Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.
True, all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced together. However, in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET etc by NOAA prior to being distributed for use by organizations like GISS. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias.
In the recent data replication fiasco, GISS blames NOAA for providing flawed data rather than their failure to catch the repeated data from September to October. In that case they are correct that the issue arose with NOAA, but in business when you are the supplier of a product, most savvy businessmen take a “the buck stops here” approach when it comes to correcting a product flaw, rather than blaming the supplier. GISS provides a product for public consumption worldwide, so it seems to me that they should pony up to taking responsibility for errors that appear in their own product.
In the case above, what could be the explanation for the product changing?
Mary Hinge:
Ok, here’s one. On the Corrected NASA GISTEMP Data thread, you made some highly inaccurate and/or misleading assertions about latent heat, oranges and kettles – to which I replied. Perhaps you didn’t read my reply.
Now, what were you saying about a ‘typical ploy’?
Chris V:
From the above link:
But then:
But that’s precisely what he has, in effect, postulated in the first quote above. Otherwise, CO2 levels would have long ago dropped to below the level necessary to support life, and we wouldn’t be here arguing the toss,
Brendan H:
Simply because it’s a positive claim doesn’t change the fact that the burden of proof rests with those who postulate a theory.
We cannot prove that AGW doesn’t happen, just as you can’t prove that cimate is not within normal historical limits.
So you attempt to shift the goalposts with,
That assumes that CO2 levels have an effect on the climate in the first place.
Or do you think that pouring a bucket of water into the ocean would shift sea levels outside of normal historical parameters?
November 24, 2008
1. Mann’s latest hockey stick gutted (again)
“ABSTRACT: A new method is proposed for determining if a group of datasets contain a signal in common. The method, which I call Correlation Distribution Analysis (CDA), is shown to be able to detect common signals down to a signal:noise ratio of 1:10. In addition, the method reveals how much of the common signal is contained by each proxy. I applied the method to the Mann et al. 2008 (hereinafter M2008) proxies. I analysed all (N=95) of the M008 proxies which contain data from 1001 to 1980. These contain a clear hockeystick shaped signal. CDA shows that the hockeystick shape is entirely due to Tiljander proxies plus high-altitude southwestern US “stripbark” pines (bristlecones, foxtails, etc). When these are removed, the hockeystick shape disappears entirely.” “Can’t See the Signal For the Trees”
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/manns-latest-hockey-stick-gutted-again.html
2. Indonesia’s Climate Follows the Sun
Posted by Willie Soon, November 25th, 2008 – under Opinion.
Tags: Climate & Climate Change
Comments: none
CARBON dioxide is not an air pollutant. It is plant food. All life on Earth depends on it. It is natural. It forms the bubbles in bread, champagne, and Coca-Cola. You breathe it out, and plants breathe it in.
The Earth contains a lot of CO2, but the atmosphere contains so little that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) rightly calls CO2 a “trace gas”. A scientific mystery is why the air does not hold more CO2 than it does. Half a billion years ago, there was almost 20 times today’s CO2 concentration.
Most farmers would prefer to grow crops under much-higher concentrations of CO2 than today’s 385 parts per million—less than 1/25 of 1 percent of the atmosphere. To feed the world, low CO2 concentration is not such a great idea. High concentrations are better, and they cause no harm. Experiments have shown that even delicate plants such as orchids thrive at CO2 concentrations of 10,000 ppm.
That is why U.S. Supreme Court Justice Anthony Scalia has declared that if CO2 is to be labeled an “air pollutant”, then so must Frisbees and flatulence.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/
Chris V,
“Tax oil and coal based on their carbon content. At the end of the year, refund all the tax collected back to the taxpayers, with everybody getting an equal share of the revenue.”
That sounds like something proposed by Hansen as the congressmen studiously ignored him. If you believe that you will ever get value fron the federal government, you must be a high school kid or an idealist.
When you send money to the government, make sure you wave goodbye.
Chris V.,
Please don’t bother to link to obvious propaganda sites like realclimate; I rarely click on them, and that one is no exception.
I define a propaganda site as any site that encourages like-minded views, while deleting those that disagree with them.
Numerous posters here have stated that realclimate routinely deletes their comments. Exactly none of my comments have ever been posted at realclimate, but not for lack of submissions. I have since given up trying.
But government and university sites are a different matter: click
Smokey:
You asked for some evidence that human activities are responsible for the CO2 increases; I provided some.
Instead of telling me what’s wrong with that evidence, you just ignore it because you don’t like the source, and then change the subject.
If you don’t like realclimate’s take on this issue, you can go to the supporting references they provide.
Evidence does not cease to exist just because you refuse to look at it.
Mike Bryant-
You didn’t really answer my question.
You don’t think the government is capable of managing a program like that? People get income tax refunds all the time. All taxpayers got fiscal stimulus checks some months ago. How would this be any different?
Peter (11:51:37) :
Are you familiar with Henry’s Law?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry's_law
Increase the concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere, and some of it has to go into solution in the oceans (as long as the oceans are undersaturated WRT CO2, which they are).
This is high school chemistry.
Chris V.
CO2 goes up, temp goes down, oceans cool, sea levels decrease, arctic sea ice is within 1979 -2000 mean, AGW theory of catastrophic warming is B U S T…
Even the fraudulent manipulation of the GISS data set does not change that.
Why worry?… be happy
A new satellite predicts at least 23 years of global cooling.
http://www.cdapress.com/articles/2008/11/21/columns/columns06.prt
“Tax oil and coal based on their carbon content. At the end of the year, refund all the tax collected back to the taxpayers, with everybody getting an equal share of the revenue.
All taxpayers got fiscal stimulus checks some months ago. How would this be any different?”
So everyone gets an equal share, after uncle sam takes his customary 90%. From each according to their ability, to each according to their need (if uncle sam has any left over that is, and he never does). The stimulous only devalued our money as the buyouts will. Let’s redistribute all the wealth. Is that what you want?
It reminds me of a story. I might have some of the details wrong, but it illustrates a point. A reporter asked J. Paul Getty if he thought it was right that he had so much money while there were so many poor people in the world.
J. Paul called his head accountant in and asked him, “What am I worth today?” the accountant said, “I can’t say exactly, but it is about a billion dollars, sir.” “And how many people are there in the world, son.” asked Getty. “I believe about two billion people, sir.”
J. Paul sent the accountant away, and reached into his pocket. He removed two quarters and said to the reporter, “Here is your share of my fortune, now get the hell out of my office.”
So, ChrisV, no I don’t want any of your government schemes to devalue our wealth. No matter what question you ask about new taxes, new little schemes to make me think I’m getting over on the oil companies, cap and trade schemes or new bailouts. My answer today and for the rest of my life will be, Hell NO.
I hope that cleared it up for you.
Thanks,
Mike the Plumber.
Ron de Haan:
Your link on the predicted 23 years of global cooling is very interesting.
Do you have a link to the original story, paper, report, whatever? Like one that names the “several Canadian environmental scientists” and tells what they actually concluded, and how they arrived at those conclusions?
I tried to find it via Google. A lot of AGW-sceptical sites have reported this story (several google pages worth) but every one of them seems to ultimately lead back to the cdapress article in your link.
Smokey (04:13:09) :
Brendan H:
Since humans are the major contributors to the 30-plus percent increase in CO2 levels…
Citation, please.
“Scientific measurements of levels of CO2 contained in cylinders of ice, called ice cores, indicate that the pre-industrial carbon dioxide level was 278 ppm. That level did not vary more than 7 ppm during the 800 years between 1000 and 1800 A.D.
Atmospheric CO2 levels have increased from about 315 ppm in 1958 to 378 ppm at the end of 2004, which means human activities have increased the concentration of atmospheric CO2 by 100 ppm or 36 percent.”
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2005/s2412.htm
“Due to human activities such as the combustion of fossil fuels and deforestation, and the increased release of CO2 from the oceans due to the increase in the Earth’s temperature, the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide has increased by about 35% since the beginning of the age of industrialization.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere
Peter: “Simply because it’s a positive claim doesn’t change the fact that the burden of proof rests with those who postulate a theory.”
The burden of proof rests with the claimant. It doesn’t matter whether you call the claim a theory, a statement, an “accepted paradigm”, whatever. Whoever makes the claim bears the burden of proof.
“We cannot prove that AGW doesn’t happen…”
Agreed.
“…just as you can’t prove that cimate is not within normal historical limits.”
I’m not trying to “prove” that the “climate is not within normal [geological] limits”. I’m showing that the claim: “the climate is well within normal [geological] parameters” is false.
The difference is that one claim is negative, the other positive. Positive claims can be challenged/tested. That’s one reason why scientific hypotheses are couched as positive claims.
“That assumes that CO2 levels have an effect on the climate in the first place.”
Agreed.
“Or do you think that pouring a bucket of water into the ocean would shift sea levels outside of normal historical parameters?”
Do you think that lighting a fuse can set off a firework?
Peter (11:36:40) :
“Ok, here’s one. On the Corrected NASA GISTEMP Data thread, you made some highly inaccurate and/or misleading assertions about latent heat, oranges and kettles – to which I replied. Perhaps you didn’t read my reply. ”
Oh dear Peter, I was absolutely correct on this. When water evaporates it uses surounding energy to do this. This is why your skin feels cooler when the sweat evaporates. When the water vapour condenses it releases that energy. The effects of the steam condensing on your skin last longer (and is more painful!) than if an equivalent dry heat is applied. A simple experiment if you can’t grasp this basic scientific fact. Take to saucepans, two jam thermometers. Quarter fill one with water, tap is fine for this experiment. In the other put in an equal amount of syrup. Heat both up to 99 degrees centigrade, the pan with water should be producing plenty of water vapour. Put a lid on each pan, time for 30 seconds and measure the temperature of the lids. It will become immediately obvious that the lid of the steam producing water will be much hotter than the lid covering the syrup. This simple experiment shows how efficiently water acts as a heat transfer mechanism. As further reading about energy transfer by evaporation and condensation read a good book on refridgerators or air conditioning units. This is how they work.
As regards the orange farmers spraying their trees with water prior to frost I was given a ‘Wiki’ answer saying I was wrong. The skeptic answer given was it was nothing to do with energy released by freezing but entirely due to the insulation effect of the ice. The actual ‘Wiki’ answer is here: ” Oranges are sensitive to frost, and a common treatment to prevent frost damage when sub-freezing temperatures are expected, is to spray the trees with water, since as long as unfrozen water is turning to ice on the trees’ branches, the ice that has formed stays just at the freezing point, giving protection even if air temperatures have dropped far lower. “. It is schoolboy knowledge that the freezing of water releases energy that slows down the freezing of adjacent substances. The ‘Wiki’ answer does not mention insulation.
“Now, what were you saying about a ‘typical ploy’?”
You originally stated I was wrong without any examples, it happens all the time from the Blah Blah Blahers. Once you give examples a meaningful discussion can take place, however unfortunately for the AGW sceptics once this happens and you cut through the smokescreens, inaccuracies etc. there isn’t a great deal left. This is unfortunate as those genuine points that can be found through the BS are vital to the debate and help increase our understanding. Its a shame people like you with no basic scientific knwoledge can help muddy the waters for whatever political motivation you may have.
Reply: Mary, I’ve been uninvolved for a bit, but I remember you behaving better previously. Let’s try and be a little more respectful in our wording even if we feel our arguments are devastating–mmmmmkay? ~ charles the moderator.
“Reply: Mary, I’ve been uninvolved for a bit, but I remember you behaving better previously. Let’s try and be a little more respectful in our wording even if we feel our arguments are devastating–mmmmmkay? ~ charles the moderator.
Hi Charles, sorry if you think I’m being disrespectful but I have to defend myself against “some highly inaccurate and/or misleading assertions about latent heat, oranges and kettles”. As I have proved my answers to his points were, on the contrary accurate and to the point with examples!!. If I have illuminated his scientific inadequacies and you feel this is disrespectful to him then I think you are maybe a bit too sensitive!
“If you can’t take it don’t give it” was one of my grandfathers sayings, how apt!
Chris V.
Google search:
17 Nov 2008 … Fluctuations in PDO and global climate (20th century) … In the Senate hearing, Madhav Khandekar, a Canadian scientist with the Natural …
http://media.www.dailyemerald.com/media/storage/paper859/news/2008/11/17
Scientists all over the world are studying the JASON satellite data, this also goes for Canadian scientists. Madhav Khandahar is one of them.
You can also go to icecap.us
Look at the work of Joseph D’Aleo, CCM, Fellow AMS about the 30 year cycles of the PDO and ADO and related articles. Joseph D’Aleo is a star in making his case clearly in a few words.
Can’t provide you with a direct link, you have to search the archives.
I also remember that Anthony has published an article from Joseph on this subject at WUWT.
Further related links:
/News/A.Global.Farce-3547140.shtml
http://www.weatherquestions.com/Global-warming-natural-PDO.htm
Mary,
What you’ve shown here is that:
1) Water is an efficient conductor of heat, therefore ‘wet’ heat on your skin feels much hotter than ‘dry’ heat. You will very quickly burn your hand if you use a damp oven glove instead of a dry one.
But that’s all to do with the conduction of heat – steam does not increase in temperature as it condenses, as you alluded – the latent heat merely slows down the condensation of the surrounding water molecules.
2) Just like condensing water, the latent heat of freezing simply serves to slow down the freezing of the surrounding molecules – it does not increase the temperature of its surroundings – as you also alluded.
Chris V:
Yes. It is, as you say, high school chem stuff.
Now kindly point it out to your chums over at RC.
Brendan, I think you’re confusing the notion of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ with the principle of falsifiability.
The assertion that there is a tooth fairy is positive, but it’s not falsifiable. You cannot conclusively prove that there is no tooth fairy. On the other hand, the assertion that there is no tooth fairy is both negative and falsifiable. All it requires to be falsified is for the tooth fairy to make a single verifiable appearance.
Coming back on topic: the assertion that climate is within normal limits is both positive and falsifiable – all you need to falsify it is to show that climate has exceeded the bounds of normal variation.
Back in your court… no chalk dust.
Peter (13:40:50) :
2) Just like condensing water, the latent heat of freezing simply serves to slow down the freezing of the surrounding molecules – it does not increase the temperature of its surroundings – as you also alluded.
I just wanted to clarify some things here:
If Ice and water are at the same temperature in equilibrium, then Peter is correct. Freezing more ice does not raise the temperature of the adjacent water. Instead, more ice melts and we are still in thermal equilibrium.
If liquid water is placed in a container that is below the freezing temperature of water (such as open ocean water in the arctic, or a vessel that is half full placed in subfreezing environs), then when the water freezes it releases heat to the surroundings rapidly, which does raise the temperature of the overlying gases dramatically, but never over the freezing point of the liquid. It is possible to keep the ice from freezing (supercooled), if you use distilled water and are very careful about the container and not jiggling it, etc. In this case, the transfer of heat to the air by conduction is slow. However, once a seed is added to the water to cause it to freeze, then a lot of heat is released rapidly. So in this case Mary is correct. Sometimes we have our students do this experiment as part of the Chem E lab for Heat Transfer, and have them back calculate the heat of fusion of water.
Well, back to hiding in the shadows. I am enjoying your discussion. Please keep it up!
Peter, I think you have quite succinctly stated the case.
In my opinion, AGW supporters have never stated a scientific case for AGW.
I would love to see one that is falsifiable.
Mary Hinge:
This simple experiment shows how efficiently water acts as a heat transfer mechanism. As further reading about energy transfer by evaporation and condensation read a good book on refridgerators or air conditioning units. This is how they work.
Hah! Well, I think there might be a bit more to the story about how fridges and A/C’s work than what you just outlined! 🙂
I know that you know better, I just wanted to give you a hard time.
If it weren’t for that darned entropy gumming up the works…
Ron de Haan (10:02:55) :
None of the links you gave me (a paper by Spencer, and a college newspaper) mention anything about those Canadian scientists who are predicting 23 years of global cooling.
Spencer doesn’t mention the “coming 23 years of cooling”. Can’t find anything where Khandekar says that either. I’m starting to feel that the CDA Press just made it up.
And why do you post a paper by Spencer that uses computer modelling? I thought models were bad?