After GISS’s embarrasing error with replicating September temperatures in the October analysis, the NASA GISTEMP website was down for awhile today (at least for me).
This evening, the new gridded data was posted, and I generated a world temperature anomaly map with the new data. It clearly has some changes in it from the previous erroneous version.
See below:
GISTEMP 11-12-08 – Click for larger image
You can plot your own here at this link to GISTEMP’s map maker
Now compare the above corrected version with the erroneous one below:
GISTEMP 11-11-08
I’m sorry for the small map, as I was traveling during much of this debacle, and was not able to be online much at all. This one above comes courtesy of Kate at SDA who saved one (thanks Kate).
Note the bottom scale, the top end on the erroneous one was 13.7Ā°C, while the corrected one tops out at 8Ā°C. That alone should have set off alarm bells at GISS. Personally, I don’t believe the 8Ā°C anomaly either, since much of the Russian weather data is suspect to start with, and the data distribution is sparse.
So far, no mention of the new data beyond this yesterday at the NASA GISS news page:
2008-11-11: Most data posted yesterday were replaced by the data posted last month since it looks like some mishap might have occurred when NOAA updated their GHCN data. We will postpone updating this web site until we get confirmation from NOAA that their updating programs worked properly. Because today is a Federal Holiday, some pages are still showing yesterday’s data.
We live in interesting times.
I think you got the graphs backwards. If the one that maxes out at 8C is the new one, then your text “Now compare the above erroneous version with the corrected one below” does not match. The above and below should be switched. — John M Reynolds
Wow. That was fast. You fixed it already. You can kill my messages now. Thanks. — John M Reynolds
Mike Bryant (13:43:04) :
Iāll wager that when the corrections are made another couple of warm spots will pop up.
Hmmm looks like I was right… Australia and Canada are the most prominent.
What happened to Australia?
As a non-scientist, I have difficulty visualizing the differences and significances since the maps are not on the same scale. Is it possible to show the new data on the same scale as the older one?
as
Why would the correction cause northern Canada to become much hotter and also Australia? I would have thought that the correction would only serve the purpose of cooling off Russia.
Re” Iām sorry for the small map”
I wonder if the GISS is not embarrassed by their error. Probably not. Everyone and anyone can make a mistake but, frankly, such errors seem to be a trend with regard to AGW climate science.
I could explain Australia–it’s south of the equator. But Canada? you got me.
Isn’t it odd that the Arctic ice has refrozen at rates never seen in the satellite age, during October, yet it was warmer in Siberia? Strange indeed.
Doesn’t the mere fact that government scientists are the ones doing the tabulation, makes you just a tiny bit suspicious that the raw data collection and the computer analysis is accurate.
Have they begun to work on the previous years data as well? How would one know which numbers have been corrected/adjusted. Archive procedures and versions would make it auditable. I wonder what the surface stations look like in Russia?
The anomalously warm Arctic stands out as a bit of an eyebrow-raiser, given the impressive ice growth during the month. The 4-8-degree-Celsius anomaly over Russia still looks odd, all the more so over the part of the Arctic basin due north of Siberia, which, again, froze like it was someplace cold.
Can UAH, RSS, and Hadley tell us what their values are for Siberia for the month, so that even the new GISS data can be verified? I.E. I don’t have the technical knowledge to know if the satellites can separate a geographic region that way, or whether they do so routinely.
The artic in October.
Must be all that ice forming
thats doing the warming !
The scales are pretty much the same except for the darkest color. It was greater than 4 and less than or equal to 13.7, now greater than 4 and less than or equal to 8.
Anthony – Can you explain the meteorological phenomena that would cause the step change in the temperature anomaly that occurs across the Bering Straight?
Amazing how the icecap keeps growing in these high temperatures.
At RC #118 gavin Says:
“12 November 2008 at 10:00 PM
The corrected data is up. Met station index = 0.68, Land-ocean index = 0.58, details here. Turns out Siberia was quite warm last month.”
GISS Surface Temperature Analysis
Interesting. It seems gray indicates no data available since it’s not on their color scale. However, the map based on erroneous data indicates no data for northern Canada and most of Australia (which they apparently didn’t question), yet the one based on corrected data shows available data and also warmer. I wonder if that’s how they’ll maintain their much higher positive anomaly.
Is there any way that the two graphs could be subtracted from each other, so that we may see the differences? It would appear that the only change of scale is for the maximum positive anomaly. All of the other scale marks appear to be identical in the two graphs, yet there are changes in the other values (ranges) also.
I fail to see where the embarrasment is to be found. Siberia is shown to be experiencing a heat wave. 2007, 2005 and 1934 still are the hottest years on record and the variance of 1934 being hotter is around 0.01, so where is the inconsistency, the rebuttal to a multitude of data or the cause for doubt in the first place, based upon real data? The northern latitudes look like they experienced quite a warming, actually from either map.
Did you look over the 2007 graphs, models, and empirical results?
REPLY: Putting identical September data for hundreds of stations in the October data analysis and then touting October is the ‘warmest on record”, based on the flawed replication of data is not an embarrassment?
No need to check 2007 models, graphs and empirical results to see this major flub, except for those that want to change the subject. We are discussing October 2008, not 2007, not 2005, not 1934. – Anthony
Interesting how the artic ice caps are atcually observed to be melting right in front of people’s eyes.
…celsius, for contiguous states.
These GISS maps show one point in time (in this case month) compared to an average of a 30-year period for Oct. It is interesting to compare the map for October 1947 here with the Oct 2008. Why Oct 1947 – it was about the peak of the previous cycle in Siberia.
Here is a graph of HadCRU October data (1900 – 2007 with anomaly base period 1961-1990) for 9 grids in Siberia link. And here (link) is the same data averaged for the 9 grids.
The current warming is similar to the 1940s.
Guys,
please remember that these are ANOMALY charts!!! If the average temp for the baseline is -25C, the -17C higher temp will still freeze ocean water very nicely!!!
Of course, that does bring into question why the Arctic didn’t refreeze as quickly earlier this decade with a cooler anomaly and alledgedly cooler ocean!! 8>)
Here you can see actual measured air temps from the Arctic:
http://www.crrel.usace.army.mil/sid/IMB/newdata.htm
Maybe the legend should say:
“Now compare the above corrected erroneous version with the first erroneous one below:”
What’s the next number in this sequence: 1 2 4 ?
If you guessed ‘8’, go to the back of the class.
It’s 13.7.
“The Engineer” @ 21:01:29 —
“The arctic in October.
Must be all that ice forming
thats doing the warming !”
The National Snow and Ice Data Center, Nov. 10 —
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
“As is normal for this time of year, ice extent increased rapidly through most of October. However, this year, the increase was particularly fast, which contributed to above-average air temperatures near the surface.”
š
So it was “only” an error of 25%, no big deal right?
We know for a fact that some of the data originally used for the Oct anomaly was erroneous. Why do we trust the data for the other sites? Why do we trust the data going back to the beginning of the GISTEMP?
IMO once you’ve proven data errors then the rest of the data is suspect until proven accurate.
Why is Australia and surrounds different in this chart as opposed to the one with bad Russian data…. The scale is the same. Only the values above +8C have changed in the scale on both charts…… So why the different charts for the Australian area… Only Russia should have changed.
More GISS shenanigans….. They never stop.
I do prefer the polka dots breaking out all over. Because the dots can be counted, I think that map is more quantifiable. š
Ok so we are discussing October 2008 and significant warming is still observed. And no, it is not an embarrasment, something like this can happen and does happen to every organization at times. The error was fixed so quickly, and the warming trends are still quite clear. So again I ask where is the major discrepancy?
Steve McIntyre’s hot on the trail of another mystery. The hot spot in the Canadian Arctic is not supported by data.
==============================
I did a post on this concurrent with Anthony’s post and noticed the same issues with northern Canada and Australia.
For my post, I downloaded the new GHCN data and compared it to Monday’s version (which I had saved) and checked for stations with Oct 2008 data today that didn’t have data on Monday. All but 2 of the stations were in Australia (the other two were SH). So there is new information justifying changes in Australia but no new information from GHCN for northern Canada.
So what changed between Monday and Wednesday that enabled NASA to color the Canadian Arctic Islands red?
Re: that the icecap keeps growing at these temps
My personal, totally unproven, guess is that perhaps you need to have significant open ocean in the Arctic to start to build continental ice sheets. Consider that you need some source of moisture in the Northern Hemisphere to build continental ice sheets… What better to do that than an open water source in the Arctic? Perhaps if the stars align (the solar forcing curve from Milankovitch cycles) correctly at the start of an ice age you get more of an open ocean condition in the Arctic which drives evaporation in the Arctic into overdrive to start that feedback loop on land to build ice sheets. Otherwise Laurentia and N. Central Canada are a long way away from moisture sources to overwhelm ablations by melting and sublimation. Certainly something has to change to put more moisture over the Northern lattitudes to build ice sheets to initiate an ice age… and I haven’t seen any good explanations that define what boundary conditions would change a arctic desert into a moist place to build up miles of ice cap. That’s my $0.02, though I don’t have any huge basis for it…
I’m curious to know what Australians think of these maps. Both maps show higher than normal temps in Australia’s most southern (coldest) regions and normal everywhere else. Is snow in Sydney normal?
jcbmack: Because global warming is a lie. We are alarmed at the rate and number of falsehoods that promote the global warming scare which will cost millions of people their lives.
Huh, I misread the posts. I don’t believe that anyone actually said that icecaps were growing in this discussion. I must have been misplacing the recent info about the Alaskan glaciers having a positive mass balance. But my hypothesis still stands, you still need something to drive ice buildup in the North and there has to be a source. I’d love to be pointed in the right direction of a paper or two that explains how this happens…
jcbmack
do you work for NASA GISS? With all your justifying of their stuff-up one can imagine you have some sort of vested interest in this.
Jcbmack-
The main discrepency was already addressed – GISS had way too high of an anomaly for October due to faulty information from the NOAA they failed to catch.
But there is still discrepencies with the new map. Satellite temperature measurements do not indicate that Russia or even most of Asia as the GISS map indicates. In addition, as others have pointed out, if the Russian Arctic was so much warmer than normal, how did the ice grow there at a record pace in October? It just doesn’t add up. Also, I was following temperatures in Arctic Russia during the last month watching the ice grow, and they did not seem to be much above normal at all.
One more note of caution regarding GISS: if you look back through their previous maps, you will notice Siberia has had way more major “heat waves” than any other place on the planet. This seems rather odd, not just because it is consistently the same area recording the biggest anomalies, but also because it is a huge area that is very sparsely populated…
Strange how the grey areas have shrunk to be replaced by a positive anomaly. How can you have an anomaly from something that wasn’t there before???
And in the UK we’ve gone from [+1 to +2C] to [-0.5 to -1C]. I didn’t think it had been that much warmer than normal.
Steve McIntyre:
“So what changed between Monday and Wednesday that enabled NASA to color the Canadian Arctic Islands red?”
They got a new red crayon to replace the one they wore out in Russia?
The original map looks like it has the UK and Ireland too warm also.
Anyone can make a mistake but some people seem to always make the mistake in the right direction.
Off topic: reading in new scientist two articles this morning. I am no climate scientist or indeed a scientist but i am not convinced.
“Humans may have prevented super ice age ”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html
“The ice age that never was”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926721.600-the-ice-age-that-never-was.html
I checked on NASA’s website and created the map for October but it is still today (Oct 13 in Finland) the same as that printed at Oct 10. From where is the new map reproduced?
Also the graph showing zonal mean (anomaly) from -90 – +90 degree latitude is identical with that from Oct 10 ! I printed out them both on Oct 10 and Oct13.
Larry HuldƩn
Finnish Museum of Natural History
Why is latest data allowed to “adjust” previous data?
hehe it is Nasa afterall, you sure they converted degree to celsiusor visa versa?? ,, I know that was mean but I found images of Mars landers smashing into the ground flashing through my head..
“Isnāt it odd that the Arctic ice has refrozen at rates never seen in the satellite age, during October, yet it was warmer in Siberia? Strange indeed.”
Here in the NW there has been a ton of rain.. a little atmospheric jumpstart for the ice north of us? I was thinking we would be a warmer spot because we havent gotten the cold snap that usually comes with clear skys here in the winter.. good thing though or we would be snowed in.
Rick: “Amazing how the icecap keeps growing in these high temperatures.”
Oh, that’s an easy one to spin. As seawater turns to ice, the thermal energy it loses is released into the surounding air where it becomes trapped by that evil gas carbon dioxide, and so the greater scale of the freeze, the warmer the atmosphere becomes, and of course this stresses out all the starving polar bears and the poor little baby seals.
[…] lot’s of material – (and this is the tip of the iceberg) Corrected NASA GISTEMP data has been posted __________________ ~Paradox "In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary […]
Since ice absorbs a lot of heat when it melts, it necessarily follows that when water freezes it emits a great deal of heat. So bare water (or thin ice) should cause the North to be warm. As to whether this would happen in Siberia or Canada, wouldn’t that depend on the direction of the winds?
As soon as the ice pack returns to normal (with normal thicknesses so as to provide the normal insulation for the air), the effect (i.e. of water freezing giving off heat to the air) will go away and the awfully cold winter that I think we have ahead of us will continue.
Why would they publish the original figures with the whole of Australia missing in the first place?
[…] Two pretty pictures… colourful, anway… though they did not manage to fool “Corrected NASA GISTEMP data has been posted” Anthony Watts or “Watch the Pea” Steve […]
GISTEMP anomalies for October for the past 30 years, with the revised data:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979.75/every:12
The arctic ‘October heat wave’ is the signature of the rapid freezing of the arctic sea ice, because a lot of latent heat is freed.
Remember, we had roughly 2 million km2 less ice extent in this September than normally.
Rapid freezing occured in October, especially along the Siberian coast. At the end of October, the sea ice extent was almost back to normal.
This freezing was driven by very low arctic temperatures. Every kg of water frees 80 kcal or 330 kiloJoule of latent heat, equivalent to heating 80 kg of (liquid) water by 1degree Centigrade- or roughly 100 cubic meter of air at surface pressure by 1 degree. 1m3 of water will thus cause a 1 degree temperature increase for 100.000 cubic meters of air at sea level pressure. This is a column of air of 100 m2 which ist 1000 m high. Correct then for the air pressure, and you have a column of air extenting almost to the end of the troposphere.
When we assume for simplicity that 1 miilion km2 of ocean surface water freezes to 1 m depth (equivalent to 1000 km3), then 100 million km2 of surrounding area will be affected by a 1 degree temperature increase in the atmosphere, or the whole arctic area of 30 million km2 gets a 3 degree increase.
What do we learn:
-As long as there is excess arctic sea ice melting during summer, there will be an ‘October (latent) heat wave’ in the arctic. These two effects are surely correlated: the one causes the other.
-The satellite data do show a signature of this effect in their arctic data, but do not show an increase in their global number (500 vs 30 million km2). It will be interesting what Hadcrut tells us and what the GISS people will tell us when they have fixed their problem. We may learn more about the systematic differences between the surface based and satellite data.
-As the relatively warmer arctic air could take up more water vapor, precipitation may have increased, which would be consistent with the large snow covered areas of the arctic, seen, e.g., on the Cryosphere Today (UIUC) maps . Albedo change should follow: we may get a rather cold winter.
British Islands have changed too. Rat !
“The error was fixed so quickly”. After it had been released. With some fanfare. Having been found by someone else.
That would be embarassing to any organisation. Other than the GISS, apparently.
Western Europe still looks too warm.
Off topic: I’ve been predicting the following for some time, with no one really taking me seriously. Now here it is!
GORE AS CLIMATE CZAR!
http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/11/12/obama-tap-nations-climate-car/
The USA is headed for a dictatorship.
Look here to compare anomalies for surface temp 2005 when done by NASA and done by Ole Humlum – see what dramatically different messages they convey.
From the chart at the top of this post, NASA have their anomaly from 1951-1980 baseline, the last global temp downturn time, whereas Humlum has his anomaly from 1998-2006. So of course NASA looks hot – and it doesn’t reveal the current trend. And – very convenient that SST are largely missing? since surely those reveal most unequivocally the current trend, if compared to an appropriate baseline date range?
The corrected map is still about one degree too warm for northern Europe. Take a look here:
http://www.smhi.se/cmp/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=11490&l=sv
Click “MĆ„nadstemperaturavvikelse 2008 oktober” and look at the map for 2008-10-31.
I think the folks at GISS are painting modern art, and nothing more.
SWAG HudCRU: +0.47Ā°C
Anthony: Expect a bit of confusion this morning. I had to delete my browsing history in order for the new map to appear, otherwise I was getting a replay of the old version.
So, with the ocean data added, the global GIStemp reading is at 0.58 deg C and that makes it the 5th warmest, not warmest October.
Something like that cannot happen and doesn’t happen to professionals .
People working with data in the real part of the world and being professional make always sure that they don’t use not updated or wildly fantastical data .
Of course for amateurs there is nothing embarassing about blunders in trivial quality procedures , they don’t care .
The problem is that those people are selling themselves as professionals what they clearly are not .
And that is embarassing because there is nothing more pitiful than a somebody who pretends that he is what he is not .
Its all quite pathetic really, even the period of anomaly 1951-1980. Talk about cherry pick a time when it was substantially cooler.
The ice is flat-out NOT going to refreeze at the record pace it has been refreezing at with the Arctic 2-8C above normal. Does not compute….
jcbmack (22:31:38) Hey, mack, the Arctic ice cap is freezing up in front of your eyes. Why do you sometimes call it an ice sheet? Do you know why it isn’t a sheet? Do you know why it isn’t nice to just fill in numbers from the previous month? Do you know that the globe is cooling, for how long even kim doesn’t know?
The models are wrong. They use a figure for water vapor feedback that is too high. Check out Roy Spencer’s latest work.
You are apparently a strong ‘true believer’. Learn about the cooling and warming phases of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and notice how the last warming phase of it coincided with the warming of the last quarter of the last century, the only time period of the 20th Century in which temperature approximately matches the rise in CO2. Do you ever wonder why CO2 has risen steadily for the last decade, while temperatures have gone flat and now started to drop? You have a lot to learn, kiddo.
==========================================
How is it possible that the difference between September and October is +0’08Āŗ(0’50Āŗ-0’58Āŗ), if the difference in land is +0’02Āŗ (0’63Āŗ-0’65Āŗ), and oceans +0’01Āŗ (0’33Āŗ-0’34Āŗ)?
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/maps/
When discussing new ice forming and surface temperature it is wise to consider where the heat goes that comes out of the water -> ice phase transition. Some clearly stays in the remaining water, the rest…
This new GISS data still diverges greatly with satellite temps for same period
Tito,
It’s the new math.
Just checking the station data in one of the “hot” areas over Pakistan:
WeatherUnderground reports that Panjgur, Pakistan had a mean temperature of 23 degrees C in October, and 26 degrees C in September. GISS has recorded temps of 25.3 and 28.6, respectively.
Zahedan, Iran’s mean temp in WU is 20 degrees in Oct. 24 in Sept, but GISS has these temps as 21.6 and 26.2.
In almost every case, GISS’s high anomaly locations are using mean temperature data that are 1-2 degrees C higher than those in WU.
Dal Bandin, Pakistan:
WU: Oct – 24; Sept – 28
GISS: Oct – 26.7; Sept – 30.8
Yes, Giss is closer to reality now, however, South America they have got wrong still.
Siberia is warmer in the fall of years when there has been great ice retreat from the arctic. The arctic ocean keeps the air warmer.
But this cools the surface water. Therefore more rapid freezing is in fact possible even though air temperatures are higher…
But: This higher airtemperature does in no way indicate warming since it comes along with cooling of the arctic surface water. And therefore the slightly higher fall 2007 and 2008 global temperatures is not a sign of permanent warming. November and december is ligkely to show massive fall in global temperatures, as i have mentioned earlier.
By the way, GIss still has south America totaly wrong:
http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/amsu.jpg
Richard: “Off topic: reading in new scientist two articles this morning. I am no climate scientist or indeed a scientist but i am not convinced.”
āHumans may have prevented super ice age ā
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026-humans-may-have-prevented-super-ice-age.html
āThe ice age that never wasā
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19926721.600-the-ice-age-that-never-was.html
Still OT but on the subject of ice ages, past and future, there’s also this today from the Mail Online (via Tom Nelson).
“Lead author Thomas Crowley from the University of Edinburgh and Canadian colleague William Hyde say that currently vilified greenhouse gases ā such as carbon dioxide ā could actually be the key to averting the chill.”
“Professor Crowley said the stark findings do not mean we should stop fighting warming. But he urged: āDonāt push the panic button.ā”
I’ve seen quite a few press releases with wording similar to “… findings do not mean we should stop fighting warming”. It’s almost like a standard disclaimer on the lines of “Terms and conditions apply”, “Always read the label”, etc.
A degree or two here a degree or two there, and we can create any trend we want.
Speaking of sea ice. Look at the default Cryosphere Today comparison to 2008:
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh
Not a whole lot of difference.
[…] Read More:Ā wattsupwiththat.com Tags: Conspiracy, temperature data, temperature, NASA Related Posts […]
Since the temperature for Ireland is different between the graphs i checked what it offically was.
“Mean monthly air temperatures were below normal everywhere, by around one degree generally.”
For anyone interested a summary of monthly weather conditions for Ireland can be found here: http://www.met.ie/climate/monthly-summary.asp
Maybe you set the selected parm incorrectly or do not read the charts properly? The line graph shows latitudinal anomaly, not global and when seeing near 3.5C+ way north, it’s a sign.
Of my interests are the hemispherical versus Global:
Global:
2007 85 61 59 64 55 53 53 56 50 54 48 40 56 59 72 59 54 50 2007
2008 14 25 62 36 40 32 52 39 50 58********** ********* 26 46 41***** 2008
NH:
2007 127 87 90 103 57 60 57 67 62 77 74 71 78 81 107 83 62 71 2007
2008 19 43 102 43 54 53 53 53 51 88********** ********* 45 66 53***** 2008
SH
2007 44 36 28 26 52 46 48 44 38 30 22 8 35 37 36 35 46 30 2007
2008 8 6 22 29 25 12 52 25 48 28********** ********* 7 25 30***** 2008
Since 90% of the world population lives on the Northern Hemisphere it’s the October 0.88C that is relevant to HSS. That’s the region where an even greater percent of the Carbon is burned… e.g. USA under 4% of global populous but near a quarter of the fossil fuel burning.
Met Stations NH shows even higher @ 0.92C anomaly and we do live on land I think.
2007 159 118 115 127 81 79 79 89 76 99 97 98 101 104 136 108 83 90 2007
2008 35 53 124 59 70 64 62 57 59 92********** ********* 62 84 61***** 2008
Whilst Met Station SH show 0.44C anomaly for October
2007 54 40 31 28 64 30 51 64 67 49 34 23 45 46 43 41 48 50 2007
2008 36 10 25 27 17 10 67 18 72 44********** ********* 23 23 32***** 2008
It’s the angle of view one “chooses” to take.
Now, the ice is not refreezing astonishingly as MattN notes. Arctic Sea Ice “Area” deviated only 200,000 km square from the same day last year, speak about Nov. 3. SIA October mean remained below all previous years since 1979.
http://i137.photobucket.com/albums/q210/Sekerob/ArcticSIASIEOctober.png
The “kiddo” understands more than kim thinks he knows. There’s a whole array of pseudo scientists that learned to use a reverse polish calculator and type numbers as were it a regular accounting office version.
Ever computed what the “cooling” would have been without that near 40% CO2 increase? CH4 is the next bang awaiting us. The values are up after 10 years of reduction.
Anyway, until evidence is presented beyond the silly stuff like “unresolved discrepancy of 0.001C” that was printed here in red on Sunday by the head blogger, I’m a firm believer that HSS has a major hand in the affair. Got an issue with that?
I live right at the foot of a major ski resort and it’s not pretty when it’s Real Feel temps of 21C in November when it should be 5C and less down below. People used to drive here with their skis on the car roof all winter and spring… now we hardly see that, particular since the turn of the millennium. Anecdotal, but fact to me.
Harold Ambler hit the nail on the head.
The corrected data makes even less sense.
It is dubious at best for Siberia to be so warm while the Arctic, according to the actual photos, is icing over at rates similar to 1979.
I think the GISS folk are playing games and they think they are immune to getting caught.
What’s really interesting to me is not only was the scale changed, but also the breath of temperature covered by the last color (brown). In the erroneous set brown covers 4 – 13.7 C, a spread larger than the other colors combined. In the new the brown scale is 4-8 C (which accounts for the relatively lack of change in the Russian area). If someone wasn’t watching the scale, they might think the ‘error’ wasn’t as egregious as it was since there is still a good bit of ‘brown’ over Russia.
I do wonder also (as others have) what happened to the temps in Australia? In the erroneous map there is almost no coverage of temps in Australia, in the new Australia is completely covered (and warmer). What gives? If they plot it again will it change again? Same goes for the Hudson Bay area of Canada, erroneous no temps, revised it got a lot hotter. I thought the problem was just with the Russian temps? It appears from this there were massive errors in several areas of the world.
Given all this I don’t see how any rational scientist could possibly consider GISS temp data credible
As an engineer myself it is difficult to imagine the scenario in which I would record the warmest October ever and not step back and say, “Hmm… perhaps I should double check that before Watts, McIntyre and the rest of the Internet makes me look foolish.”
Then after double checking it myself I would find some completely independant people and say, “We are about to make history, can you check this and make sure I didn’t screw it up?”
I’m not accussing them of malfeasance, but I would like for them to know it sure looks like it.
Common sense would dictate being overly cautious before releasing data claiming the warmest October in recorded history.
How does a group that has such an omnipotent grasp of the climate as to be 99% certain of the causes of any changes make an error like as this? Iām so disillusioned.
(my tongue has cut clean through my cheek)
A Nov. 11 poll by Democratic pollster Douglas E. Schoen that sought to measure American sentiment toward climate change policy during the economic crisis found that a majority of Americans think that creating green jobs could be a solution to both.
“A lot of arguments say you don’t want to be messing around with climate change policy when you have a difficult economic context, but the numbers came back pretty strong in terms of support for what the president-elect is talking about doing,” said Steve Cochran, national climate director at the Environmental Defense Fund.
Pierre Gosselin (02:22:53) :
“Off topic: Iāve been predicting the following for some time, with no one really taking me seriously. Now here it is!”
From the link you provided, the last paragraphs:
“There aren’t many policies where you get a triple bang for your buck,” he said. “The public really does see that there is a real opportunity to invest in clean energy and in the process create jobs.”
Creating green energy would require the manufacture, transport and management of countless new products and resources, from windmill parts to solar panels, which would create jobs in many industries.
“Those are hard-headed, hard-hatted jobs that come with the new energy economy that people are talking about, and it’s not always thought of that way,” Cochran said.
I would be quite happy with such a project. I am all for creating green energy if and where possible. New jobs will be great for the economy. What one should be against is, destroying and stifling old energy before the new can be seen to work.
What should be stifled is “cap and trade” and it seems to me the economic realities are such that it will not be put into effect until the economy recovers, and by that time the cooling trend may save the day.
“Taxes will have to rise 13%”
* Massive outcry *
“OK we’ll only raise them 8%. See, aren’t we generous?”
Does anyone else see another adroit ‘step change’ occurring?
@ Werner Weber.
Thanks for the explanation. I knew the theory, but was having trouble getting
my mind around the idea of freezing seas creating “global warming” so to speak.
In theory, musn’t you have lower air and/or ocean temperatures to start the freezing that creates the warmth.
Global Sea Ice is at about the average of ’79 thru ’00
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/global.daily.ice.area.withtrend.jpg
Which means that it is a little over average for the entire record.
It is time that someone take the step of calling a spade a spade. Hansen has done this crap countless times ( more than we probably know). It has to be someone with credibility in the science community. Someone who has consistently found these “errors” in their data and MSM publications. Can you think of anyone who fits that bill, CA? Time to put up or shut up and expose this fraudulent escapade. Too much money has been spent and valuable time wasted on their BS. Hansen is no dummy, and I get the distinct impression that he is purposely doing this to keep those of us watching him off balance. The old “misdirection” trick that magicians use. Whatever he is up to, it sure isn’t science.
Werner Weber (02:07:11) :
The arctic āOctober heat waveā is the signature of the rapid freezing of the arctic sea ice, because a lot of latent heat is freed.
Remember, we had roughly 2 million km2 less ice extent in this September than normally.
Rapid freezing occured in October, especially along the Siberian coast. At the end of October, the sea ice extent was almost back to normal.
This freezing was driven by very low arctic temperatures. Every kg of water frees 80 kcal or 330 kiloJoule of latent heat, equivalent to heating 80 kg of (liquid) water by 1degree Centigrade- or roughly 100 cubic meter of air at surface pressure by 1 degree. 1m3 of water will thus cause a 1 degree temperature increase for 100.000 cubic meters of air at sea level pressure. This is a column of air of 100 m2 which ist 1000 m high. Correct then for the air pressure, and you have a column of air extenting almost to the end of the troposphere.
You seem to assume that each kilogram of water-to-ice releases its energy to 80kg of liquid. Certainly the liquid still not iced below this one kilogram is a column to the bottom of the sea containing much more than 80 kgs . I would expect convection currents would be set up distributing this heat, as the ice does not form wholepiece. Considering that the air is not a good heat conveyor, compared to water, it would be infrared radiation that would go towards the air, and the air is transparent to infrared and there is not much CO2 or vapor in the arctic, so it would escape to space. I would think that the amount of rise in temperature over the ice is not a simple calculation, even approximately.
It is true that the temperature rises if it snows, and if there is no blizzard taking the rise away.
From the Gistemp website:
“2008-11-12: It seems that one of the sources sent September data rather than October data. ”
So, which ‘one source’ sends them the data for Russia, Denmark, Britain, Ireland, Australiaā¦..
That chart is wrong, al least for Peru, we are having lower than normal temperatures. Do these guys fabricate data?. Recently there was a hail storm in the middle of peruvian amazon jungle!!
I called the Canadian and Australian anomalies here: http://rankexploits.com/musings/2008/giss-october-anomaly-warmer-than-september/#comment-6474
From: James Pfefferle (21:12:39) :
Anthony – Can you explain the meteorological phenomena that would cause the step change in the temperature anomaly that occurs across the Bering Straight?
…
Well, James, you see, it is that pesky international dateline.
When the prevailing NW-to-SE Arctic winds cross the international date line between Alaska and Siberia, they go into a temporal warp that moves them from October into September (and vice versa) that immediately adds 24 hours of heat into the Siberian air mass. This subsequently warms up Alaskan and Northern Canadian polar bears, who immediately have a heat prostration problem and suffer a massive population increase.
If it’s true that freezing adds heat to the atmosphere, then is it not also true that melting ice should remove heat from the atmosphere?
If so, then why did we not see low temperatures in the Arctic in 2007/2008 during the larger than normal melt?
mcates,
My friend, you forget these are the same people who confused feet with meters, fired off a shuttle with known problems with O rings in the cold, and tried to bring back a shuttle with a hole in the leading edge of the wing. You and I were handed our butts several times in our careers by some very good folks, and learned that pobody’s nerfect, especially us. We are not surprised at our mistakes, NASA always seems to be.
We are the lucky ones not to have killed people by our bad judgement. These people have.
“Nuff said”
A post script to the above –
Most folks try to learn from their errors because to do same thing over and over again and expect a different result is – insanity. NASA is trying the same gambit with climate as it did with the above mentioned crashes – it’s called engineering arrogance.
I’ll shut up now…
Mike
geeks..everyone can do a mistacke calm down š
Granted.
But the question of the refried Australia and Canada remains to be answered.
Canada and Australia WERE warm as per the links I provided at Lucia’s The Blackboard. Why GISS didn’t incorporate them in their first version when they were in the GHCN database, I don’t know. But it is no surprise to me that they have positive anomalies.
Gavin at Real Climate has now said that there are still some errors in the NOAA data…some stations were still being reported from September’s numbers. So the final GISS number will likely be revised again.
That accounts for the gray areas. But what made some of the surrounding areas warmer?
It’s called interpolation, homogenization and 1200 km smoothing that happens with the Gridded data by GHCN and GISS.
Evidently it’s not rocket science
Itās called interpolation, homogenization
Hmmm. I see. Yes, I suppose.
But I can’t help noting the uncanny resemblance to pasteurization.
“Itās called interpolation”
Main Entry: interpolate
Part of Speech: verb
Synonyms: add, alter, change, estimate, foist, inject, insert, intercalate, introduce
Yeah, that’s what it is alright.
Over on CA, some are saying that the some September temperatures are still in the database. Is the map going to change again?
Are they north or south of the equator?
Fr. Mosh: Any relation to St. Mosh?
Werner Weber:
Your analysis looks correct, but, once the water covered by a thin ice, most of the heat released by water freezing is transfered to the underneath water, not the air. ( ice is not a good heat conductor, if all heat released by the freezing process is going upward, the top layer ice would melt right away)
The rapid refreezing of Arctic increases the air temperature a lot is not very convincing.
Just like to remind everyone that the map has been distorted to fit into a rectangle
http://www.oup.co.uk/oxed/secondary/geography/atlases/mapswork/roundearth/unpeel/
I’m sure this has been the subject of a post before (can’t find it).
Question: How could the arctic record such an anomalous temperature, when the arctic ice extent, showed a record, or near record, increase during October? The ice went from near record lows (just above 2007 levels ) to near normal levels.
and apparently the data has not been TOTALLY corrected. From Real Climate:
Apparently I should have read from the top down, regarding ice formation.
It should be kept in mind that above aver temps don’t mean above freezing. So in/around Siberia, you can still have seas refreezing and snow falling & persisting on the ground. Areas of the Arctic ocean with less-than-average ice content will naturally be above average (surface) temp, even if it’s refreezing quickly.
Just musing, but it’s possible that the relatively open arctic waters (until the end of October) meant that northery winds in Siberia wouldn’t be as cold/dry as usual, and/or cause a northward movement of the polar jet and diminishing the intrusion of cold air.
They are using the color psycological effect to deceive people again. For some reason, red is hot and blue is cold. They know very well that this map will get published and used by the MSM. Look People, it’s red inthe north, so it must be very hot up there…
Let me get this straight, the freezing ice is heating up the arctic?
Anna V: “I would be quite happy with such a project. I am all for creating green energy if and where possible. New jobs will be great for the economy.”
All very well, but someone has to pay for it – usually the consumer or the taxpayer. The idea of creating new jobs is great, however some jobs create new wealth while others constitute a nett drain on the economy. It’s arguable which side of the fence these fall on.
I still think the Arctic anomalies are wrong. They are probably always wrong. Time for some field auditors to head up the Dempster, or, to visit northern Siberia.
Don’t forget everyone – we are not only talking about deviation from average, but that average is the average of max and min. Therefore, increasing minimums can appear to create the same issues as increasing maximums. In fact, the maximum can drop and the average still go up – as long as the minimum increases more than the maximum drops. It may be worth someones time to investigate could cover effects on maximum and minimum temps to determine if cloud cover changes bias average temperature calculated this way, and if so, with what sign and magnitude. Just a thought…
Oops!
“could” -> “cloud” in previous post! D’OH!
Hmmm, if someone mounted an expedition to Siberia for the express purpose of confirming AGW, I am sure that funding could be secured. Then as the expedition progresses one could always take a few temperature measurements along the way. Let the chips fall where they may.
I’ve also heard that, during the Soviet era, many Russian stations under-reported temperatures in order to get more money for fuel from Moscow.
Don’t know how true this is but, if it is, it could go some way to explaining the current large anomalies.
@Stan Jones (01:36:26) :
“Why would they publish the original figures with the whole of Australia missing in the first place?”
Australia’s easy to miss (Sob…) (Violins play faintly in the background…).
Hang on a second, Australia has approximately the same land area as the Continental US? How could we be missed???
Sekerob,
If you live close to an Italian ski resort, you should at least point out the wider picture in Italy, e.g.
“The Italian resort of Bormio has opened a month early after heavy snowfalls at the end of October and start of November delivered 50ins to the resort’s upper slopes.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1084877/Record-snow-falls-Europe-North-America-mean-ski-resorts-open-early.html
Mike Bryant,
Although I’m perhaps slightly more persuaded by global warming predictions than you, I very much enjoy your uncompromising ridicule of “alarmism”. Your hard-hitting humour is appreciated! Keep up the demolition job……
Chris
Speaking of snow, The continental USA has 19.4% snow coverage.
http://www.nohrsc.noaa.gov/nsa/
Graeme Rodaughan ,
If you included PNG, I’m pretty certain Australia be third, not fifth largest, behind Canada, the land that the world forgets.
And we’ve got more oil than Saudi Arabia … heee heee hee.
Mike – but Russia is still baking.
SIBERIA
I REBIAS
Steven Hill (13:33:48) :
Let me get this straight, the freezing ice is heating up the arctic?
Yes. When water freezes it gives up heat. That heat has to go somewhere, and the somewhere it goes is the atmosphere on its way into space.
. āThe public really does see that there is a real opportunity to invest in clean energy and in the process create jobs.ā
Creating green energy would require the manufacture, transport and management of countless new products and resources, from windmill parts to solar panels, which would create jobs in many industries
I don’t want to be too harsh on this, because I am sure the poster is well intentioned and believes this to be true and in a narrow sense it is true.
But, I could make the same statement about the multi-coloured, polka dot balloon industry and it would be equally true.
You could create any number of jobs in any industry you like by sufficient investments (also know as subsides) to production and consumption of the industry’s products. However, you destroy a larger number of jobs in other industries by doing so. The number of jobs destroyed is always larger because of the inherent inefficiency of government redistribution mechanisms.
There are 2 valid arguments for sudsidizing ‘green’ (or call it what you will) energy. One is providing seed capital to promising emerging technologies. This doesn’t apply because almost all the subsidies go to technologies already in large scal production. The second argument is subsidizing a public good. In this case reducing CO2 emissions. However, this should be shown as as a cost of $x per ton of CO2 reduced and it never is and is dishonest not to do so. And were they costed in this way, people would balk at the high cost of CO2 reduction and opt for much cheaper mechanisms (assuming they see value in CO2 reduction).
Unfortunately, selling subsidy of green (CO2 reducing) technologies by calling it ‘investment’ and ‘job creating’ is peddling snake oil to the ignorant.
nobwainer (Geoff Sharp) (04:00:36)
I’m pretty sure GISSTemp uses 1950-1980 as a baseline because Hansen started producing his temperature anomaly charts back in the early 1980’s. (1981 is the earliest reference I could find in the literature, although it wasn’t called GISSTEMP back then).
He couldn’t use a more recent time period for the baseline because the data didn’t exist yet.
Because you say “arvo” instead of “afternoon”. At least come up with lazy idiom that sounds SOMETHING like the original š
Jeff Alberts (22:43:12) :
“Hang on a second, Australia has approximately the same land area as the Continental US? How could we be missed???”
…..
That’s because Australia is in the southern hemisphere and its CO2 hole rotates the wrong direction;
thereby causing the hurricanes to rotate the wrong direction and be recalled into the factory as typhoons;
which corkscrews all their global warming out of the troposphere into into those poor innocent coral reefs;
which forces up the ocean up;
which floods the land and causes trials and tribulations upon the earth.
“This subsequently warms up Alaskan and Northern Canadian polar bears, who immediately have a heat prostration problem and suffer a massive population increase.”
LOL Anthony, now you have visions of naked polar bears dancin in my head:)
We should be a little nicer to Gavin, at least he talks to us, maybe we can turn him away from the dark side eventually:)
The GISTEMP data has been adjusted again – October land/ocean anomaly now 0.55K.
2008-11-13: NOAA combined the data it obtained from their various sources into another, slightly differing version of v2.mean. We ran our analysis again based on this new file; you may have to clear your buffer to see the updated results.
and the map now looks like it’s lost the Canadian Arctic data again:
Now GISSTEMP is beginning to look at least reasonably similar to the satellite temperatures (but cosistently warmer as usual). The main remaining problem area is western South America which has been notably cold for several months, but is a hotspot according to GISS. Has anyone eyeballed the station data there yet?
Steven Hill (13:33:48) :
“Let me get this straight, the freezing ice is heating up the arctic?”
On a smaller scale think of the Orange growers that spray their trees with water prior to frosts. The heat released when the water freezes gives some protection.
This also works when water vapour is converted to water. The condensing steam releases a lot of heat, as you quickly find out if you put your hand anywhere near the spout of a boiling kettle!
I’ve never responded to a blog before, but I couldn’t let pass the jaw-dropping assertion that freezing of water pushes heat into the overlying atmosphere. That goes against the fundamental laws of thermodynamics. Heat flux is from warm to cold, not the other way around. Water freezes when surrounded by something colder that draws the heat away.
Robert A Cook PE (23:03:23) :
Sorry, you were quoting a quote I quoted, in other words, you were responding to the wrong person…
Mary Hinge: “This also works when water vapour is converted to water. The condensing steam releases a lot of heat, as you quickly find out if you put your hand anywhere near the spout of a boiling kettle!”
Nothing to do with the fact that the steam is at 100 degrees before it starts condensing then?
Brings to mind Abe Lincoln’s famous quotation.
Hadcrut now out for October at 0.44
Mary Hinge: “On a smaller scale think of the Orange growers that spray their trees with water prior to frosts. The heat released when the water freezes gives some protection.”
The latent heat of freezing of water just means that the air temperature has to fall below freezing before the water starts freezing. It does NOT mean that the air, or orange, is warmed by the water freezing.
From Wiki Answers:
“Although it’s grossly counter-intuitive, whenever citrus groves are in danger of experiencing below-freezing temps, the trees are sprayed with water. This causes frost to form on the rinds of the fruit and provides an extra layer of insulation against the low temperatures that would otherwise freeze the edible portion of the fruit and destroy the crop. “
Seems they’ve posted another ‘corrected’ map. Now the gray area in the Arctic and Hudson Bay area has returned, while the brown over Australia remains.
Truly amazing. It’s as bad as my arithmatic skilz. If I add up a column of numbers 5 times I most likely will give you 5 different answers. This is starting to look like that.
Joyce,
“Water freezes when surrounded by something colder that draws the heat away.”
And where does the heat that was ‘drawn away’ go and what affect does this have on the air immediately around the freezing water?
“Mike Bryant,
Although Iām perhaps slightly more persuaded by global warming predictions than you, I very much enjoy your uncompromising ridicule of āalarmismā. Your hard-hitting humour is appreciated! Keep up the demolition jobā¦ā¦
Chris”
Thanks, Chris, I am no scientist, but I know BS when I hear it. I try to highlight the ridiculous while making a point. Sometimes I get a little too crazy and the moderators step in. That too is appreciated since I want to help show alarmism for what it really is. Thanks again,
Mike Bryant
Bill,
Heat energy, despite any computer codes you may write to the contrary, is compelled to follow the laws of thermodynamics. If there is a temperature gradient, heat may disperse by convection, conduction, or radiation, but it cannot just build up.
“And where does the heat that was ādrawn awayā go and what affect does this have on the air immediately around the freezing water?”
Bill, if the air temperature is below freezing and the water is above freezing, heat will flow from the water to the air at a rate determined by the temperature differential, and the water’s temperature will gradually fall towards freezing point. Once there, the water starts to freeze and the water temperature stops falling, even though the heat continues to flow from the water to the air. Once the water has completely frozen, its temperature starts dropping once more – until it reaches thermal equilibrium with the air.
Joyce (13:34:16) :
I don’t think anyone’s arguing that the heat “built up”.
I think a good way of putting it is that the air is not as cold as it would have been if the ice wasn’t freezing.
We are after all, talking anomalies.
If you’re a chemist or polymer engineer, think about what a DSC looks like when a substance freezes, melts, or has some other type of exothermic or endothermic transformation.
Of course, it would be reasonable for someone to do a reality check and try to calculate how much water is freezing, what the heat of crystallization is, and how much the air temperature might be altered based on its heat capacity and a reasonable estimate of a boundary layer.
Me, I’m just going to go have a beer.
“” This freezing was driven by very low arctic temperatures. Every kg of water frees 80 kcal or 330 kiloJoule of latent heat, equivalent to heating 80 kg of (liquid) water by 1degree Centigrade- or roughly 100 cubic meter of air at surface pressure by 1 degree. 1m3 of water will thus cause a 1 degree temperature increase for 100.000 cubic meters of air at sea level pressure. This is a column of air of 100 m2 which ist 1000 m high. Correct then for the air pressure, and you have a column of air extenting almost to the end of the troposphere. “”
Where do people dream this stuff up ??
Freezing of water into ice frees up not a jot of energy to warm anyplace else.
The material surrounding the water to be frozen, air or whatever has to be colder than the water, to remove any energy from the water by conduction; but the water could lose energy to the surroundings or even to the sun, by EM radiation, but omitting radiation component for the moment, the surroundings have to remove 80 calories per gram from the water, before it will freeze, and the water temperature will not go below zero following the surrounding air until it has frozen. There will be no rise in the external air temperature because the water froze.
If the more remote air is colder still, the boundary air may not cool as rapidly as it otherwise would because of the presence of the water, but no way will the latent heat of freezing cause the surrounding air to heat up.
In the reverse process, the floating sea ice will absorb heat energy from the ocean water (probably warmed by the tropics), because that coupling is much stronger than any thermal connection to the air, so the melting ice absorbs an astronomical amount of energy from the surrounding water, which thereby cools, and since sea water greater than about 2.47% salinity has no maximum density before freezing, the cooling sea water will shrink and the ocean level will go down.
I predicted this in 2004 (see Physics Today for Jan 2005 Letters) and in mid 2006 it was confirmed by a British/Dutch team monitoring the Arctic Ocean, that indeed the sea level had been dropping 2 mm per year for the ten years of their study, using a European polar satellite.
The researchers said they were confident of their results, but didn’t know why that should happen; well now you do.
The latent heat of evaporation is something greater than about 539 Calories per gram depending on the temperature, so when the ocean waters evaporate, an enormous amount of heat is transferred to the atmosphere, to be carried aloft by convection and ultimately deposited out when the vapor condenses into cloud, and perhaps drops another 80 calories per gram if ice crystals form. But that energy doesn’t warm the upper atmopshere; the phase transformation, simply doesn’t happen, unless and until the air gets cold enough to conduct the heat out.
And the forgotten radiation permits additional energy loss even if the surroundings ar not quite cold enough to cause freezing by conduction alone.
Somebody a lot smarter than me said “Heat is not a Noun !” there’s a lot of truth to that. Heating is a consequence of energy input.
George
I’m going to try one more time, because an earlier writer did, indeed, suggest that the rapidly freezing Arctic water would cause the Arctic to have warmer than ususal air temperatures. It seems to me that faster than normal freezing of Arctic water would require a larger than normal temperature differential (i.e., colder than usual air) in the vicinity of the freezing. I agree that heat is released, but it surely can’t be hanging around in Arctic air because that would have the effect of reducing the temperature differential and thus slowing down the freezing.
Kim, thank you for the laiugh.
How many corrections has that been?
If you get a bucket of mud, and scoop it up 5x, it will ooze through your fingers differently each time… – but it’s still mud.
Data that keeps changing with each correction – will the real values please stand up – how is GISS data different from the mud.
jcbmack (00:19:27) Sure, mack, it makes us even. I got a big kick out of watching you jump around over at RC and challenge Les to a debate. You have a superficial understanding of the propaganda of the warmer camp, and an overdeveloped sense of your own knowledge of the controversy. I’ll break it down to something simple for you. The warmers are wrong because they’ve exaggerated the sensitivity of climate to CO2. Show me they are right, if you can.
=================================================
jcbmack (00:19:27) Whoa, mack, I hadn’t even seen your latest act over at RealClimate. Here’s a clue, pal, your own side is starting to give you Hell.
================================================
Here you have a link of Russia Today,
They are talking about an extremely warm autumn
http://www.russiatoday.com/features/news/33324
jcbmack (03:21:59) The Hell they are giving you is predictable, given the sources. David B. Benson jumps in to defend Wikipedia(by the way, I agree with you about Wikipedia on climate; William Connolley has fatally flawed the section), and Hank Roberts pedantically asks for references. Honey, they don’t trust your overconfidence. You really don’t know what you are talking about, yet. Your curiosity is laudable, however. Keep up the good work.
=====================================
jcbmack (03:21:59) Here’s another clue to their discomfort with you. Your basic argument seems to be that the science is ‘settled’. Some of those guys, whether they will publicly admit it or not, are beginning to wonder if the science really is as settled as you believe and that many of them still think. This prolonged period, where temperature has not risen, and has started to fall, really makes no sense in the CO2=AGW paradigm. Gavin Schmidt himself has said something along the lines of if the cooling continues for another decade they may have to rethink things. Here’s a thought problem for you. Why does two decades of temperature not rising make such a big difference when one decade does not?
One of the biggest questions I have about this whole mess is why don’t the warmers even make the slightest effort to question their assumptions in the face of falling temperatures? Much too much energy is wasted on the effort to find continuing justification for the CO2=AGW paradigm in the face of evidence to the contrary. The simplest, most elementary, act of the scientist is to wonder. You don’t, and the true believers don’t. You are missing out on the most wonderful mystery of our age, and frightening yourself with ignorance.
=========================================
Comment #219, by Jonathon, at RealClimate’s Mountain and Molehill thread is worth a read.
=========================
Go kim! And thanks JCB-of-the-many-consecutive-RC-posts for provoking the normally brief and rather elusive kim into one of the most revealing and interesting expressions of her take on the AGW “debate”
btw kim I think (hope) i posted my thanks for your ealier comments about me, but i’m worried that the post either failed, i forgot, or it got lost/buried amongst the recent mountains of other posts!
Chris (10:04:05) Oh, yes, I noticed, and you are welcome. I’ll never forget your laugh as you finally figured out what had happened.
============================================
[…] anomaly – “It’s all pipes!” 15 11 2008 As most readers know by now, the problematic GISTEMP global temperature anomaly plot for October is heavily weighted by temperatures from weather stations in […]
The warmers are wrong because theyāve exaggerated the sensitivity of climate to CO2.
After all the dust has settled it does seem to come down to that. And to zero in precisely, it’s the question of feedback amplification.
Few skeptics would deny – any – CO2 effect at all. Yet few on the warming side would argue that direct effect of CO2 alone is tremendously significant.
It’s all about whether CO2 is the domino that triggers feedback loops.
Are positive feedback loops running the show or not?
Is it a row of dominoes that will bring down the house? Or just one lone domino falling noiselessly in the forest?
Here is a satellite infrared image that shows small fires in Russia.
http://www.fire.uni-freiburg.de/photos/satex/nooa_avhrr/hotspot_4b.jpg
The red areas with plumes are the fires, but St Petersburg is the same shade red because of UHI.
I think we need alot more pictures like this one.
Here are some pictures from the Urban Heat Island Pilot Project. It includes an infrared image of Sacremento.
http://science.nasa.gov/newhome/headlines/essd20nov98_1.htm
This is good… WUWT is mentioned in the following article:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml
Kim, I enjoy reading your responses… My confidence stems from knowing that warming is actually occuring, from the majority of data sets, current (2008) and past, no, not just a reliance upon NOAA or NASA. I know I know what I am talking about, however, I do believe that Hansen is overstating things; Gavin’s interview in Scientific American indicates (as do his more conservative realclimate responses) reveals he and many others have more conservative views than Hansen and a few others. Also if you see my posts you will also see I am not denying that a volcano eruption (or two) could seriously offset warming trends and one of enough magnitude (and placement) could even drive another ice age. When I have more time I will post and display evidence of global warming due to green house gases; predominately from humankind’s activities. This is one reason I rely upon so many sources which I read thoroughly and examine in light of all the resources available to me. The issue on realclimate is real simple, most of the people who shout stop gobal warming do not understand the science; nor is there a denial that errors occur. To his credit, however (Hansen) he has made accurate predictions in the past and he is not wrong about the detriments about CO2 and water vapor feedbacks. (what occurs as opposed to magnitude)
The biological (ecological, niches) observations and the changes in ocean chemistry (besides doomsayer predictions) and the extinction of animal species and the changes in lemming populations due to snow types and patterns (this months issue of Nature) and the increased incidence (and prevalence) of cancers from environmental toxins, and ozone layer depletion (which was predicted to be repaired by 2000, but was not due to changes in atmospheric conditions; more on that in a separate post) along with CO2 SO2, SO3 CH4 and so forth; their contributions… plant life is being teased and localized carrying capacity is being changed due to slashing and burning, plant life releasing CO2, and plant life not adapting (exceptions exist, but the overall is a net effect of CO2 release increases , not absorption) as well as was at first hypothesized. The models have holes and limitations; the vertical ice in the artic gets thicjer due to increased precipitation, this is old news; weather systems tend to move west to east, irrespective of wind direction; dynamic equilibrium is not the same as equilibrium; as factors and environmental conditions change there will be negative feedbacks as well as, positive, and the models do not factor in enough negative, however, the net warming is empirical, not mainly from the models, therefore, the industrial era ushered in the now o.6-1.1 or so degree warming; global mean, not localized chaotic weather patterns, though some of these has changed indeed, as people in the field making observations will tell you.
Kim if you are no longer elusive then I have done my job:)
The trouble they give me at realclimate is a pleasure, as it gives me a chance to educate.
We are cooling, jcbmack, for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
========================================
The cooloing is a short term phenomena; the gobal mean is still warmer ans the statistical paramaters over the longer term are still accurate in showing such warming… the precipitation in the artic is temporary and will reverse and has been known about for many years and taken into consideration. Just as different altitude clouds, LW and SW absorptions reflection and ice cover changes which further influence such activities; the models here, have wiggles, mutliple ensemble combinations and then to further accuracy, the older 3 and six box models depict accurate readings that the more advanced models neglect (the more complex an artificial system; elcetronic especially, the more can go wrong,or become overlooked) AOS princton online has interesting information as do several other research and training univeristies, ivy league and otherwise (Harvard for example) independent of NASA and the NOAA;; therefore, when research, observations, models, and so forth validate global warming trends, outside of political agendas and with their own data, this strongly supports the 30n year data or so.
In my own observations and reviews of the literature, it has become clear that something is happening to the oceans due to global climate change’s influence on ocean chemistry, and that overall we have witnessed an amazing amount of melting of the polar ice caps, near extinction of many species of animals and plants due to warming and some dimming (global cooling) which is due to the fluxes in ghg’s and aerosols, (black carbon) and the weather events themselves, even if ‘natural,’ they have worked antagonistically and agnoistically with human’s burning of fossil fuels; the fossil fuel chemistry and interactions is well known, more causally than you might think; the ocean- atmospheric dynamics are complex, however, the picture has become far clearer; no the globe is not cooling, we still have sa warming trend, however even when transietn cooling occurs, it does not negate warming, and dimming has been known about and worked with for quite some time as well. What is a fact and not in dispute at all, is that the ozone layer is still depleted, and increased UV light exposure is leading to more skin cancer cases, and the ghg’s are contributing to more asthma related morbidity and mortality; in the last 30 years the globe has significantly warmed, and the air we breathe has increased incidence and prevalence of lung cancer. CO2
The cooloing is a short term phenomena; the gobal mean is still warmer ans the statistical paramaters over the longer term are still accurate in showing such warming… the precipitation in the artic is temporary and will reverse and has been known about for many years and taken into consideration. Just as different altitude clouds, LW and SW absorptions reflection and ice cover changes which further influence such activities; the models here, have wiggles, mutliple ensemble combinations and then to further accuracy, the older 3 and six box models depict accurate readings that the more advanced models neglect (the more complex an artificial system; elcetronic especially, the more can go wrong,or become overlooked) AOS princton online has interesting information as do several other research and training univeristies, ivy league and otherwise (Harvard for example) independent of NASA and the NOAA;; therefore, when research, observations, models, and so forth validate global warming trends, outside of political agendas and with their own data, this strongly supports the 30n year data or so.
In my own observations and reviews of the literature, it has become clear that something is happening to the oceans due to global climate change’s influence on ocean chemistry, and that overall we have witnessed an amazing amount of melting of the polar ice caps, near extinction of many species of animals and plants due to warming and some dimming (global cooling) which is due to the fluxes in ghg’s and aerosols, (black carbon) and the weather events themselves, even if ‘natural,’ they have worked antagonistically and agnoistically with human’s burning of fossil fuels; the fossil fuel chemistry and interactions is well known, more causally than you might think; the ocean- atmospheric dynamics are complex, however, the picture has become far clearer; no the globe is not cooling, we still have sa warming trend, however even when transietn cooling occurs, it does not negate warming, and dimming has been known about and worked with for quite some time as well. What is a fact and not in dispute at all, is that the ozone layer is still depleted, and increased UV light exposure is leading to more skin cancer cases, and the ghg’s are contributing to more asthma related morbidity and mortality; in the last 30 years the globe has significantly warmed, and the air we breathe has increased incidence and prevalence of lung cancer. CO2 does have a lag phase and the 380 ppm, even if we really agressively lower it today, we still face consequences for years to come.
Oh and as noted in realclimate and discussed on pbs.org, and several reseacrh websites, the models predict a slow melting, in the artic and currently there is still some melting in atrtic regions; so the cooling is not even universal in this region… and as already noted, the global warming average and artic melting average are both net effects.
jcbmack (13:57:54) :
Did you mean to use the plural?
Also, I’d be interested in the literature citation showing “global climate changeās influence on ocean chemistry” .
John M. the oceans and the atmosphere are more of a coupled system; the changes in atmospheric conditions effect ocean absorption of heat, Co2 levels and so forth influence this; local warming (or cooling) as awell as global are cycles, rather than only one effecting the other (global climate change effecting oceans and their chemistry, or oceans interacting to effect winds and temp gradients etc…) they both interact and as the biomass and diversty in the ocean changes, so too does carbon cycling trends and chemical compisitions and diveristy in the oceans.
Oh yes, I meant plural… it is not simple that this causes global climate change or this does… it is, of course, the synergy. As CO2 rises with other GHG’S and more radiation is trapped in even in lieu of increased cloud formation, the bodies of water which have high heat capacities, reach limits of how much q can be absorbed before their temperature rises; as a result some aquatic life adapt, some need so such adaptation as of yet, others get sick and die; also the absorptions of about 33% CO2, leads to changes in the ph of the ocean, and carbonic acid may form. Aside from CO2, however, just the changes in temperature and some wind trends (and the coupling of advection and convection;) influences aquatic life chemistry as well.
The Changing Ocean Carbon Cycle By Roger Brian Hanson, J. G. Field, Hugh William Ducklow,
Joint Global Ocean Flux StudyBiology of the Southern Ocean By George A.
Knox
Climate Change and Northern Fish Populations By Richard James Beamish, National Research Council Canada, Canada Dept. of Fisheries
Climate Change 2007 By Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Susan Solomon, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Intergovernmental Panel
jcbmack, climate sensitivity to CO2 is undetermined. My guess is that it is variable.
=====================================
Climate sensitivity still needs to be worked out quantitaitevly, to be sure; you are correct, however, besides the indirect proxy data and GCM’s, we have more eomirical research showing global teasing by pollutants, rainforests at the equator being destroyed and more CO2 being given off. The 350 ppm or slightly below goal, may not be very realistic, but that is an accurate median figure in regards to the gateway to more dangerous CO2 levels, increased rate of global wamring and resultant sea level rise. We may have not reached peak carrying capacity, but the GHG’s and the indistrialization of China and India are not helping matters. Humans can adapt to quite a lot, but we should not always test the limits before we do something.
Here’s something highly amusing and revelatory. First note my comment above on 11/15 at 09:07:27, calling attention to a comment #219 by a Jonathan in the ‘Mountains and Molehills’ thread on RealClimate. Note that subsequently at RealClimate several people criticized Jonathan. Now see post #295 by FredB there sneering at Jonathan. Now look at comment #441 by Jonathan at Climate Audit in the ‘Is Gavin Schmidt Honest’ thread. The story Jonathan tells captures the fundamental dishonesty of Real Climate in all its glory.
jcbmack (14:03:54) Don’t you think we should figure out climate sensitivity to CO2 before we demonize carbon, impoverish half the world to below its present subsistence living, and wreak havoc on the economies of the rest of the world? The effects of which you speak may be caused by past warming, but you have no proof that that warming was from CO2. Besides, the globe is cooling now, for how long, even kim doesn’t know.
===============================================
From Richard111 (00:56:06) :
Why is latest data allowed to āadjustā previous data?
Because if it didn’t you would never be able to see the global warming!!!! You see, if the present data show no change from the prior data then the *fact* that we’ve warmed would be obscured so we must adjust the old temperatures until it shows up!!!
(Ouch. I think I just sprained my tongue on my cheek…)
From Neil Fisher (15:25:55) :
Donāt forget everyone – we are not only talking about deviation from average, but that average is the average of max and min. Therefore, increasing minimums can appear to create the same issues as increasing maximums. In fact, the maximum can drop and the average still go up –
From jcbmack (13:58:43) :
The cooloing is a short term phenomena; the gobal mean is still warmer ans the statistical paramaters over the longer term are still accurate in showing such warming
For both of these I have one question: Just, exactly, what is the meaning of “global mean temperature”? How is it different from the Global Mean Telephone Number or the Global Mean Shoe Color?
My first and largest issue with the whole global warming thesis is that it is based on the notion that taking two extremes of temperature during a day and averaging them together, then averaging together a varying number of these averages scattered over space, then averaging many of these averages over many days; that this has any meaning whatsoever.
The *fiction* that global mean temperature has any meaning at all is broken. If lows drop 10 degrees and highs rise 10 degrees everywhere, it says “nothing happened”. If Siberia gets 10 degrees warmer but Sahara gets 10 degrees colder, nothing happened. If Sahara gets 20 degrees warmer, but Siberia only gets 15 degrees colder, we have Global Warming!!! And if lows rise 10 degrees but highs drop 8 degrees, we have Global Warming!!! even though it’s cooler.
And to top it all off, the actual temperature data are fudged in strange and mysterious ways to “interpolate” it (as defined above – i.e. make fiction…).
So we build this house of cards on a foundation of sand.
BTW, the wind chill forecast for Orlando Florida tonight is 26F – 29F. Yup, it sure is warm… :-‘) Add the ‘snow’ in Sydney, the snow in N. island New Zealand, the 10 degrees below average for most days in Fairbanks Alaska, the list goes on and on. Google “2008 record cold snow” and stand back! But I’m sure it’s just global local weather… yeah, right.
jcbmack, this is *not* just a short term weather thing. Its a 200 year cycle of solar output. The AGW side just measured one small part of the cycle and projected it linearly into the future. A common form of error, but completely unacceptable. There is also a 1500 year cycle that makes for even more cold, but the last time this happened was Bond Event 1 and the Dark Ages… (See: “Unstoppable Global Warming! Every 1500 Years”).
The good news is that we are headed for at least a Dalton Minimum type event (1800 and froze to death) starting now and for the next 30 years or so. That will kill the AGW thesis, hopefully before too much damage is done to civilization. The bad news is that we are at just the right distance from Bond Event 1 that this could be Bond Event Zero; a thought that is scary. During the last one we had the fall of the dominant empire and most civilization along with the deaths of millions.
The better news is that more folks are catching on to the notion that the Sun did it -AND- are showing the mechanisms.
From the wiki:
In orbits, the angular momentum is distributed between the spin of the planet itself and the angular momentum of its orbit:
Ltotal = Lspin + Lorbit;
If a planet is found to rotate slower than expected, then astronomers suspect that the planet is accompanied by a satellite, because the total angular momentum is shared between the planet and its satellite in order to be conserved.
end wiki.
So, using sun / planet rather than planet /moon, as the large planets get closer to the sun, and the sun to the barycenter of the solar system, the sun has to spin faster to conserve angular momentum. This, since the sun is not a solid, lets the sun flatten and the equator rotate faster than the poles. This modulates solar output and sunspots. That then modulates (via several things including total radiance and mag field flux variations) cosmic ray density and cloud formation leading to weather changes on earth.
The last time the sun / planet / barycenter configuration was like now was the Dalton Minimum. (See: Charvatova “Can origin of the 2400-year cycle of Solar Activity be Caused by Solar Inertial Motion”).
That the planet configurations can be mapped to the cycles of solar output and sunspots is shown by: I.R.G. Wilson in his paper from The Australian Institute of Physics 17th national congress of 2006. He shows that several of the major sun cycles are the same as sidebands of the jovian periods.
The point? That “the sun did it” is well attested, matches the current temperature trends quite well (unlike AGW), has passed the test of prediction (see: Landscheidt several papers and predictions made 20 years in advance including “New Little Ice Age Instead of Global Warming? ) and has both well supported theoretical AND physical solar observation evidence that is consistent. AGW has a computer aided fantasy and phony data. Think about it.
So the really good news is that we are in a race condition between the solar cycle heading us into a Very Cold Time (“The Al Gore Cold Period” š driven by a record low sunspot number (The Landscheidt Minimum, since he predicted it) and the AGW Mania heading us into a global economic meltdown. Oh Joy. And I’m hoping that the little ice age gets here quicker…
At least we have a known time interval. Solar cycle 24 will peak about 2012 and we get very very cold about 10 years from now. Hopefully not too much damage can be done by 10 years of AGW hysteria and/or 2009-10 are cold enough to kill it in this cycle. What a choice.
For further evidence of jovian planets influencing the sun, also see:
Long-term variations in solar differential rotation and sunspot activity
J Javaraiah
L Bertello
R K. Ulrich
ABSTRACT:
The solar equatorial rotation rate, determined from sunspot group data during the period 1879-2004, decreased over the last century, whereas the level of activity has increased considerably. The latitude gradient term of the solar rotation shows a significant modulation of about 79 year, which is consistent with what is expected for the existence of the Gleissberg cycle. Our analysis indicates that the level of activity will remain almost the same as the present cycle during the next few solar cycles (i.e., during the current double Hale cycle), while the length of the next double Hale cycle in Sunspot activity is predicted to be longer than the Current one. We find evidence for the existence of a weak linear relationship between the equatorial rotation rate and the length of sunspot cycle. Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22, indicating that the present Hale cycle may be a combination of two shorter cycles.
and:
Titre du document / Document title
Sunās retrograde motion and violation of even-odd cycle rule in sunspot activity
Auteur(s) / Author(s)
JAVARAIAH J. (1) ;
Affiliation(s) du ou des auteurs / Author(s) Affiliation(s)
(1) Department of Physics and Astronomy, 430 Portola Plaza, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095, ETATS-UNIS
RƩsumƩ / Abstract
The sum of sunspot numbers over an odd-numbered 11-yr sunspot cycle exceeds that of its preceding even-numbered cycle, and it is well known as Gnevyshev and Oh1 rule (or G-O rule) after the names of the authors who discovered it in 1948. The G-O rule can be used to predict the sum of sunspot numbers of a forthcoming odd cycle from that of its preceding even cycle. However, this is not always possible because occasionally the G-O rule is violated. So far, no plausible reason is known either for the G-O rule or for the violation of this rule. Here, we show the epochs of the violation of the G-O rule are close to the epochs of the Sunās retrograde orbital motion about the centre of mass of the Solar system (i.e. the epochs at which the orbital angular momentum of the Sun is weakly negative). Using this result, it is easy to predict the epochs of violation of the G-O rule well in advance. We also show that the solar equatorial rotation rate determined from sunspot group data during the period 1879-2004 is con-elated/anticorrelated to the Sunās orbital torque before/after 1945.
Well I am not E. M. Smith; but s/he makes a number of points that I have often stated.
I’m told that daily temperature reports are usually the daily max, and the daily min, and if you split the sum of those you get the mean of those two numbers. That isn’t the same as the time averaged mean temperature throughout the day; and will only be the same if the daily temperature variation consists of s cyclic variation having no even harmonic components.
but more importantly, the average if you could measure it (globally) which you can’t, is quite without any scientific validity or meaqning whatsoever. It is simply the result of applying a mathematical algorithm to a set of unrelated numbers, which differ from each other for completely unknown reasons; they are supposed to be different. Also there is no physical relationship between the temperature measured in any location and the energy flows going on at that location. An absolute temperature measurment can be used to compute an expected near black body radiation intensity; but it can’t tell you anything about other transfers by conduction, convection or evaporation. You have lateral transfers in the form of winds or currents, and vertical ones, and none of thse processes can be determined by simply measuring the temperature at a single spot. You learn even less when that temperature is ionly used to drop into an averaging process.
EM uses the same telephone number average that I have promoted in other locations. I’ve never used the shoe color method; but it does make the point. I have suggested counting the number of animals ber square metre or km taking anything bigger than an ant as an animal. elephants and locusts don’t exactly give you the same information; but that is very comparable to measuring local temperatures.
Then of course there’s the whole Nyquist question. There are fundamental laws governing sampled data systems, and the requirements for data recovery from sampled sets. Failure to observe those rules is what causes the wagon wheels on oyur TV set to run backwards in your favorite horse opera.
You only have to violate the Nyquist sampling criterion by a factor of two to make the average unrecoverable. And aliassing errors that ressult are in band signals that can’t ge removed by any filtering process. The central limit theorem cannot buy you a reprieve from Nyquist violations.
Which is why I say, that GISStemp measures GISStemp, and nothing else; it is not the mean global temperature, or even the mean global surface temperature, in fact they seem to go out of their way to NOT measure the surface temperature. Yet the surface is the most logical place to measure since it is the origin form the majority of the emitted infra-red radiation, and also the ultimate sink for the incoming solar radiation.
The air does radiate; but its heat capacity is so low that radiation changes its temperature, unless it is replenished from somewhere else, which is usually the surface.
Now I am not going to suggest that meteorologists who have access to these station raw numbers (if they do) can’t use them (in concert) to make near term weather projections; that’s an art I have no skills in; but simply pouring those separate numbers into a chwood chipper to shred them all, is not a usemful process.
As I have stated before climate is NOT the average of Weather; it iS the integral of weather; and what happens next depends on everything that happened in the past as a starting point. (besides being quite unpredictable).
Here we go again! NOAA GHCN have released a statement that October, 2008, was the second hottest month recorded – NOT SO FAST!
A number of science bloggers has discovered that October, 2008, was actually the tenth warmest.
It is quite evident that NOAA, GISS, GISTEMP and GHCN are skewing their datasets toward the higher temperatures – could this be deliberate?
From George E. Smith (10:50:35) :
Well I am not E. M. Smith; but s/he makes a number of points that I have often stated.
…
EM uses the same telephone number average that I have promoted in other locations
end quotes.
Um, I’m a “he” not a shehe… English does allow for the use of ‘they’ for the non-gender singular, though at some ambiguity as to number…
I picked up the telno example elsewhere, probably from you… so you DID have an impact! (I made up the shoe color example – feel free…).
The notion of the temperature as proxy for climate is broken.
The example that I like for illustration of the issue is humidity. Water flows into / out of the air can drastically influence temperature, yet a temp measurement tells you nothing about the heat & water flows. If a nearby lake is putting tons of water into the air, dropping as snow nearby, but keeping the temperature higher than under a dry clear sky, is the target area warming? Last night low, 26 F, tonight with snow 28F, would have been 25 F if dry and no clouds. Was there warming?
Is 28 F with tons of ice warming or cooling relative to 25 F and dry? Later when the snow melts at a constant temperature, is the area ‘cooling’? If the highs don’t rise like last year but the lows don’t drop either? Is it ‘warming’ if very sunny so 5 feet up the air is warm while the snow melts lower down?
There is a similar problem with clouds. It gets cloudier due to more humid air in a slightly cooler air mass. The ground doesn’t radiatively cool as it would have that night. Is it really warming? Is the race condition between the lows being higher and the highs being lower under clouds really indicating anything useful when it says +1 vs -1?
Basically, temperature is not heat. Averages of extreme temperatures are not representative temperatures. Averages of Averages are???? Made up data points are? (Yes, someone gets to make up a missing high / low.)
And massaged interpolated averages of massaged interpolated averages with variable numbers of sources of questionable quality is garbage.
Then, adding insult to injury, there is the idea that I’m supposed to get excited about a 1/10ths place variation in this number when the original data was rounded to full degrees on the reporting sheets. Never let your precision exceed your accuracy… And I do wonder about the +1 degree step function when you transition from xx.4 to xx.5 on a broad basis.
Then we feed all the garbage to a computer and: GIGO! Garbage In Garbage Out
FROM: http://www.srh.noaa.gov/mlb/F6info.html
Temperature is measured electronically. High or low temperatures for the day may be estimated when necessary. Temperatures are measured in degrees and tenths fahrenheit, and reported as whole degrees, rounding down from .4 and up from .5
Kim, keep in mind we do have a good idea about climate sensitivity, but that it is always in a bit of flux, so pinning it down exactly will not be possible, however, the GCM’s in conjunction with the sattelite data, IFR spectroscopy data, empirical observations, (extinction of species, changes in drift and shift patterns in ecological niches due to global climate change, artic ice sheets thinning, ice caps still melting) and careful analysis from the min-max thermometers from various weather stations indicate no only a definite warming trend even in lieu of temporary and only partial cooling trends, but also, the violent weather pattern changes and such loss of winter in Virginia, lend examples. Yes we do need more empirical observations in the Artic and as a matter of fact that is exactly what is being planned out now; teams are being assembled to go look more closely at the artic. Dyanmic equilibrium, not static equilibrium; keep that in mind Kim, as water vapor increases, the specific humidity may level as a ratio, however the 5% or so increase in water vapor and the 385 or ppm of CO2 definitely create a potent positive feedback system, and even in lieu of cloud formations, (which also trap in infared lw in addition to having some reflective qualities due to albedo effects) the decreased ice sheet and resulting reflectivity which is diminished, and the Earth is absorbing more sw, and emitting more lw which is reradiated.
No question, the models need still further work due to my previous statement about dynamics,but no water vapor specificallyas we know it tends back towards equilibrium. Cloud microphysics are poorly understood and exact cloud formation trends are not modeled as of yet. If the weather stattions were so shoddy and the models in general so poor, how is it we can predict weather with amazing accuracy for a period of about two weeks, climate a month from now and that Hansen’s original predictions were just so accurate? The Earth has an amazin ability to reset itself and it is not going to go down tomorrow, due to warming, but the sea levels are rising, this is a fact and the shores continued to become more eroded and as plant life, bacteria and plankton reach their upper limits (set points) many do not adapt, which is a basic premise of evolution especially when artificial selection plays such a huge role. I say collect all the data that we can, build upon and improve the models; do more randomization and compile more statistics, send people to the Artic (and the equator) and conitnue the analyses of wind trends and weather systems at all different latitudes. This is exactly what is being done and the data compiled and numbers crunched and input into models and graphs are very much upholding global warming; a mean surface temperature that is getting higher.
To be sure advection, convection, conduction, ENSO and so forth along with wobble and tile and the shape of the Earth’s orbit are being included in the parameters; NASA is well aware of these issues and includes them in their studies and calculations; keep in mind no one or two, 15 grid box, 3 box, six box etc… can include all data, all numbers all considerations, but as we combine these models in both random and other manners there is still a definite global warming trend.
George Smith, you seriously misinterpret what is occuring and your math needs work.
The Nyquist-Shannon theroem, where perfect reconstruction of a signal is possible when the sampling frequency is is greater than twice the maximum frequency of the signal being sampled, or when the Nyquist frequency is (half the sample rate) exceeds the highest frequency of the signal being sampled.
Read this, it will clear things up:
http://www.waset.org/ijit/v3/v3-2-19.pdf
This is also a good discussion on ecological indicators:)
http://www.nap.edu/openbook.php?record_id=9720&page=116
and infer from
The application of large format, broadband quantum well infrared photodetector arrays to spatially modulated prism interferometers
References and further reading may be available for this article. To view references and further reading you must purchase this article.
Francis M. Reininger,
However, if McKitrick & Michaels and LaDochy are right, the warming trend of the 20th century has been exaggerated by a factor of two.
If that’s true, then all GISS and IPCC bets are off. And models called off for reasons of bad data.
If the weather stattions were so shoddy and the models in general so poor, how is it we can predict weather with amazing accuracy for a period of about two weeks, climate a month from now and that Hansenās original predictions were just so accurate?
That’s what they are designed for. What they are NOT designed for is the ability to measure global-wide temperature change over a century to a tenth of a degree.
The CRN network, OTOH, is designed specifically to measure longterm climate trends. And all data will be complete, automated, and raw.
(Every time you apply an adjustment, it increases the margin of error.)
jcbmack (12:30:18) No, you don’t have a good idea about climate sensitivity to CO2. The temperature is falling; strong climate sensitivity to CO2 would give a rising temperature. So, you don’t have any idea what you are talking about, and all that secondary and derivative stuff may well be from something else besides CO2. Like natural cycles, duh.
==========================================
jcbmack (12:30:18) :
however the 5% or so increase in water vapor and the 385 or ppm of CO2 definitely create a potent positive feedback system
Jcbmack,
I enjoy reading your posts. They stimulate thought and encourage me to think about things critically. I don’t want to jump in this argument. However, I want to suggest the following: It is unlikely that water vapor is “definitely” a positive feedback. If it were, then past trends in climate would be impossible. Yes, it is a “greenhouse gas”, and so if more of it is vapor, then more outgoing radiation would be absorbed. However, water vapor must necessarily also cool the earth (by cloud formation and increasing albedo or whatever). These must act together to stabilize our climate or it would have spiralled up or down ages ago.
Water is prevailant everywhere. Because of our turbulent atmosphere, there is very little lag time (geologically) between change in temperature and change in evaporation. If water vapor were simply a positive feedback enforcer, our climate would be unstable. Any variation, even a local variation, would quickly overwhelm all the other controls for temperature and Earth would freeze or roast. With the big wash of perturbations that our climate experiences, it is amazing that the planet is even habitable. Luckily, water is a great “safety controll” that keeps our temperature stable.
Climate modellers, who should know better than this, keep trying to use water vapor to make global warming go out of control. They should study thermodynamics, reactor control, and climate history to help them in their work.
Kim you are mistaken.
Old Coach, thank you for your post. Yes clouds do get formed, and these are (partially) negative feed backs as well which are underrepresented, and actually most climate modelers do study thermodynamics, reactor control and climate history. Rasmus is a physicist, Gavin is a mathematician who studies paleo- climate, others are ocean chemists and so forth. I have a chemistry, biology, and physics background myself. Water does assist in maintaining temperature, however, it has been shown to be a positive feedback of the effects of CO2, for H-O-H is the major green house gas and even modest increases in CO2 and infared absorption (after a lag phase) will be greatly accenttuated by water vapor, we know of the chemistry of these GHG from physical chemistry and from atmospheric chemical analysis.
Some clouds actually hold in heat as well and even with clouds that have high albedo, there is still a net warming present. I do agree that the models still need to account for certain dynamics, however, because water vapor tends back to equilibrium and specific humidity levels off the long term modeling of climate actually increase in accuracy and by doing comparisons with other grid box models and using randomization (central theorem) and collecting more ecological and surface temperature observations, future models will become both more accurate and precise in their predictions and accounts of will be, present trends. The Earth is not an entirely closed system, this is to be sure, otherwise the warming and toxic gas levels would be more than catastrophic.
The global warming trends modeled and predicted are actually relatively slow, gradual and many forcings and feedbacks are taken into account as well. There are low end, median and high end predictions and possibilities being modeled and analyzed. The scary thing is that the climate is becoming more sensitive to CO2, so even if the reasons are not fully understood, water vapor is we know definitely playing a chief role in the positive feedback of CO2 mediated effects.
Climate is certainly not completely unstable, however, it has been tending towards greater instability; having been through the entire US recently and keeping up with the weather reports and what they used to be, there have been drastic changes, especially over the last 18 years or so (since 1990) and looking at my weather charts I see global changes, and warming related to traveling smoke and so forth from China and India.
jcbmack (19:24:15)
Hah, I’m mistaken according to you, but I note that CO2 is rising and global temperature is falling. What a mistake.
====================================
I should also add, that when I say that we have a good idea about climate sensitivity, keep in mind that I also stated first, we do not have an exact quantitative value, but rather a range and we certainly know the upper limits in which even conservative climatologists know the globe would be in serious trouble. I also stated that I believe Hansen’s latest statements and estimates to be a little more drastic than the actual reality and I have mentioned Gavin’s recent interview in Scientific American and his caution especially regarding both paleo climate proxy studies and climate sensitivity. (Charney sensitivity) What I am referring to is a good idea and the consequences of GHG’s that we are currently witnessing. I am against carbon capture into the ground, skeptical of using garbage as a methane source for energy, and certainly opposed to injecting massive amounts of SO2 into the stratosphere. What I support are: reducing overall emissions (sulfates and CO2, CH4 etc…) and contrary to popular opinion, the new propellants used are no longer contributing to cooling, but contribute slightly to warming; I support more funding and hiring for research into alternative energy sources and the proper implementation of the technology. We will get closer and closer approximate numbers, however, the threat of warming is real, but we do still have time to make a difference… we should not squander this time. The trends are clear, however, as are the potential ramifications in addition to the current trends of plasmodium parasites due to the facilitation of vectors, like Anopheles mosquito which is a carrier of the parasite which causes malaria, the Lemmings being hurt due to changes in the type of snow fall, increased incidence and prevalence of droughts and so forth… net warming, despite dimming; consider the human body: an open system, energy coupling, (exergonic and endergonic, like a planet exothermic and endothermic,) positive feedbacks, negative feedbacks, set points, epigentic and mutations adaptive or consequent to external pressures, (like global forcings) yet the human body has its limits, where no negative feedback can overcome a change of too much magnitude or veocity. (or simply rate) The globe is quite similar to the human body, albeit more vast and overall even more resilient and adaptive.
Nature October 30, 2208.
Earth magazine October 2008
Scientific American November 2008
Nature November 2008
Scientific American Earth 3.0 November- December 2008
Kim show me the data. Show me peer reviewed data and show me how the calculations are being made and the graphs indicating a global cooling. I am looking right at the data, the graphs and math and I still see global warming, so yes you are mistaken. I am not just looking at NASA, NOAA, the journals on nature, but also peer reviewed research from the UK and several research universities as well as my own data for my paper to be submitted for peer review, so where is your evidence? I will tell you; it does not exist. I will even like to look at non peer reviewed literature, as long as it is from legitimate experts with proper citations and research methods. Kim you are mistaken, the globe is warming and you need an education.
Although Tamino does a poor job attempting Spencer, Spencer does have several flaws in his assumptions and explanations both on his site and in his books.
jcbmack:
First off, please read the Wegman Report to Congress. The peer review process within the climate sciences is corrupt and can no longer be relied upon.
That is not to say that many papers are not genuine science. But many are published as a means to an end: obtaining more grant money. And the small clique of reviewers engage in mutual back-scratching, passing each others’ papers through the process because their goal is money and power.
You claim that the planet is still warming. You are wrong. The planet is cooling.
That data you are giving me is wrong. The ARGO floats were recently shown to be improperly calibrated and since the error was fixed, well, the warming trends are shown. Also, keep in mind that when water which has a high heat capacity reaches limits, temperatures rise, the warmer water rises and there is evaporative cooling. Then there is advection and convection processes which will raise water of higher kinteic energy.
The whole peer review process is not corrupt, if it were, then most scientists on earth could not be trusted, that new antibiotic which kills resistant bacteria and so forth would not be credible.
I do want to say, however, that I took the time to read the Mann work, controversies and claims by Mcintyre among others. I notice that although the recommendations for further quality controls and independent verification by experts, are not bad ones, they in no way imply or state that peer review cannot be trusted. I also note that the 14 places in the northern hemisphere (tree rings) are not specifically mentioned and that either not including topics (or sub tropics) or doing so may lead one to find differences in trend analysis, but with the grid box, HADCRUT3 anomaly analysis (larger and smaller boxes) where sampling and number errors can better be controlled for and time resolution in conjunction with spatial resolution, and acknowldgment and reanalysis of such biases mentioned in regards to Mann and others, the results are in fact repeatable and robust.
Time averages are still a great way to smooth out nuances, anomalies and to see what has been occurring in the twentieth and beginning of the twenty first century. The proxy data, as one goes back in time, is subject to criticism on both sides, and for good reason, NASA NOAA and Princeton AOS do not dispute this. Global Climate Systems, an excellent book discusses the issues with proxy data very clearly, candidly and thoroughly. The comparisons being made in this report begin with grand validity, but end in complete absurdity. Of course as one explores possible climate and temperature trends in the 1400’s and 1500’s the magnitude of uncertainty increases, as does the need to infer rather than experiment, observe and validate. Now, paleo climate studies are still necessary, however, they are not a stand alone or chief validation markers in and of themselves, but they serve as guides, windows into past climate trends, which in many cases can be utilized surprisingly, well and with appropriate accuracy, in the proper context of other more immediate, validated data and statistical analysis.
This paper you reference ends up at several points comparing apples and oranges, and even when it is a lateral appraisal, it often ends up being a moot one, as far more data, research and analysis of heat budget, atmospheric chemistry, fluid dynamics and so forth, confirming and evidencing global warming. Interesting how one side accuses the other of lying, while the other states clearly the nature and where known or approximated, the magnitude of uncertainty, bias, errors and need for further research. Science is not about screaming you liar or not fair, it is about going where the evidence leads, and extrapolating the patterns.
E.M.Smith (22:54:11) :
There is also a 1500 year cycle that makes for even more cold, but the last time this happened was Bond Event 1 and the Dark Agesā¦ (See: āUnstoppable Global Warming! Every 1500 Yearsā).
There is no 1500 year solar cycle. There are Bond events, and Gerard Bond conjectured that these might be caused by the Sun, but we have not found the corresponding solar variations.
So, using sun / planet rather than planet /moon, as the large planets get closer to the sun, and the sun to the barycenter of the solar system, the sun has to spin faster to conserve angular momentum. This, since the sun is not a solid, lets the sun flatten and the equator rotate faster than the poles. This modulates solar output and sunspots.
This is pseudo-science of the worst kind. The distance between the Sun and e.g. Jupiter does not vary at all, except from the eccentricity of the orbit. Here http://www.leif.org/research/Distance-Sun-Jupiter-and-SSN.png is a plot of that distance [simplified a bit, by plotting the closest and farthest approaches and the average of the two (pink squares)] and of the sunspot number [SSN], and as you can see they have no relation to each other, as the phase drifts. The differential rotation between equator and pole is not due to ‘angular momentum’ transfer, but is a result of the Coriolis force acting on the convection zone. The Sun does not flatten because of Jupiter, etc, etc. Worst of the worst.
J Javaraiah paper:
“Finally, we find that the length of the current cycle will be as short as that of cycle 22”
Has already been falsified, as cycle 23 was long.
As I have said repeatedly: combating bad science with worse science is not the way to go.
jcbmack:
I never call others a ‘liar.’ I trust that they believe what they say. Liar is a really venomous word that destroys any chance of reasonable discussion [I know; I’ve been called that plenty].
OK, I had posted some charts for you above, from the very same government entities that you mentioned. They show declining global temperatures, yet you persist in your belief that global warming is gonna getcha.
In fact, the empirical evidence leads us to conclude that temperatures are declining at the same time that beneficial CO2 is rising. That drives a huge nail into the AGW/CO2 coffin, despite the frantic backing and filling of the AGW crowd — who now implausibly argue that global warming causes global cooling! [It’s all in the models, see?]
Recall that James Hansen, globaloney scaremonger-in-chief, testified in 1988 that global warming would get us all in short order. Looking at the zero line here, you can see that the planet’s temperature naturally fluctuates around it.
The only reasonable conclusion is that Hansen was wrong. But in the early ’90’s, Al Gore began stating repeatedly that planetary catastrophe resulting from runaway global warming would happen within ten years. It’s interesting to see that Johnny-One-Note Hansen is saying the same thing today that Gore said fifteen years ago.
Hansen and Gore were both spectacularly wrong. And Hansen’s own organization, GISS– after massaging the raw data upwards — is still forced to admit that the planet is cooling.
So how can you justify your claim that global warming is still occurring?
The graphs I have from NASA, the latest ones, and the various graphs from independent parties show warming and I will post the sites up when I have time.
And again the charts are based upon ARGOS floats that were not properly calibrated.
Here are some graphs for you to look at:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/
For further insights:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
http://www.realclimate.org/images/giss-15yr.jpg
http://www.realclimate.org/images/hadcru-8yr.jpg
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/01/uncertainty-
They are not admitting to global cooling, you are mistaken and those charts and data are how I justify my “claim.”
noise-and-the-art-of-model-data-comparison/
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/
http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/460.html
ftp://data.giss.nasa.gov/pub/gistemp/netcdf/
More on the way:)
I had another post with far more references, but it is not being allowed yet or it was lost to cyberspace; I will repost them tomorrow, enjoy!
jcbmack,
Well, I looked at all your links. Against my better judgement, I even looked at the typical realclimate propaganda which, as usual, is bogus.
That leaves us with the other links [some of which are corrupted and cannot be accessed].
I hope you understand that I discarded any link going back into the 1800’s, for the simple reason that it is widely acknowledged that natural cyclical warming took place beginning around 1900, before CO2 was a factor.
However, to squeeze so many years into a small graph makes the result look like the discredited scary hockey stick graph [I am not saying these are hockey sticks, only that it’s hard to discern what has been happening since 1998 in a graph going back over a hundred years — even though they show the same thing].
That leaves us with one graph: click
And your one graph is in agreement with the graphs I posted upthread. Your graph, like mine, shows flat to global cooling over the past decade. No warming.
Thanks for verifying that there has been no recent global warming. None. At all.
You are not even able to read the graph correctly, because you are only concerned with short term weather trends and short intervals in climate. The past decade has seen global warming, not only the past decade, but the bette 30 year data shows the trend quite nicely. You may look at graphs, but you fail to understand them; and I showed many graphs, not one or two showing the global warming trend. Clearly you lack a background in science or math.
Oh and on a final note, a lag phase with CO2 and warming, 1900 would not be a bad time period for warming to begin, but very small trends in warming began in the 1800’s due to the increased burning of coal and so forth. It is therefore not CO2 independent.
jcbmack @19:13:39 :
Thanx, jcbmack, I enjoy your personal ad hominem attacks. They always crop up when nothing else suffices.
In the mean time I will console myself with the fact that no global warming has been detected by GISS or anyone else over the past decade. I especially liked your chart, which confirms that fact.
I’m going out tonight, so you can rant on to your heart’s content. Enjoy yourself! You get to have the last word.
To: jcbmack:
Ref your quote: “The 350 ppm or slightly below goal, may not be very realistic, but that is an accurate median figure in regards to the gateway to more dangerous CO2 levels, increased rate of global wamring and resultant sea level rise. We may have not reached peak carrying capacity, but the GHGās and the indistrialization of China and India are not helping matters. Humans can adapt to quite a lot, but we should not always test the limits before we do something.”
How many millions do you want to endanger (by poverty, famine, loss of drinking water due to no energy but firewater and animals, no/low/limited energy limiting their economic ability to grow and get healthy, and deaths by cold/heat/malnutrition as YOU demand that THEY sacrifice their lives so you can “feel safe” by setting limits?
To date, the only period (ever) when both CO2 and temperatures were rising was a short 27 year period between 1972 and 1998 – when temperatures rose a little under 1/2 of one degree. Since 1998, temperatures have fallen slightly – and CONTINUE to fall, yet CO2 has steadily risen. From 1940 until 1972, CO2 rose, but temperatures fell 4/10 of one degree. From 1890-1900 until 1940, CO2 is claimed to be steady, but temperatures rose – again – the same 1/2 of one degree that they rose in the last 27 years of the 20th century.
Your ASSUMPTION (faith/creed/desires ?) that CO2 is causing that short period of rising temperature is proven wrong by the evidence of contradictory trends; and you have NO evidence of any type (only approximate models that exaggerate (deliberately ?) the relationship you are striving for.
Do you claim a consensus? Yes.
Is your claim making it really a consensus? No.
Is there really a consensus? No.
If there were a consensus, would that make the consensus a reality? No. Merely a consensus. EVERY “scientific consensus” ever made before – has been proven wrong. And the more viciously a “consensus” is defended by the “scientific” establishment, the more quickly that consensus is proved WRONG.
Is there a consensus that AGW is not present, and that man-made global warming is NOT a threat? Many tens of thousands of engineers, scientists, and weather experts DO believe both statements. But YOU chose to ignore THEM, but rather believe the politicians who pay your salary and who pay your research. Why should “I” trust you to be honest? No environmentalist has yet earned my moral NOR scientific trust, since their previous statements and predictions have been proven wrong. (Or have results in untold horrors of starvation, death, and preventable disease.) Over and over and over again.
You “claim” that only peer-reviewed publications are valid science, but then your “peers” who determine WHO gets funded, and WHO gets published deliberately restrict research to what THEY want to read. To restrict research to what results THEY (you!) want.
Oh. Threats of death, threats of imprisonment and fines, court cases, massed firings of skeptics, the use of such prejudicial language itself, and actual cases of attacks in the literature, public articles, public presses, public televisions and movies, reviews, books, interviews and thousands of political speeches are not “real” threats?
—
By the way, just what ARE the temperature correction equations that Hansen refuses to release for “peer” review? What is HANSEN hiding? Why?
What ARE the real historical temperature readings that NOAA and Hansen refuse to release for “peer” review?
Where ARE the thermometer locations that he refuses to release for “peer” review?
Why are 10 (out-of-calibration, never seen, never audited ?) Siberian thermometers evidence for “the hottest October, September, August, etc. ever” stories – but satellite averaged temperatures that show cooling not evidence of global cooling?
Why did Cromwell die of malaria, if malaria is a “tropical” disease? (Do you think that malaria is increasing – not from a 1/2 of one degree increase in temperatures – but because enviro extremists are preserving mosquitoes by banning DDT rather than people’s lives?
Why is 27 years of rising temperatures evidence of catastrophic global warming, but 120 years of cycling temperatures NOT evidence of cyclical temperatures?
—
What is the multiplier of CO2’s effect on water vapor that Hansen has chosen to use in his “predictions” of future temperatures? 1x? 2x? 4x? 8x? 16x?
You are wrong about global warming. Dead wrong. And your prejudices will be the cause of killing millions.
Because temperatures are falling now, have been higher in the past, and will be lower in the future – The graphs you chose (deliberately) are skewed avoid that inconvenient truth.
Because sea levels are NOT rising catastrophically – they are rising at 1 mm per year.
A Poem
by Joseph Love
In your world, my world, it’s turning cold.
The summer that died months ago, seems so distant now, just a wishful memory. The warmth of the sun comforted us for only a small time, but never really was. Grey and gloomy it was gone before it ever arrived; a couple of pinwheels to remember it by. The garden never bloomed, never provided a single meal. The summer garden that was to provide for us, left us starving.
The weather’s changed to a deathly cold. I stay up, preparing for the coldest that is to come, trying to gather what we need. Maybe it’ll be warmer in my bed. But the natural warmth of sleep never comes. The sleep that does come is cold, and long; rotting away the last of the winter stores. It was hopeless to try to prepare for a winter like this. We have nothing to do but hope we can last until spring.
The longing for spring gives us hope; hope for another summer; A long, happy, summer with a bright sun, flowers, and the fruits of our garden.
A thought hits me. We must till our land, cut out the weeds, prepare the garden for the seed. With the weird seasons, who can know when to plant?. Do we plant when it’s cold, or after it starts warming up? My mind tells me not to plant too soon our next winter could be worse than this one. Maybe tending to our garden will take our minds off this long cold winter. God will tell us when to plant the seed.
If only I could get us up; out to face the cold. But for now, we lie in our cold bed; consuming the fruits of the summer garden that never was.
The consensus is based upon solid data. The GISS charts show by and large show global warming. I am not against seeing charts that show cooling, but when 95% of the charts are discarded, based upon faulty logic and without data to support such an assertion, well, that is just silly. It was not as hominem, it is based upon the blatant disregard for most of science and ignorance of the math involved and discussion of low and median predictions. At any rate have good time.
Robert,
I have made no suggestion, allusion, request, or demand that people live without energy. I am not proposing that we go back into the dark ages or that we immediately stop burning all fossil fuels or that we hinder the impoverished by taking all of their freedoms only recently granted many of them. Having said this, I must remind you that the technology and the practical applicability within the realms of: solar panels, electric and hybrid vehicles, cleaner burning fuels, and more additional efficient technologies, which would lower each person’s (especially in developed countries) carbon footprint, have existed for more than 30 years, some 40, and the blueprints and basic science for several, are even older, and you can find evidence of this in old encyclopedia Britannica articles, as well as specials on Starz, and various encyclopedias of science from today, the nineties, the eighties, the seventies, the sixties etc… (even wikipedia) PBS also has excellent specials and online articles regarding the money saved and economic benefit for today had more cleaner burning technologies and alternative energy sources been implemented earlier on and to a larger degree sooner.
I would also like to note that the Kyapo of Brazil, have no real interest in domestication through technological advancements that would displace thousands of tribe members through the building of a dam which would flood homeland; slash and burn forest life and build factories which would both destroy a whole culture and add to air, water and atmospheric pollution.
It is true that the implementation of alternative fuels and other energy sources on a large scale will be extremely expensive, so we should do it piecemeal, gradual stepwise. If a person is a geophysicist or an organic chemist-chemical engineer for an energy company, they have the background, experience and plasticity to take on other roles in research and development for the very same company to produce, find, facilitate, initiate alternative sources of energy or even work in another position in the company or work for a different company developing other aspects of the energy field and so forth. A chemist is a chemist a physicist is a physicist; the bright ones with a bachelors already have a graduate understanding and the bright ones with a masters and training can move laterally or upwards into other aspects of a given field or with company training change fields as well.
GM is in trouble as are: Ford, Chrysler, and even Dodge is down. Yet Exxon Mobile has record profits for last quarter. Oil companies, the coal industry, the electric company and so forth are not starving. This economy has many people starving, and yet we currently have the technology to feed every single person on this planet; of course many dictators would steal a lot of the supplies dropped into third world countries, but we have starving people here in the US, regardless of what stance people take on global climate change, free trade versus tighter regulation, government control versus corporate interests represented in the government. How can this be when genetic engineering can easily solve many of the world’s problems? GM corporate officers are still flying on corporate jets… do you know how expensive it is to fly on a private jet? Instrument rating and further training costs a lot, these pilots are not cheap and that kerosene/jet fuel burns quite quick at those speeds.
I would recommend you read the Economist, and Economist.com for many free articles; they cover of course, economics, but they also have fair and balanced articles on technology and global warming-climate change-dimming.
I assure you that what I propose is a gradual process, and if you read my earlier posts, I find Hansen’s estimates a little high, based upon my own data analysis, calculations and charts. However, he is on the right track and has been on correct most the time in the past.
Now once again, the reduction of fossil fuel emissions will reduce risks to human health and to the prosperity of other life forms. I think that injecting SO2 into the stratosphere is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard, and it is too premature to take a course of action which such serious known consequences and some unknown ones as well. I am not a follower of Hansen, Gavin or anyone for that matter. What I do see from my own calculations are serious problems, especially 50 years or so from now, and I see more droughts and climate trends and forcing issues beyond what can be reasonably explained by natural, internal, variability.
From Leif Svalgaard (07:36:16) :
There is no 1500 year solar cycle. There are Bond events, and Gerard Bond conjectured that these might be caused by the Sun, but we have not found the corresponding solar variations.
end quote
Leif, I clearly stated it was a Bond event. Yes, I put the statement near one that stated a 200 year solar cycle, but I did not state the 1500 year cycle was a solar cycle. Maybe that was unclear. While I think that there probably is a 1500 year solar cycle corresponding with the Bond Event cycle (after the published works of Bond, Avery, Singer) I am not asserting is is proven. To me it looks more like a 2400 year solar cycle, with error bands, but even that looks a bid dodgy.
From me
So, using sun / planet rather than planet /moon, as the large planets get closer to the sun, and the sun to the barycenter of the solar system, the sun has to spin faster to conserve angular momentum. This, since the sun is not a solid, lets the sun flatten and the equator rotate faster than the poles. This modulates solar output and sunspots.
end me
From Leif
This is pseudo-science of the worst kind. The distance between the Sun and e.g. Jupiter does not vary at all, except from the eccentricity of the orbit.
end Leif
The eccentricity of the orbit IS what I’m talking about. The distance varies with the apogee / perigee. The distance varies as the position in the orbit changes. The distance varies. I’m not saying the planets are out there just wandering about!
Leif:
Here http://www.leif.org/research/Distance-Sun-Jupiter-and-SSN.png is a plot of that distance[…] and of the sunspot number [SSN], and as you can see they have no relation to each other, as the phase drifts.
end quote.
It isn’t just Jupiter. That there is a phase drift with Jupiter alone is in conformance with what I’ve seen published. You are oversimplifying by leaving out the other gas giants. See I. Charvatova, Rhodes Fairbridge, Landscheidt, I.R.G. Wilson, and I suspect Singer and Avery though I’ve only read the non-reviewed book not their papers.
(And yes, I know that Landscheidt believed in astrology, but his papers were peer reviewed and published. Newton was an alchemist and we don’t hold that against his scientific work. And don’t forget that Einstein believed in an invisible person in the sky who likes to keep count of hairs on heads…)
BTW, I’m just citing published works from other folks and attempting to understand them. This isn’t my work and I’m open to a demonstration that the other folks are wrong, but to toss one graph at me and state ‘no relation’ seems to me to be weaker than published works from several authors in peer reviewed media.
From Leif:
The differential rotation between equator and pole is not due to āangular momentumā transfer, but is a result of the Coriolis force acting on the convection zone. The Sun does not flatten because of Jupiter, etc, etc. Worst of the worst.
end Leif
Were you having a bad day? I did not say that all the differential rotation was caused by angular momentum changes, I said that the sun, being a fluid, ALLOWED differential rotation and flattening. I posited that this might be modulated by changes in angular momentum, not caused, with the mode of modulation left unspecified and that these changes might further modulate sunspots. As the spin changes, mass moves and I thought it was obvious that Coriolis (and other forces too) would act on that mass. (And was NOT saying that convective forces were absent). I just didn’t want to get into a long drawn out discussion of details about mass flow vs magnetic vs convective vs whatever.
To quote from a paper by Richard Mackey about Rhodes Fairbridge:
Blizard (1987) presented evidence that the precessional effects on the sun of the planets depends on the degree of oblateness of the sun and on the angle of inclination of the plane of a planet’s orbit in relation to the sun. Since the sun is a fluid, the precessional effect may induce a fluid flow toward the equator of the sun from both hemispheres. The flow of plasma on the sun directly effects solar activity.
and
Burroughs (2003) reported that the sun’s barycentric motion affects its oblateness, diameter and spin rate.
and
In several papers, Rhodes Fairbridge (for example, Fairbridge 1984, 1997 and Fairbridge and Sanders 1987) describe how the turning power of the planets is strengthened or weakened by resonant effects between the planets, the sun, and the sun’s rotation about it’s axis. He further described how resonance between the orbits of the planets amplified the planets’ variable torque applied to the sun.
end Mackey quotes.
and from http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/02oct_oblatesun.htm
Oct. 2, 2008: Scientists using NASA’s RHESSI spacecraft have measured the roundness of the sun with unprecedented precision, and they find that it is not a perfect sphere. During years of high solar activity the sun develops a thin “cantaloupe skin” that significantly increases its apparent oblateness. Their results appear the Oct. 2nd edition of Science Express.
end NASA quote.
Which they attribute to magnetic effects but they leave open the mechanism behind those effects, at least in this summary.
So we have several papers showing planets influence on solar shape and activity and we have NASA measuring changes in oblateness that correspond with periods of higher activity. On your side, we have a graph.
Leif, I don’t want to go down this rat hole, but when someone says “worst of the worst” I must respond. I am only a layman in this field, but I try to be diligent about having a tidy mind and about having published works in the field pointing in a direction before I go off that way. I know you don’t like the notion of “the planets change solar output”, but does that preclude my SPECULATING about it? I know that what I write is not the science (it’s not peer reviewed, not in a science journal, I’m not a Ph.D, etc.) and is, by definition, speculation; but it is speculation based on other real science work that has been published. Is it possible, just possible, that you are wrong? That all the other authors might have something? Does your not liking their thesis make it the worst of the worst pseudo science?
If all these folks published work is wrong, fine. Cite the papers that show it. I’d love to have a reading list. But please, do it without the invective. And I’ll promise to be more careful in how I write if you promise to read it more carefully and not jump to conclusions unsupported by my words.
From Leif:
As I have said repeatedly: combating bad science with worse science is not the way to go.
end quote
So what shows those authors work to be ‘worse science’? They say the planets are important to solar shape and function and that solar output varies accordingly (yes, I’m dodging the causality word…) What shows them wrong? (If you are going to throw darts, you need to defend them. If you are willing to let folks speculate sans darts, then go in peace…)
From jcbmack (18:00:19) :
The consensus is based upon solid data. The GISS charts show by and large show global warming.
[…]
.It was not as hominem, it is based upon the blatant disregard for most of science and ignorance of the math involved and discussion of low and median predictions.
end quote
Um, the GISS data are based on poorly sited thermometers, where the temps are read in 1/10 degrees then rounded to whole degrees. Then a missing high or low can just be made up by the data collector. After that, these high / low sets are averaged together. Just what does the average of the high and low for a day mean? It isn’t the typical temperature of the day, nor the median…. Then a bunch more of these are averaged together. What is the meaning of the average of Fairbanks Alaska and Phoenix Arizona? Nothing. Then, at the end of all this (and more), we are supposed to be excited about a 1/10 place variation when the original input is only accurate to full degrees? Ignorant of the math? Yes, I’d say GISS is… To quote my high school math / science teacher “Never let your precision exceed your accuracy”.
BTW, please show and explain the strange and wondrous data ‘adjustment’ math done by GISS. I’ll wait while you a) get and b) untangle their source code…
From jcbmack (20:42:41) :
I have made no suggestion, allusion, request, or demand that people live without energy. I am not proposing that we go back into the dark ages or
end quote …
What follows this is a long statement about gradual adoption and creation of new energy sources.
What this post misses is the simple fact that we are up to our eyeballs in more proven alternative energy sources than we could ever use. There is no need for ‘research’ to find or fix alternative energy. (There is need to reduce the cost and one can always benefit from more research to find new ways to do things, but we don’t need to wait for research to have things that work.)
The only reason we don’t have tons of alternative energy sources all over the place is the dirt cheap cost of coal and oil. The alternatives are ready and proven; but most of them only make money with oil over $80/bbl or so. Oil recently dropped under $50/bbl (after a spike to nearly $150/bbl).
If oil were known to be above $80/bbl AND GOING TO STAY THERE, we could have all the alt energy we wanted in about a 5 to 10 year construction frenzy.
It’s not about the need for new technology, it’s about the price of imported oil. Just as an example, I’m going to list some stock “ticker” symbols for companies that make alternative energy products. I’m not endorsing them or giving ‘stock picks’, it’s just easier than typing out all their names and you can look up their price charts vs oil if you have the tickers: PSUD OOIL GGRN SYNM SYMN RTK OPTT FSLR SPWR SOLF SSL JASO STP NBF AVR VSE BLDP ENER WFR IMO THPW and many more. There are even exchange traded funds of alternative energy stocks (Yahoo can show you what the fund holds): FAN TAN KWT GEX PBW PWND ICLN QCLN FUE PBD
OK, what’s the point? That there are plenty of alternatives, ready to go with companies trying to sell the stuff. They just can’t when oil is too cheap.
Anyone who spends a long time talking about the need for R&D or Development to find alternative sources is looking the wrong way. BTW, increasing fuel taxes does not help, since it taxes the alternatives too. What would help is a tariff only on oil imported from outside NAFTA that assured no such imported oil could drop below $80/bbl. This would provide economic shelter for folks like SYNM SYMX RTK and even shale oil companies like IMO to make and sell more of the alternative fuels at a profit. Nothing else is needed. Not govt programs nor subsidies. Not expensive and prolonged R&D nor any ‘breakthroughs’. Not even new cars.
As second point: Any alt energy program that runs through fleet change is a decade or two time to impact. All the folks saying we need {hybrids, hydrogen cars, electrics, funny fuel car of your choice} are indirectly saying they want to wait a decade for significant impact. Yes, it takes that long to change a significant part of the car fleet. Longer than drilling for new oil and longer than building a coal to diesel / gasoline factory, and longer than growing oil crops for biodiesel.
To the extent that the GISS data lead folks to believe the “CO2 is bad” thesis and demand non-gasoline non-Diesel cars as the solution, they are saying nothing significant can change for 10 to 20 years.
Oops… Above I had …SYNM SYMN RTK…
it ought to read SYNM SYMX RTK … Syntroleum and Synthesis Energy have very similar tickers and I sometimes them homogenized… sigh.
Offshore drilling would take just as long if not longer to make an impact. Also I already posted that we have the technology; it would become financially beneficial as we phase out coal and oil use. Wind mills are a great long term investment.
In chemistry and physics the laws and theories are done; the engineers have made great headway into applying these laws and theories alongside mathematicians to make great strides; now what is needed is the doing part, the financing, the building and using of wind mills, photo voltaic cells, cleaner burning natural gas on a grander scale, some form of carbon capture, but not into the ground and so forth… the technology is, in many respects old, and recent advances have led to greater utility, efficiency and ergonomic usage. It always takes money, now polciy makers and industry must take their cue, and they are starting to. Pickens is doing this to both make a buck and ensure a better tomorrow for his children and grandchildren; it would have been easier for him to stay in his industry, and make guranteed money for years to come, but he did not.
When 95% or more of the charts show warming and not just from the IPCC, NASA, NOAA, Princeton AOS, Harvard, Biological-ecological studies, but other independent meteorologists, and non peer reveiwed climatologists as well as peer reviewed, well, that “consensus,” is well in trenched in the science. Look at the recent research on the B-15 glacier in the Artic and the effects on penguins. No, this alone does not prove warming (the huge artic ice glacier breaking off and floating when it is winter) but it lends evidence to the enormous data which exists. Peer review in science has saved countless lives and raised the quality of scientific writing, but I am prepareed to look at more data from non peer reviwed professional scientists as well.
Global cooling would be just as disaterous as warming if on a consistent trend and by a degree or more; the ways to deal with cooling is the same as warming: reduce CO2 CH4, SO2, SO3 emissions. Reduce dependence on oil as a whole, not just foriegn and use utilize those voltaic cells and wind mills.
jcbmack,
Pickens has cancelled all his plans. So much for ensuring a better tomorrow for his children and grandchildren.
Pickens is stalling, not quitting just yet.
His commodity fund lost 84% of its value in October.
It currently is not the environment for “guranteed money” at the moment. He is shorter now on funds to ram through this water rights grab masquerading as an energy initiative. He is also facing a lot of opposition to his attempt at water profiteering.
Re: B-15 I believe you are speaking of an Antarctic Iceberg, not Arctic Glaciers.
Icebergs…happen…so what? Bigger icebergs are a sign of more ice, not less.
” Also I already posted that we have the technology; it would become financially beneficial as we phase out coal and oil use. Wind mills are a great long term investment.”
Why not convert your 401K to wind investments? You better talk to a few engineers first, though. Tell us how much you decided to invest and in which companies. This should be fun!!
Mike
” I am not a follower of Hansen, Gavin or anyone for that matter. What I do see from my own calculations are serious problems, especially 50 years or so from now, and I see more droughts and climate trends and forcing issues beyond what can be reasonably explained by natural, internal, variability.”
jcbmack
I’m sure that everyone here would like to see your calculations. This sounds like groundbreaking work! I’ll bet that Anthony would let you do a guest post with those calculations.
Waiting patiently for the calculations,
Mike Bryant
From jcbmack (13:31:32) :
Offshore drilling would take just as long if not longer to make an impact. Also I already posted that we have the technology; it would become financially beneficial as we phase out coal and oil use. Wind mills are a great long term investment.
end quote
Um, not quite. Depends on the oil field. Off shore California can begin putting new oil on line in about 1 year. All the on shore infrastructure is there, the oil is shallow, and in some cases (Santa Barbara) there are platforms already off shore that could carry more volume. Parts of the Alaskan North Slope are also fast. Near an existing pipeline, relatively short run of pipe to build, etc. About 2 to 3 years. ANWR? about 5 years. Coal to oil / fuels is about 5 years to build a facility if lawsuits don’t block it.
If one “phases out” coal and oil use via fiat, the price of them drops (lower demand) and it becomes harder for the alternatives to compete. It is this tendency to ignore the basic laws of Economics that the ‘no oil’ folks have most wrong. Look at what just happened in an economic slowdown. $150 to $50 in a couple of months on a few percent drop in demand. What do you think a 10% drop would do? 20%? Can we compete with $100/bbl equivalent wind against China with $40/bbl real oil? No.
And just how does one put a windmill into the tank of the existing car fleet?
If you don’t pay attention to the issue of fleet change and the 10 to 20 year time lag in it, you get broken ideas like building windmills to replace gasoline. I’m all for the Pickens Plan, but even he expects a slow conversion of the vehicle fleet mostly concentrating on commercial fleets. Windmills are an OK replacement for about 20% of coal and natural gas electricity generation, but not for most (80%+) vehicle fuel needs in anything less than 10+ years. Yes, I’m all for plug in hybrids. All we can make. In 15 years it will have an impact…
Also from jcbmack
Global cooling would be just as disaterous as warming if on a consistent trend and by a degree or more; the ways to deal with cooling is the same as warming: reduce CO2 CH4, SO2, SO3 emissions. Reduce dependence on oil as a whole, not just foriegn and use utilize those voltaic cells and wind mills.
end quote
Yes, it WILL be as disastrous (and maybe worse). No, one does not deal with it by reducing gasses that cause warming (or are you agreeing that they do not cause warming?)… I expect it to be a great opportunity for research into what actually will cause warming…
Most of this is OT, but I’ll press on… Hubbert and his peak say that we must produce all the oil we can, just to have an accelerating decline of oil as we slide down the bell curve. We are not prepared. We MUST drill all we have and turn coal into liquids too or our economy will collapse so horridly it will make our present problems look like good times. An economic collapse in the western world at the same time it gets cold would have such dire consequences as to be unthinkable; yet the AGW crowd is rushing to embrace the things that will cause it.
We must use everything available to us, starting 5 years ago. Yes to windmills, yes to solar cells and hybrid cars and yes to biodiesel and yes to bikes and trains and yes to drilling and coal to liquids… And that still will not be enough fast enough. Cut out oil and coal too and we die. No that isn’t hyperbole. Do you have any idea how much time and money it would take to convert just 25% of our vehicle fleet to windmill driven electricity? Even just the trains? How many millions of tons of copper will have to be mined to put in the electric support systems? How much of Peru or Indonesia will THEY let us dig up for our needs?
You can’t do any of it if you kill the economy. Our economy is oil dependent and will be for at least 10 more years even if we were started on an all out conversion plan, and we’re not. This isn’t an either/or problem, its a yes to all with the proper price incentives to get moving now.
Since I’ve given you a bit of grief, I’ll answer Mike’s question of you š
From Mike Bryant (15:07:15) :
Why not convert your 401K to wind investments? You better talk to a few engineers first, though. Tell us how much you decided to invest and in which companies. This should be fun!!
End quote.
Disclaimer: None of these are ‘stock picks’ or recommendations. They are for your amusement only. Sometimes I lose money… Some stocks I own a few shares of because I want to, not because they are good investments. I trade via timing indicators, these are not investments. For illustration only. Don’t Do It!
I do a fair amount of trading in my 401k IRA rollover. I’m partial to the alternative energy field for personal reasons. It’s very volatile and strongly driven by the price of oil. Short term it has absolutely been slaughtered by the plunge in oil. I ‘stepped out’ for a while as the plunge happened, but oil will, long term, go up. A lot. Tomorrow? 50/50 odds up or down $5 / bbl.
I’ve started buying back in a tiny. To what? FAN (a wind fund, it’s hard to find ‘pure play’ wind stocks – GE makes a lot more than wind turbines – and a small fund can get positions you can’t …), GEX (another fund with solar, wind, and Brazilian sugar/alcohol), OPTT (they make a nifty wave driven generator) and small positions in PSUD, RTK, and SYNM (all of whom make motor fuels from non-petroleum and are losing money). I have about 2% in now, and it will rise to 10% as / when oil starts its rebound (I expect about June 2009, but it’s going to be news and event driven). If oil starts a new plunge, I’m out in a day. When copper turns up (JJC) I’ll add FCX and PCU (copper miners). They will not go up until the future economy looks positive.
If you choose to trade alt energy stocks, hold on to your hat. Every news blip, weather event, and oil bump can make / lose you 50% or more. Small thinly traded event driven stocks with no earnings and crummy fundamentals are a very bumpy ride, even for traders. Better are the related companies: GE, FCX and the like for the average person.
Part of why I’m so interested in the GISS bogus numbers (getting back on topic) is that if I can get a better ‘bead’ on what is coming than everyone else (who believes GISS) I can make more money. That’s why AccuWeather is on the financial news channels and TWC is not – they are correct and NASA / GISS et. al. are wrong. Traders only care about what makes money, not what’s PC. Knowing that the heaters will burn more fuel is all that matters.
Right now I’ve started adding natural gas positions due to my expectation that it’s going to be cold. Real cold this winter. (That also implies that ag commodities ought to go up – DBA, JJA, JJG, and grain eaters down COW, HOGS – yes, those are real tickers- traders have a sense of humor š
So yes, I’m betting real money and my retirement on ‘getting it right’ on weather. That is why this site is so important to me. The key players here ‘have clue’ and are willing to share. I’m learning (sometimes against my will – Leif?) how to get it right on what really drives the weather. Knowing that other folks are getting bogus numbers is just icing on the cake 8-‘}
Oops, forgot to close the blockquote. The second paragraph is mine.
(Generalized Response)
The consequences of not utilizing alternative energy sources are disasterous… furthermore, we need to lower CH4,CO2 etc…. even if there were net global cooling (which there is not, it is localized) because of their detrimental effects to the atmosphere and human health. SO2 and SO3 lead to acid rain and cooling so they must also be reduced. It amazes me that people can still deny the toxic levels of such gases. Regarding my calculations, they will be available to be posted sometime next year, as I am working on my paper for review and have several other side projects, classes, and so forth, but I will get them up as soon as is feasible.
Cooling is both a consequence of sulfates and warming itself will change weather patterns leading to cold fronts, cloud insulation, etc… no one is denying this, or that the models are ongoing and improvements are the same. Back to B-15 ‘iceberg,’ (my mistake, not glacier, but it is so large it approaches such a designation) yes a larger iceberg may indicate cooling, but precipitation will still freeze and the bobbing up and down by a foot or so does not explain fully how such a thick iceberg could just break off, it looks as if warming helped facilitate the forming of a deep crack and ultimately break off. Conclusive? of course not… The planet system is an open one or if you will, a selectively open (or permeable) one, otherwise it would be too cold.
My problem with Watts is that he irresponsibly exaggerates thermometer misplacement issues and urban heat island effect. His accounts are incomplete and this leads other people to make faulty posts and explanations of siting issues that often do not exist at all. We all know that there are cooling trends as well as warming; weather, climate, heat exchange does not remain linear… I have yet to see conclusive or compelling data that the globe is in a net cooling period, but there has been net cooling over the years, this is undeniable, but this was very short term (in modern history, not paleoclimate) and did not reverse to zero net, the warming, and no credible data exists stating that it did, no matter how much we discuss ENSO and so forth. If someone had several sources of detailed data indicating net cooling I would be happy to look at it, but no one has shown me; one or two graphs or a blog do not constitute validated or repeatable data sets.
You can talk of corruption in peer review, but you need evidence, data, charts, images, empirical observations. We certainly cannot blame global warming for everything; it was originally believed that it was global warming that reduced honey bee populations, now we know it is more from other factors. Still, global climate change is serious, it is real and anthropogenic causes are evidenced or correlated quite well. Climatologists do not make more money by saying it is warming as opposed to cooling, they make a living tracking, modeling, trending and predicting climate patterns; if the globe quickly cools this is just as catastrophic, if there is a net balance, there are other aspects of climate that they can receive enormous funding to research. To say the majority of the data is skewed to the right, inaccurate, made up as part of a conspiracy etc… is far fetched indeed; of course this sometimes happen on a small to moderately sized scale, like in Korea and the false claim regarding stem cell treatment applicability or cloning in France. Still quality controls usually, and peer review, always, teases out blatant lies, gross inaccuracies and sets the science back on the path.
Oh and seeing as it is almost summer time in the Artic, we know that there has to be some natural warming occurring around this time as well.
Oh and I meant to say anartica, southern hemisphere.
Read: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9527485/
And think they teach this stuff in elementary school, aha!
From jbcmack
The trends are clear, however, as are the potential ramifications in addition to the current trends of plasmodium parasites due to the facilitation of vectors, like Anopheles mosquito which is a carrier of the parasite which causes malaria,
… [and] …
even if there were net global cooling (which there is not, it is localized)
end quotes
Boy, hook line and sinker. Golly.
Since I live in a historic malaria area (every year their are still a few cases) I can assure you that the present lack of malaria here (and in Europe for that matter) has NOTHING to do with temperature and everything to do with pesticides and antibiotics; and a wee bit with draining swamps. Period.
Restore the wet lands, ban pesticides for mosquito control, and we’ll be up to our eyeballs in malaria in no time flat, even if the temperature drops or rises 10 degrees. (100 F vs 110 F doesn’t mean much to mosquitos… the spray trucks from the local mosquito control district mean a great deal…)
And that ‘localized’ cooling is, so far, ‘localized’ to: Alaska, Canada, Central U.S., the U.S. South East including Florida, Cuba, Southern Brazil, Argentina et.al., Antarctica, South Africa, Europe, Greenland, the steppes of Mongolia, China, Tibet, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, Iran, Iraq, & Saudi … and is slowly spreading out towards the U.S. Northeast and Southwest. Oh, and arctic sea ice reformed at record rates…
So we have a maybe warm area near Moscow and N. Siberia (where warm is a relative term and the winter is young, not being here yet and all). I’d call that the abnormal weather event. Check back in January…
No matter how much you say “na na na na na I can’t hear you” facts will out. (Computer models are not facts, they are automated fantasies.) It is cold. It is getting colder. It is happening world wide. It started at the poles and is spreading out. It is happening in direct proportion to the reduction in solar activity (mechanism poorly understood, but correlation is clear) and in spite of dramatic increases of CO2 emissions. All the ‘sky is falling’ predictions of dire impacts on the world from warming have failed to appear. They are all still just predictions of doom with a paranoid feel about them. And every time Al Gore speaks up, he gets a cold wave… Almost enough to make me believe that there is a God – and with a sense of humor too š
Please take just a minute to look at the ski condition reports from around the world. It isn’t hard and doesn’t take long. How about the first snow in ages in Iran and south Brazil. The late snow in Australia. None of this has to do with the speed of the Gulf Stream (the imputed way a dilution of the N. Atlantic due to warming would cause localized cooling in N. Europe only). It has everything to do with real cooling all over the planet without regard to the gulf stream; and cooling is not warming.
Oh, and since the U.S. & Europe have been adding desulphurizers and scrubbers like crazy I don’t think you can pin this on aerosols and sulphates. The air over much of the planet is cleaner than it’s been in ages. China is a problem, but they didn’t just switch on in the last 2 years… so your causality model has a timing problem.
Remember Occam and his razor? The simple answer that covers all the known facts is “the sun did it” (or maybe “random variations”). The complex answer with gaping problems and missed correlation with effects is “We did it via CO2”.
jbcmack
Just to support what E.M. Smith says i.e.
Malaria has nothing whatsoever to do with temperature.
One of the worst oubreaks (per head of popn at least) occurred In 1922-23. There were 30,000 cases in Archangel – a city just 125 miles south of the Arctic Circle. During the 16th and 17th century malaria was widespread particular around the Fens area of Britain. According to CET record the 17th century was the coldest period in the past 400 years.
I don’t necessary agree with EM about the current cooling. I think that unless another strongish La Nina develops there will be (there already is) a rebound in the coming year, but I don’t think anyone knows why, for example, temps in 1990s were warmer than those in the 1960s.
If you think that you (jbcmack) do could you also answer the folllowing
1. What caused the increase in temps between 1915-44. This was a warming trend very similar to the recent one.
2. What caused the cooling between 1945-75. If your reply is “aerosols” could you explain why the Arctic cooled by around 4 times as much as the mid-latitude regions (i.e. the industrialised regions). Note that Mann & Jones amongst others have made the point that the effect of aerosols is “regionally specific”.
3. If we establish that you don’t know and cannot quantify the factors which contribute to the above warming/cooling events. Can you tell me what makes you (or anyone else) think that you know what caused the current one.
Thanks
False application of parsimony (Occam’s Razor) and we already understand the Milankovitch changes and alterations in the earth’s orbit.
From jcbmack (14:50:19) :
False application of parsimony (Occamās Razor) and we already understand the Milankovitch changes and alterations in the earthās orbit.
-end quote
OK, I’ll bite: What makes it a false application? Please explain how all the non-fit of temperature changes to CO2 vs the almost exact match of temperature changes to solar activity does not argue for ‘the sun did it’ as a simpler and more direct answer. Address the various optimum and pessimum intervals of the holocene in your answer. Explain Bond Events.
And, BTW, the Milankovitch cycles are related to ice ages, not short term (i.e. decades to centuries) changes. I see nothing to relate the 10,000 year scales of Milankovitch cycles to anything in this thread. You are grasping…
So, also address how you account for orbital mechanics issues (Milankovitch) and solar output issues (sun spots minimum / maximum, Hale, Gleissberg, de Vries / Suess cycles and the 2400 year cycle) in the proposed model for CO2 as the driver. Just ignore them? I’ll wait while you read the wiki pages…
There’s a Suess Cycle?
Tell me it isn’t so.
Tell me where to go.
I must read on this.
Is it better than Giss?
Who is this, Mr. Smith?
You must tell me forthwith.
False application of parsimony (Occamās Razor) and we already understand the Milankovitch changes and alterations in the earthās orbit.
Is this a response to my post? Are you suggesting Milankovitch cycles are responsible for the temperature fluctuations over the past century?
I’ve just noticed EM Smith is effectively asking the same question so feel free to respond to him if you wish.
From John Finn (02:42:43) :
I donāt necessary agree with EM about the current cooling. I think that unless another strongish La Nina develops there will be (there already is) a rebound in the coming year,
-end quote
From the UN weather agency thread
From Fernando (14:38:59) :
OT
Born:
a healthy girl: La NiƱa
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomp.12.4.2008.gif
-end quote
‘Nuf said?
This baby girl is so big and strongish, it was likely born by C-section! And you know what they say about C-sections.
They are a cut above.
da dum
E.M. I do not read wiki pages. I am a scientist and teacher, and you are missing several points that are raised by bringing up the Milankovitch cycle, it is as shame you lack the background to understand.
Oh and yes, nets and other adaptations will lower incidence and prevalence of malaria, however, it also certainly a function of temperature and humidity, take a course in microbiology and you will this, John.
I promise to answer your questions John and E.M., this will be when I can devote more time to the answers, Friday and Sunday of this week, not to worry, your questions will be given solid data.
E.M.Smith (15:51:29) :
Explain Bond Events.
There is no 1500 year or 1470 year [or whatever such number] cycle in solar activity, so Bond events must have a different explanation than the Sun. Gerald Bond and I have often discussed this and Gerald never really claimed that his events were caused by the Sun. He said that a 1500-year solar variation might be an explanation, if such a cycle could be demonstrated.
Leif Svalgaard (21:54:19) :
Gerald Bond and I have …
Come to think about it, his name is Gerard, but he calls me Lief, so what the heck…
Oh and yes, nets and other adaptations will lower incidence and prevalence of malaria, however, it also certainly a function of temperature and humidity, take a course in microbiology and you will this, John.
I listened to Paul Reiter who
“is a professor of medical entomology at the Pasteur Institute in Paris, France. He is a member of the World Health Organization Expert Advisory Committee on Vector Biology and Control. He was an employee of the Center for Disease Control (Dengue Branch) for 22 years. He is a Fellow of the Royal Entomological Society. [1] He is a specialist in mosquito-borne diseases such as malaria and dengue fever.[2] ”
See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Reiter
He was quite clear on the matter
From the UN weather agency thread
From Fernando (14:38:59) :
OT
Born:
a healthy girl: La NiƱa
http://www.osdpd.noaa.gov/PSB/EPS/SST/data/anomp.12.4.2008.gif
-end quote
āNuf said?
I never doubted there might be a La Nina. Note, though, that we are not going to be in an “official” La Nina state for several months even if ocean SSTs continue to cool. In fact my main point is that the so-called “cooling” is simply due to the La Nina phase of ENSO. There’s no evidence that this is a long term trend. Global temperatures are still above the 30 year average and still warmer than the 1998-2001 period when the last major La Nina took place.
One, Wikipedia needs a lot of work and two I took microbiology with a top expert on malaria, HIV, and the immune system and was one of the earliest reseacrhers to make headway in both as a microbiologist and immunologist; atleast give me more credible sources, wikipedia is starting to improve, but I actually took the courses,performed the literature reviews and I am familiar with the reseacrher you refer to.
from Leif Svalgaard (21:54:19) :
E.M.Smith (15:51:29) :
Explain Bond Events.
There is no 1500 year or 1470 year [or whatever such number] cycle in solar activity, so Bond events must have a different explanation than the Sun.
-end quote
Leif, this is the second time I’ve referred to Bond Events near statements about solar cycles and you have taken that to mean that I’m asserting that there must be a 1500 year solar cycle. I am very careful to refer to Bond Events as weather/climate cycles; and maximum / minimum events as solar cycles. Do I have to say “Bond Event – it’s a climate thing NOT A SOLAR CYCLE” every time I use the words Bond Event? Is not “Bond Event” already saying that (as opposed to maximum / minimum)?
Please rest assured I do not assert Bond Events are caused by a demonstrated 1500 year solar cycle (and in another thread stated that I thought there was more likely a 2400 year solar cycle with some error bands.)
Might there be a 1500 year cycle? I’m willing to say maybe (after Singer, Bond, Avery…) but don’t see enough proof one way or the other.
This still does not let jcbmack off the hook to explain why climate / weather moves in Bond Events and how ‘people did it’ is a better fit than some other cause (which even further up thread I said might be the sun did it OR random weather cycles. I just didn’t want keep repeating the whole thing every post. It gets tedious.)
from jcbmack (19:10:26) :
you are missing several points that are raised by bringing up the Milankovitch cycle, it is as shame you lack the background to understand.
-end quote
Nice personal attack, thin on facts though. Name the points. I’m still waiting for you to show how a 20,000ish year periodicity can cause a few hundred year weather cycle. Precession? Axial tilt? Elliptical orbit variance? Polar ice cycles?
The insult style and lack of substance is a very weak argument on your part.
-continue quote
Oh and yes, nets and other adaptations will lower incidence and prevalence of malaria, however, it also certainly a function of temperature and humidity, take a course in microbiology and you will this, John.
-end quote
Again with the personal attack style. What can I say? You are just as wrong on my background as you are on malaria.
I’ve worked on more hospital wards and taken more bio courses at university (including bacteriology & genetics) than I care to think about, thanks. I’ve also had entomology courses which are more relevant here.
I have lived in areas with long histories of malaria but at hospital we saw only a few cases each year. The reason was not nets; it was spray trucks, water trap draining, mosquito fish, and antibiotics. Good public health systems and mosquito abatement districts. This in a place where winters were in the teens F. Hardly ‘warm’. Summers were 100F+ though. Change that to 20s in the winter and 105+ in the summer and not a thing will be different to the mosquitos. Nothing.
Or are you asserting that malaria is running rampant in Florida and the rest of the southeast states along with the central valley of California? They all have plenty of warmth and humidity. And please explain the historic malaria outbreaks in cold climates, like Britain and Russia. I suspect that you can’t.
The notion that a warmer planet means more malaria is fundamentally broken. It’s just scare mongering.
E.M.Smith (19:17:55) :
Please rest assured I do not assert Bond Events are caused by a demonstrated 1500 year solar cycle
OK. And, BTW, I’m also convinced of the reality of the Bond Events. Gerard did a good job on me. I take the existence of Bond Events as a sign of natural, internal climate cycles.
No you have not… antibiotics do not always work and in the high risk areas there are numerous reinfections. Malaria can be spread through one of several vectors even in cold climates, and even places with traditionally cold climates can have periodic warm phases that support malaria spread. California has primarily dry weather, not humid, I live in CA, have been to Florida and I lived in Ny.
But now for your dare, I can explain in detail why malaria can, has and will at times spread in cold northern climate regions and potentially other cold areas as well: summer dormancy of hypnozoites and transmission of sporozoites indoors by semiactive hibernating mosquitoes. Variable climate conditions did not change this relationship, but the epidemics brought about by vast numbers of active mosquitoes were still found to be a function of temperature and humidity, which helps in the breeding of anopheles. Preceding summer conditions were still found to be an important factor in the force of the winter malaria breakout and P. Vivax was the major cause of breakouts in Scandinavia and Finland in the nineteenth century. P. falciparum, the most virulent form was not stopped by cold climate, but a short summer or cool summer did not well support the dormant phase. All this information is available on google, google scholar a good under graduate textbook and a graduate textbooks gives some great details on the molecular aspects of the various phases of the four infectious causative agents of malaria.
I brought up Milankovitch for two reasons;
1.) there misconceptions as to its effects and relevance to the current climate change discussion and I have seen many try and use it to describe its effects in a manner to discredit global warming. I was not suggesting that the changes describe very short term cooling trends, some posters here have claimed that there has been a several year cooling and even decades worth, here some might argue involvement of seasonal changes, localized weather patterns building up into a global cooling trend.
2.) minor perturbations in the system can be traced, though not usually so short term to milankovitch among other phenomenon which influences orbit, wobble and tilt, to put it simply. So, some localized seasonal effects may influence data collection and graphs one might derive, which may influence results especially with a good deviation from a temp change with a mild room for error.
I am certainly not claiming myself that Milankovitch can cause a cooling (or warming) globally suddenly in 2008.
For further reading;
Climate Process & Change
By Edward Bryant
The Geology of Stratigraphic Sequences
By Andrew D. Miall
From jcbmack (23:05:22) :
But now for your dare, I can explain in detail why malaria can, has and will at times spread in cold northern climate regions and potentially other cold areas as well: summer dormancy of hypnozoites and transmission of sporozoites indoors by semiactive hibernating mosquitoes. Variable climate conditions did not change this relationshipe textbook […]
-end quote
jcbmack, please accept my profound apology. I was clearly wrong in doubting that you could demonstrate mastery of why malaria is able to do quite well, perhaps even thrive, if very cold climates. I was wrong. You did a magnificent job of it.
And now that you have demonstrated that malaria is both a warm and cold climate disease, I will move on from the topic…
You also said: “California has primarily dry weather, not humid, I live in CA”
I took this to imply that you think that malaria is not a problem for a low humidity place like California. I will also assume I was wrong about what you meant and that you know about the history of malaria in California. For those who are not aware, I’ve added some information below. (The central valley of California can be either dry or humid depending on weather. It always has mosquitos though, unless controlled.)
From: http://www.vetmed.ucdavis.edu/ucmrp/news/malariaawarenessevent.html
UC Davisā first chancellor, entomologist Stanley Freeborn (1891-1960), wrote the first comprehensive review of mosquitoes in California, Vanderhoef noted. A California mosquito that transmits malaria (Anopheles freeborni), bears Freebornās name.
UC Davis spearheaded the formation of the statewide UC Malaria Research and Control Group, part of the UC Mosquito Research Program, both directed by Lanzaro. The group, formed in February 2006, is comprised of 21 scientists from five UC campuses, partnering with MVCAC, which includes more than 60 mosquito abatement districts in California.
[…]
UC Davis medical entomologist Robert Washino, introduced as āthe person who knows more about mosquitoes than anyone else in California,ā said that six U.S. presidents, from George Washington to John F. Kennedy, contracted malaria.
āMalaria was introduced in California in 1833,ā Washino said, āand it shaped the history of our state.ā
Malaria swept through fur trapper, native Indian, pioneer and gold miner populations, Washino noted. It was eradicated in the 1950s, but outbreaks still occur; the most recent outbreaks surfaced in San Diego County in 1986-89.
[…]
āWe have to be vigilant,ā Washino warned. āFive of the Anopheline mosquitoes that transmit malaria are still here in California.ā
and
Lanzaro predicted the UC Malaria Research and Control Group, with its noted scientists and mosquito abatement experts, will be hugely successful in combating malaria in Africa. āThe Mosquito and Vector Control Association of California has the most sophisticated mosquito-control program in the world, and weāre taking that over to Africa,ā Lanzaro said.
and further down
Mosquito abatement experts helped wipe out malaria in California and Mulligan predicted āwe can do the same in Africa.ā
I’m sure you are aware of why California has such a capable vector control program.
From: http://iier.isciii.es/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/00000251.htm we have a couple of cases of malaria from the 1980’s in the central valley of Ca.
Editorial Note: Considering the average 14-day incubation period for vivax malaria, and the travel history of the 2 patients, the infections reported here were most likely acquired in the northern part of California’s Sacramento (Central) Valley. Historically, mosquito-transmitted malaria in California has been confined to the Central Valley where ecologic habitats provided by irrigated farmlands–including fruit orchards and rice fields–are ideal for the breeding of A. freeborni, a highly susceptible vector of vivax malaria. In addition, non-refugee agricultural workers from malarious countries provide a reservoir of vivax parasites in such areas as Sutter and Yuba counties.
and
The patient lives 3 miles south of Marysville in a semi-rural setting next to the Feather River and within 1/4 mile of rice fields and orchards. He had not been employed regularly since December 1980. In the spring and summer of 1981 he did extensive fishing and camping throughout Sutter and Yuba counties, and often received many mosquito bites.
My hospital work was at U.C. Davis medical center (I’m an alumni of U.C.D.) and a local community hospital. I grew up swimming in the Feather River in a town a dozen miles or so from Marysville… Yes, C.V. California IS a malaria zone, though controlled via pesticides, water control, and (as the cases in the above link demonstrate) prompt control of active cases with antibiotics (antimalarials) to control sources of parasites. And we’re taking that road show to Africa.
Sidebar: Completely unrelated, but interesting… Plague is endemic to the rodents of California. Every year we would have a case or two reported to the Yolo County health department. Promptly controlled with antibiotics, so it doesn’t hit the news, but still… The idea that “fluffy” the squirrel might give you Black Death is a bit disconcerting! Every so often some survivalist will rant about how after the quake they will live on squirrel stew and I just shake my head (and cherish my stash of Doxycycline in the fridge…)
With that, I’m done with this thread. We clearly both agree that malaria can live in cold and warm, wet and dry, and that good public health and modern medicine are more important to disease control than anything else.
lol, thank you for that joke, E.M. Smith, I never laughed so hard, and given the theories my students came up with this week, I needed that. Until you gain a background in epidemiology and read the CDC data and “The Microbial World,” you are just not able to understand the nuances of this discussion and the issues of malaria in light of global climate change and the need for nets and the fact the antibiotics abuse is the number form of drug abuse in the world…good day, thank you for the sense of humour.
You should read Harrison’s Principles of Internal Medicine… you never know who you may be chatting with in regards to medicine.
http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/307/5716/1769
You don’t have to read farther than “Two global coupled climate models show…”
Jeez, jeez, did you have to be so quick?
In any event, the abstract says, in part:
So, roughly, a sea level rise of 3.2% a year. So, since 2005 (or a little earlier, given when the paper was submitted), we should have seen a 10% sea level rise since then.
Perhaps they were not expecting a linear distribution of the sea-level rise over the remainder of this century, otherwise I would have to say their prediction has failed.
It is not a linear distribution… how could it be?
[…] the identical months of November and December. It could be a GISS October2008 kind of carryover error, it could also be real. The global values for December 2008 are not yet out. Mauna Loa is only one […]
[…] Climate Change.Ā They professed the dangers facing mankind based on numbers they either knew to be inaccurate, or were too obsessed with finding their desired results to notice.Ā Heck, a child found a flaw in […]
according to the BBC, emperor penguins will be extinct in antarctica by the end of the century due to ice loss!