Behave yourselves.
Just remember that some comments with links might end up in the spam filter and may take some time before I notice them.
Behave yourselves.
Just remember that some comments with links might end up in the spam filter and may take some time before I notice them.
I don’t see how a change in PDO, la niña, el niño etc. could cause warming trend. A step shift, yeah but not a trend. There was a change to the warm stage of PDO in 1976, but that wasn’t a gradual change, it became hot and then the strength of el niño stayed high but with no upward trend (apart from 1998) while temperatures rose.
Similarly, the satellites show no warming ’til 1998, but rose and fell with alternating el niño and la niña or volcanic eruptions. Suddenly we get 1998 and temperature generally remain high despite consecutive la niña years in 1999-2000 allowing temperatures to fall again. For 2001-2007, temperatures don’t go back to the sawtooth pattern but remain high despite weak en niños and this is what causes the trend. So why?
Friday June 6, temp at Sea-Tac (Seattle) airport 58 F. + cold heavy rain at 10:00am.
Bob Tisdale (02:38:20) :
“Looks like the ensemble mean has the NINO3.4 temperature rising just above the threshold (0.5degC) of an El Nino from August till October.”
It will be interesting to see how the ENSO models do in a negative PDO regime. It may be an unfamiliar environment for them.
To believe what one hears… or reads… is a similar trap. The statement was made above that liberals believe what they hear and conservatives question what they hear. The statement was based on reading something to that affect. Logically one can then say that for the person making the statement, it is possible that he/she believes what is read.
A better morsel of wisdom is this: Do not always believe what you think.
Caleb: Regarding your remarks about the PDO…
I guess it depends which PDO Index you use or agree with. According to the two ERSST versions, the PDO has generally been negative for a few years. Smooth them with a 3- or 5-year filter and those little positive blips at 2003 would go away.
http://i26.tinypic.com/25kn8ef.jpg
I just got a fund raising letter from Al Gore for the DSCC. Here’s a quote
“The undeniable reality of global warming—the most serious threat to human existence in history.”
Al Gore the undisputed king of understatement.
Al Gore is seriously worried about his
cash cowcarbon trading scheme. I can imagine the reaction if a person that owned, say, large amounts of stock in an oil company were to send around letters talking about how nuclear waste is the most serious threat to human existence in history.Bob B:
Tenney Naumer couldn’t cope with the soot data when I brought it up over at dE. She never heard of it either. FWIW she’s a liberal and RC acolyte and a householder in Brazil.
As for Rossby wave interpolation method, one way to validate it would be to see how much variance there is between NASA/GISS calculated grid temperatures vs. the grid data from the other data sets (RSS, UAH/MRU, HadCRUT …. ). I would not be surprised if their interpolated data tended to stray off from the other datasets.
And as with any method of its kind, wouldn’t the Rossby method become less reliable as the data became more sparse? It might be OK for temporally backfilling pilot series, perhaps, but I wouldn’t want to stake my reputation on data that’d look as fudged as that in any other field!
The thing is that climatology is full of these kinds of interpolations … This is right out of her blog:
http://climatechangepsychology.blogspot.com/2008/06/upper-troposphere-is-warming-after-all.html
“… Now, Robert Allen and Steven Sherwood of Yale University have used wind data taken from weather balloons as a proxy for direct temperature measurements to give the first conclusive evidence that the upper troposphere has been warming after all. Although they are an indirect measure of temperature, these wind records can be backed up by satellite and ground instruments, making them more reliable than existing direct temperature measurements (Nature Geoscience doi: 10.1038/ngeo208)…”
Now using wind speed to gauge air temperature strikes me as total bull****. I wouldn’t trust a proxy that disagreed with real field data but was corroborated by remote sense data. A mathematical proxy guess is “more accurate than *field data*?” Really? My fat hairy stinking butt!
Likewise Ramanathan’s soot discovery could have only been made from direct observations made in situ, the net heating effect of soot was masked both on the ground and from satellite reconnaissance.
I’m gobsmacked at times by the reliance upon remote & proxy data sources in the field. The willingness of people to suspend disbelief when faced with doubting the gospel of experts is dispiriting.
“…a common enemy must be found, one either real or invented, to unite humanity…In searching for a new enemy to unite us, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like would fit the bill.”
From the Club of Rome’s book The First Global Revolution.
Some info here:
http://green-agenda.com/globalrevolution.html
Regarding Drudge… I check his site pretty much every day. While he is highlighting warm temperatures now, I don’t see him as being pro-AGW at all. Drudge likes to find outliers. He’s very fond of irony, as well. For example, if there’s a Global Warming demonstration that gets canceled due to snow, you know you’ll find that on his site in a heartbeat. If there’s record-breaking heat, he will also throw that on his site.
Anyway, I see that GISS is out with an anomaly of 36. I darn near laughed out loud. Nonetheless, I will be putting together my monthly analysis on the trends. My predicted anomalies were actually high for the month by a bit. The prediction using the change in 360-month trend lines actually did produce a predicted anomaly of 36.5, so that was pretty good (it was my lowest prediction). The average of my predictions were in the mid 40s. So, even with GISS, the anomaly was lower than historical patterns would have suggested it would be by a bit.
Anthony,
I’m thinking of starting a website called MISS or the Mike Institute of Space Studies. After the monthly GISS number comes out, it will be my mission to adjust the number. Instead of only using the sea and earth surface temperatures, I will also use just enough of the earth core temperatures to produce the perfect hockey stick shape. The core is, after all, part of the globe so I see no inconsistency with using core data. Trust me, I know what I’m doing.
(I might even be able to ge a job at NASA!!)
Irreverently,
Mike
Leebert,
You hit the nail on the head. It’s one more indication to me that the climate policy makers have outpaced the climate modelers in terms of understanding the climate (i.e., current knowledge is sufficient for policy making). When the disconnect is this big, it reminds me of Enron with the hype surrounding its business model (i.e., we can trade anything for exorbirant prices) or Bear Stearns with its derivatized sub-prime loan business (i.e., we can convert all mortagages into AAA regardless of risk). The arrogance at RC is astonishing. Why? Just because they work with supercomputers and miles of FORTRAN code? Grant you, that’s pretty cool, but does it entitle you to claim that you know the future (i.e., CO2 impact on global temps)? Those guys are going to ge burned and pretty badly at that (like Enron and Bear Stearns). Remember the scandal at that French bank (Societe General) where a trader lost BILLIONs? Guess what he ineptly betted for last Autumn – higher stock market, higher bond yields, and a strengthening dollar. Yep, he was wrong (spectacularly) on all three counts. The guys at RC are flying blind, and because of their arrogance, they don’t know it.
GISTEMP May data is out: 0.36 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.C.txt
Dear Bob B,
Nice of you to put words in my mouth — I have never expressed an opinion one way or the other on soot on Dot Earth. For your information, of course I would think that it has an effect on the melt rate of snow and ice. A 4th grader would know that.
As to your dislike of GISS TEMP, you will have to throw the babies (i.e., HadCRU, UAH, and RSS) out with the bath water if you throw out GISS — they are in really good agreement with each other (see link below):
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2008/03/4way.jpg
If you want to try to show where Tamino is incorrect in his calculations, good luck with that:
http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/03/02/whats-up-with-that/
Oh Bob, I think I owe you an apology — that was leebert putting words in my mouth, not you, for a change.
Yeah, I own a house in Brazil. I wonder how long you guys would last on the streets around here.
Tenney Naumer, CPA, MBA, M.Acc.
1. I’ve read that the global warming theories do not adequately explain the global temp increase since the 1970’s. Is there an alternative hypothesis, other than AGW?
Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation, Pacific Decadal Oscillation, North Atlantic Oscillation and Arctic Oscillation all switched over to warm phase. (PDO has only just flipped to cool, which may at least partially account for the cooling.)
Should global warming cause more rainfall or less? ( assuming that it is warming)
My answer is more rainfall.
That is what the Aqua Satellite indicates. CO2 increase leads to low-level cloud increase, which increases albedo and stabilized temperatures. Result: homeostasis.
How does CO2 cause low-level cloud increase? Does it cause nucleation around CO2 molecules?
John A.
If you are familiar with distillation techniques, it might help you to visualize the process. More heat redirected to the earth’s surface by absorption of outgoing radition by CO2 increases the amount of vaporization at the earth’s surface. Water vapor then carries the redirected heat in the form of latent heat to higher altitudes where it condenses. Eventually, the released heat escapes to outer space in the form of radiation heat transfer. Please note that there has been NO heating trend in the SH for the past 30 years, which is mostly covered with ocean (thus, ample water available for evaporation). In distillation, if you increase the energy (heat) to the reboiler, then more vapor traffic goes up the column. Assuming that the condenser at the top of the column can handle the extra heat load, then more liquid travels back down the column to repeat the process. The end result is that there is little temperature change at top and bottom of column, but a lot more vapor and liquid going up and down the column (i.e. cloud formation). Of course, this assumes that convection is carrying the extra heat from the reboiler up the column where it is cooled by the condenser. Similarly, the extra heat of CO2 absorption is initially carried up into the atmosphere by convection. Thus, no significant temperature rise at the earth’s surface. The climate models assume that the additional heat is trapped at the earth’s surface, thus the reason for the alarmist temperature trends. Also note that the rising temperature trends of the NH over the past 30 years can be explained by lower pollution levels of sulfates (85% of which originate in the NH). If these modelers spent more time at home making moonshine in their backyard distillaries, there would not be global warming alarmism!
Take a look at this!! This photo was taken in Kiruna, Sweden. 10 of june this year. A few days earlier Kiruna had 20 degrees C. Articles are written in norwegian and swedish. But the pictures says it all.
http://www.nettavisen.no/vaer/article1969704.ece
http://tv4vadret.se/1.493235/2008/06/09/nu_blir_det_regn#
GISTEMP for May compared with UAH/RSS, with baseline adjustment:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/last:12/offset:-0.146/plot/uah/last:12/plot/rss/last:12/plot/gistemp/last:12/offset:-0.238
HADCRUT3 isn’t out yet, but there does seem to be a marked difference between land/sea and satellite data at the moment. Any physical explanation anyone can think of?
Bouncing GISS numbers:
As of May 02, 2008:
2008 12 26 67
As of May 16, 2008:
2008 13 26 60 41
As of June 10, 2008:
2008 14 25 58 41 36
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
I am still waiting for HadCRUT’s May data
John M Reynolds
Just a thought . I live in n.c and it has been warm the last several days. We have had some records in the state which go back to 1933 , IT WAS THIS HOT BACK THEN TOO.My first piont is the noaa,weather channel,and accuweather had had a fiels day with this .It’s like it’s never been this warm before.But what really gets me ,I guess I shouldn’t really be supprised,is out west they are having snow in Montana ,Colorado,Wyoning,Washington State,and Idaho and frost in California and Orogan and the only thing the weathermen are saying is it’s a little cool and accuweather is saying very cool out there. We are not talking about flurries . They are forcasting 12 to 18in. in the Rocky mountains and 4 to 8 in. of snowin the lower elevation.Isn’t this unual for this time if year. I mean summer is only 11 day away.They even reopened the a ski resort in Colorado.Now if this were winter and it was 30 degrees above normal the media and weathermen would be screaming GLOBAL WARMING AND WE WOULD SEE THE POLAR BEARS ON THAT LITTLE BIT OFMELTING ICE!!!!
When putting GISS at HadCRU baseline(1961-1990) and at 250km, GiSS is much more similiar. Look at these maps.
GISS
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/work/gistemp/NMAPS/tmp_GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_250km_Anom04_2008_2008_1961_1990/GHCN_GISS_HR2SST_250km_Anom04_2008_2008_1961_1990.gif
HadCRU
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/monthly/anomaly.png
HadCRU GISS
Jan .053 .10
Feb .187 .23
Mar .430 .41
Apr .250 .26
Will compare when HadCRU comes in for May.
GISS changes come from missing data being filled in. I’ve noticed changes in there maps. Holes being filled.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33092/title/Science_Academies_Call_for_Climate_Action
reports on a joint statement of “Our National Academy of Sciences and its counterparts in a dozen other nations” “to limit the threat of climate change by weaning themselves off of their dependence on fossil fuels.”
The statement refers to a global temperature increase between 1906 and 2005 of 0.74C. This strike me as rather odd, as we have data up to last month:
Jan 2005: 0.489
Dec 2005: 0.225
May 2008: -0.083
I appears that much of that 0.74C has been relieved recently….
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/33104/title/Polar_Bear_Fallout