This is an interesting paper from our good friend Dr. John Christy of UAH and D. H. Douglas. In it, a bold claim is made about the likelihood that the atmosphere no longer shows the characteristic of CO2 radiative forcing, and that the effect apparently peaked around 1998. Here is figure 1 from the paper:
From the paper: “The global values of ΔT in Figure 1 show for the period Jan 1979 to Jan 2008 that the anomalies reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded by later values.”
Here is how the abstract reads:
“The global atmospheric temperature anomalies of Earth reached a maximum in 1998 which has not been exceeded during the subsequent 10 years. The global anomalies are calculated from the average of climate effects occurring in the tropical and the extratropical latitude bands. El Nino/La Nina effects in the tropical band are shown to explain the 1998 maximum while variations in the background of the global anomalies largely come from climate effects in the northern extratropics. These effects do not have the signature associated with CO2 climate forcing. However, the data show a small underlying positive trend that is consistent with CO2 climate forcing with no-feedback.”
You can read the paper and the link below. which provides a new perspective on the role of CO2 as a radiative climate forcing.
Douglass, D.H., and J.R. Christy, 2008: Limits on CO2 Climate Forcing from Recent Temperature Data of Earth.
I’m sure this will raise the ire of a number of people, but at the same time, what else have we to explain the nearly flat response in global temperature in the last 10 years?
h/t Dr. Roger Pielke, Sr.
Am I to assume the 3.3cm and 2.5cm references are supposed to be 3.3mm and 2.5mm? If not, then the equipment isn’t even capable of measuring below those thresholds.
Mary: “Ric, just for you, the trend over the last few hundred years http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_few_hundred.html
Mary, thanks for this and your previous links to CSIRO. This site has much to commend it, combining an authoritative but reader-friendly account of sea-level changes with some very pleasing graphics. The movies are a bonus. My favourite colours are blue and green, so I was already perceptually prepared to accept the information presented on the site.
I was especially taken with the photograph of Dr Roland Gerhels at work in the field. This simple composition speaks volumes about not only the dedication of climate scientists, but also the goodwill flowing from cordial international relations. Science can indeed build bridges between the peace-loving peoples of the world.
I was particularly struck by the checked blue shirt and beard of the pictured scientist (Dr Roland Gerhels?). To me this said: true physical scientist, man of the earth, a beard to trust. I shall sleep easier knowing that such men exist.
Ed Scott (15:15:18) :
Yeah, yeah, I understand the rocket science behind the mapping and have long been duly impressed. Even handheld GPS receivers impress me – they receive signal that is buried in noise, sync up with atomic clocks whizzing by at thousands of miles per hour but can figure out the distance to each within a few feet. Fancy systems can figure it out to a fraction of a wavelength.
What I don’t understand are organizations like CSIRO. See http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2004/s1244258.htm
Take a look at http://www.cmar.csiro.au/sealevel/sl_hist_last_15.html and look at the curve for the last two years. In mid 2006 the sea level was about 22 mm above whatever it is they’re using for zero. At the end of the trace it’s about 23 mm. Of course, the last two years are inadequate for serious study, but it you want to see the impact near a PDO flip, that’s where you look. Will the cooling trend continue? probably. Will that translate into slow post-little-ice-age sea level rise? Probably. Maybe even a little lowering.
Will I buy ocean front property in the Caribbean? Heck no. I won’t even buy ocean front property in New Hampshire. I have full faith we will have a repeat of the Hurricane of ’38 one of these years. In fact, I was at a “Public Listening Session” last night held by the Governor’s Climate Change Task Force and criticized their action item on preparing for extreme weather events. The only reference to hurricane was in a sentence suggesting requiring that seacoast buildings have hurricane shutters.
I have no faith in them to keep!
Leif Svalgaard (16:02:59) :
Glenn (15:35:11) :
I’d rather take official information at face value.
Like the IPCC AR4?
I like to take that official information at farce value. 🙂
Neil Crafter (15:45:07) :
“I note Mary Hinge’s favourite source of statistics appears to be Australia’s CSIRO. ”
Strewth mate, you ol’ cobber! No, I use CSIRO because they use up to date data, see posts above about University of Colorado, they seem to have a problem and are only using data to February.
P.S. I can’t be Oz, my favourite sports hero is Ian Botham…C’mon Beefy!
http://www.physorg.com/news140873176.html
Article about a new study that says aerosols (smog) is making the earth cooler. But when China and others clean up their act… look out!
Mike Bryant (02:19:20) :
“http://www.physorg.com/news140873176.html
Article about a new study that says aerosols (smog) is making the earth cooler. But when China and others clean up their act… look out!”
The ‘Global Dimming’ is very interesting. I remember that measurements were taken when the air traffic over the USA was stopped in the aftermath of the 9/11 attacks and I think I remembered they showed a noticeable warming as the con trails were no longer a factor. I haven’t got anything firmer than that so any links would be welcome
Maybe OT alittle, but I think Spencer’s paper below is very important concerning climate sensitivity empirically determined compared to what the GCMs currently use:
http://climatesci.org/wp-content/uploads/spencer-ppt.pdf
He uses relatively simple methods on satellite temp data.
plaxio (05:13:12) :
“Mary Hinge: “Available evidence shows that there is no correlation between sunspot activity and the LIA and MWP”
Yeah sure Mary, I’ll go along with that…..”
Good for you, progress at last!
Glenn (14:23:33) :
“How about other events? Is all tectonic activity relatable to the Indonesia event?”
Off course not, the example illustrates that even with an extremely large one on 20 year event the effect on sea level is miniscule.
“Are you saying that the Indonesia event caused a global sea level increase?”
yes, it has been recorded at 0.1mm….please read post again if not sure
“Have you considered the variability of gravity due to the effects of tectonic movement?”
Bearing in mind how thin the crust is on the earth (put the earth the same size as a billiard ball and the crust wouldn’t even be the thickness of a coat of varnish). Any changes in gravity would be extremely small and any possible effects on seal level would be minnutissimal. I think the words ‘of’ ‘Barrel’, ‘the’, ‘Scraping’ ‘the’ and ‘bottom’ apply to your argument now, rearrange the words how you see fit.
Mary,
“put the earth the same size as a billiard ball and the crust wouldn’t even be the thickness of a coat of varnish” also the seas and all water on earth like mere moisture on the same billiard ball. And the people on this tiny bit of crust and moisture will control this wildly spinning earth by passing laws and removing our freedom.
What a frightening thought!
Mike
Mary
the lack of contrails around 9/11showed a larger fluctuation ie cooler at night and warmer by day but no change in the average. The range increased by 1.1 degrees Celcius so yes it is interesting how much contrails affect us. Just google “911 contrails”.
Mike Bryant (07:32:47) :
” And the people on this tiny bit of crust and moisture will control this wildly spinning earth by passing laws and removing our freedom.
What a frightening thought!”
I think you may have stumbled on the perfect definition of politics!
With the sort of grit, stamina and determination that you would expect of an old paratrooper (actually, very old!) I have struggled through this long thread understanding about as much detail as you would expect for a man who failed his Maths, Physics and Chemistry exams at the age of 16. I have enjoyed ‘The Glenn & Lief Show’ (or ‘The Lief & Glenn Show’ – I really don’t want a lecture from the “gloomy Dane”, or whatever, for not giving him top billing) and I detect a situation perfectly explained and encapsulated by the brilliant and incomparable ‘anna v (09:08:58)’ who explains in pellucid English the intractable complexity of it all and the foolishness of anyone believing for a second that they have the one and only final answer. I award her the ‘Duff & Nonsense Prize’ for English and Physics – and commonsense! (If only she had been around to teach me physics all those years ago.)
David Duff (14:39:15) :
…. I have enjoyed ‘The Glenn & Lief Show’ (or ‘The Lief & Glenn Show’ – I really don’t want a lecture from the “gloomy Dane”, or whatever, for not giving him top billing) …
You’re more likely to get a lecture for misspelling Leif. 🙂
Ric Werme (17:10:35) :
You’re more likely to get a lecture for misspelling Leif. 🙂
I have kind of given up on that … Even people in New England misspell it, although my name ‘rimes’ with their ‘either’
[…] I am still reading the new Douglas and Christy paper, so I won’t comment on it yet, but you can see Anthony Watts thoughts here. […]
“Solar activity is back to where it was 100 years ago, but temps are not.”
http://yesserver.space.swri.edu/yes2003/solaractcyc.html
Not really back yet to where it was 100 years ago, but temps are approaching those of 100 years ago, within perhaps .2C, and July dropped to roughly the same as was in 1880.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/uah_august2008.png
Glenn (21:54:48) :
temps are approaching those of 100 years ago, within perhaps .2C, and July dropped to roughly the same as was in 1880.
http://www.newscientist.com/data/images/ns/cms/dn11639/dn11639-2_808.jpg
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/uah_august2008.png
You must be joking. The average temp for 2008 is about what 2000 was according to the second graph. Now look at the temps for 2000 in the first graph.
Here are the numbers:
2008 +0.295 July +0.397
2000 +0.277
1880 -0.250 July -0.257
but the cheery-picked high point in 1880 is not a hundred years ago, that was 1908:
1908 -0.554 July -0.529
I shall be even stronger. This is not a joke. This is scientific dishonesty.
Coolers – can you take the Year After 1998 Challenge?
If it’s been cooling since 1998, what’s it been doing since 1999? Do you think you know? Are you sure cooling is really clear and strong? Proven? Since 1998, right? But has it cooled since 1999?!
This shouldn’t be hard, since 1999 was quite hot – sixth hottest on record at the time but it’s down to thirteenth. Sixth in 1999. Thirteenth now. Go figure. It’s still in the top 20 so it’s not a deliberately low bar to get this clear cooling trend in under. Being less well known 1999 should be able to avoid most of the controversy and bickering we get with 1998 and be more able to demonstrate recent trends.
A clear cooling trend doesn’t need, shouldn’t need, a single unusually hot year and controversial yearto prove it’s a trend – a real trend will show itself clearly and reveal the truth about warming without it. So check it out. Let me know how much cooler it’s been since 1999.
Check out 1999, the year coolers don’t want to talk about.
For global temps see this graph at GISS (note that you are automatically counted as conspiracy theory nutter if you say that’s an unreliable source). Email complaints to them at GISS if you truly believe they are wrong and you aren’t worried that they’ll laugh.
Ken Fabos.