, OR. Used to live in Camas. On the Columbia River.
Snow in the forecast tonight for this area.
I’ve seen snow in April before, but it’s been a long time!
Alles klar, Herr Kommissar?
Kent- interesting post. I agree with your comment “I know it seems a bit strange but there is the distinct possibility that sea ice contributes to global warming by preventing sea water from cooling, while open sea water at the poles contributes to global cooling by radiating more energy into space.”
I have been looking at this as well. The average solar insolation in northern alaska, for example, is about 85 W/m^2 averaged over the entire year. Clear sea ice and open water have almost identical emissivity of 0.92 – 0.95. That means, if they are at the same temperature, they emit almost the same IR energy up into space. Open water at 273K will emit about 300 W/m^2 up to space. However, snow-covered sea ice has a lower emissivity, so it emits less IR. Sea ice has almost the same thermal conductivity as sea water. However, snow-covered sea ice has a much lower thermal conductivity between its lower and upper surfaces. Any air gap between the ice underside and sea water will also greatly reduce the thermal conductivity.
So, when sea ice forms and has snow cover, it acts like an insulating layer that slows the rate of freezing below, and reduces heat transport from the underlying water up into space. Any ocean currents that transport warm water from southern latitudes under the sea ice will cause melting of the sea ice from below. When open water exists in the arctic, it will eventually refreeze, because open arctic water absorbs, annually averaged, a little less than 85 W/m^2 of sunlight, but emits almost 300 W/m^2. I think the arctic sea ice changes have nothing to do with CO2 forcing, because it is a paltry 1 W/m^2 compared with the huge difference between insolation and IR emission. I think they are mostly driven by changes in oceanic currents bringing warm water up under the arctic sea ice.
old gasser says:
“It’s only a little over .03%. That is a very small amount, leaving me with a sense of wonder; wondering how plants survive at all, that is.”
There are many things to be skeptical about when it comes to AGW but dispportionate effect of a trace gas is not one of them. Even though it sounds implausible, 0.03% of the atmosphere is responsible for at least 10% of the greenhouse effect.
Here is a good layman’s explaination of global warming science: http://junkscience.com/Greenhouse/index.html
Old gasser
I know just how you feel – a whole lot of fuss about a few molcules of a precious gas. Hard to believe. In a few years a lot of people are going to find out it was much to do about nothing.
Over millions of years climate has changed often, like a wild roller coaster, due solely to natural causes. Suddenly in today’s Gorian science, natural causes have ceased to exist and man has taken over complete control of the climate. This absurdity alone is enough to convince me that it’s a total hoax.
I must say I can hardly wait for Anthony to get back to us with details on his trip. I’m hoping he’s meeting with some sort of influential alarmist who has an ear open for science, and is considering adjusting his/her stance on the matter.
Good Morning from Lynnwood WA. Yes, 4-5″ snow on the ground. Everything is frozen solid. The snow is too cold to make snow balls.
I had to redecorate my old Christmas tree and sing Christmas carols.
It has not snowed this late here since 1972.
Regarding Arctic ice, I have a question. all the ice that disappeared from eastern Arctic last summer, was it “flushed” through the Bering Strait, or did it move into the Atlantic? From the brief news reports I’ve seen, winds pushed the ice out from the Arctic.
Where ever those “millions” of square kilometers of ice, and cold arctic water, went, that area must have been chilled down a little? Has anyone bothered to model the world wide weather effect of a few million square kilometers of misplaced sea ice moving about the ocean?
I mean if we can model the climate a 100 years from now with undisputable accuracy, it should be a snap to model a few pieces of ice, one would think.
There is a Bruce Cobb whom I have seen post here before. If you are out there, Bruce, is this yours?
http://www.cmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080417/OPINION/804170324/1029/OPINION03
I would love to see the responses to that! *g* Way to tell them!
Yes, Gary, that’s mine. I’ve been writing anti-AGW letters to The Concord Monitor for well over a year, and there are usually at least 3 negative responses full of the typical climate alarmist nonsense and ad hominems. This year I’ve also been posting them on globalwarmingskeptics (which seems to be down at the moment), along with some of the responses, which can be mind-boggling in their idiocy. The responses to my latest one should be doozies, as I ramped up the rhetoric a bit. Also, Earth Day is coming up the 22nd, and of course, according to them we skeptics must really hate the Earth. They’ve got it firmly implanted in their tiny brains that C02 is pollution, and we’re killing our planet with it.
I have been asking people I run into if they have heard of the influence of CO2 on global warming. Unless they give me a very negative response, I then ask them how much CO2 does the atmosphere contain by per cent. I am totally amazed as I have received responses from 3% (not .03%) all the way to 20% with most saying around 10%. I even had a response that the CO2 was replacing the O2 and that is why we were all going to die soon.
It’s 7:11am in South Everett and just above freezing. Still lots of snow on the ground, perfect snowball weather. The snow is nice and wet, one scoop and you’ve got a snowball. Roads are a bit slushy, hopefully it melts quickly, since I have get on the road in a couple hours and drive 70.
Paminator
Thank you for the info regarding anual inputs/outputs of Arctic sea ice/water. So many of the answers I try to access require memberships/fees. So much of what is out there deals with ice’s roll in warming while ignoring the cooling aspects. ie; if a chunk of ice melts it is because it was warmed up, but if it was warmed up then something was cooled down. We hear about the effect of the warming but since the cooling water gets sent downward it gets ignored.
I agree with you that the major melting factor at the poles is from sea water, causing most sea ice to melt from the bottom up.
D.Quist…I found myself questioning the experts with regard the great melting of 2007 in the Arctic. While many said it was a melt down some were indicating it was the result of winds and currents. They said it got pushed out into the Atlantic ,but sea surface temperature anomalies did not show up as one would expect in the Northeast Atlantic. The anomalies have been on the warm side. In the Area between Canada and Greenland however a lot more Ice formed ( most in 15 years. I suspect what has happened is that the ice has been jammed together, resulting in less area but thicker ice. Was this the case? Don’t have data for that. They have said that the area of multi sea ice has been reduced but that means little if the ice has just been piled up.
The one thing that the “lowest level ever recorded” for Arctic sea ice indicates is that there was a lot more area to radiate thermal energy into space having a much greater cooling effect on the Arctic water.
One report indicated that the thickness of first year sea ice was 10-20% greater than average, indicating more cooling took place this winter than normal.
It is interesting to note what has been happening in the Bering sea this year. Sea ice coverage is well above the mean. At one point it was something like 60% ahead of the mean.. It is now about 50% ahead (cryosphere today).
Thanks Anthony for the open thread. .. Hope your road trip does not encounter the cold weather we are having.. Snowing right now .
I’m sitting here in -12 degrees C , also 4-5″ of snow expect another 4-5 ” today. I would agree this is like the ’70’s. I’ve noticed here in sunny southern Alberta a hell of a lot more cloudy days the last several months. I’m a true believer of the weather controlled by the sun, not this now politically correct co2 crap.You can’t watch the news without mention of global warming effecting everything ( actually , notice how they use the words climate change more frequently as we freeze our asses and in the summer during hot days they will use global warming). Anyway I just want to say that this site ROCKS, keeps me sane and is near the topof my list of favorite web sites.
Brent in Calgary
SO how much “decrease in warming” and for how long, before the hysterics admit their gaff?
was it “flushed” through the Bering Strait, or did it move into the Atlantic?
Through the Bering Strait, according to NASA.
My objection is not to the direct CO2 effect (which is modest, but measurable). I object to the “positive feedback” equations of the IPCC models. It would seem that the feedbacks are actually negative.
Yes, there is increased water in the atmosphere, but it is not manifesting itself as “greenhouse effect” vapor, but as “icehouse effect” cloud cover, thus resulting in homeostasis.
Kent
I found myself questioning the experts with regard the great melting of
2007 in the Arctic….
….They said it got pushed out into the Atlantic ,but sea surface temperature
anomalies did not show up as one would expect in the Northeast Atlantic.
That is a very good point. Thanks for answering my layman questions.
I apologize for not providing proper references as basis for my questions. At the time of reading about these things I didn’t realize I would run into this excellent site. In the future I will try and collect where I get my ideas from.
Another observation I had, in regards to the Arctic melt is this. There were specific predictions regarding a strong Atlantic hurricane season. These prediction were then reinforced once La Nina indications appeared. Dr Grey and other predictors indicated that La Nina would strengthen the hurricane season.
As we all know the season fizzled. I assume they are still struggling with figuring out why that was the case.
Based on my own thinking the most obvious, unusual, weather event, was the melting of the Arctic. If large amounts of ice doesn’t show up in the sea surface temperature, then what if any effect did this weather phenomena have? You have a fizzled hurricane season, La Nina and major Arctic melt. I though during the hurricane season that someone would link the events, and point out the possible effects.
P.S. I live in a place, Seattle, where educated people will say, with a straight face, that Hurricane Katrina would never have struck New Orleans, had President Bush signed the Kyoto Protocol.
Looks like Cycle 23 spots forming and possibly a S. Hem. spot on the farside.
http://spaceweather.com/images2008/16apr08/midi_farside_blank.gif?PHPSESSID=0ttjjmgdcm2m3e5126iiocs383
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_mag/1024/latest.html
http://sohowww.nascom.nasa.gov/data/realtime/mdi_igr/1024/latest.html
What is the single most important issue…?
(Direct link to ABC Poll, page 6 has global warming zero result) http://www.abcnews.go.com/images/PollingUnit/1063a4EconomyandIraq.pdf
As a fellow Seattleite I can confirm D.Quist’s anecdote about the attribution of Katrina to Bush.
But, then again, the koolade drinkers here blame everything on Bush (unless it involves giving away more tax money to one of their pet projects/programs).
Is there any such thing as a ‘first snow of the year’ and ‘last snow of the year’ long-term national historical record?
I’m in Seattle under an unseasonal blanket of snow also. This is wildly atypical for the area – two mild snows spread from December through February is much more common.
“It last snowed in April in 1972” is good information, but is there any way to quantify this? Because it would seem like is should be very closely correlated with each local region’s temperature – and have the advantage of ignoring all the microsite issues. It would still run afoul of true UHI effects – but the effect of individual trees, runways, etc. would be insignificant when judging “When did it last snow in location X?”
So the number of days between ‘first snow of the year’ an ‘last snow of the year’ should be quantifiable. It won’t be perfect – it will also correlate with drought, etc. – but the removal of a swath of observation biases would seem to be worthwhile.