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?
Peter (13:44:03) :
“Now kindly point it (Henry’s Law) out to your chums over at RC.”
RC knows about Henry’s Law; that’s why some of the CO2 goes into solution in the ocean, as they said. No new carbon sinks needed.
And I think Mary is right about ice formation causing localised warming:
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
Richard Sharpe (16:04:22) :
Peter,
Well, there you have the specific challenge: Can any alarmist provide an AGW hypothesis that is empirically falsifiable [aside from the many AGW hypotheses that have already been falsified?]
Good luck with that.
Peter: “Brendan, I think you’re confusing the notion of ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ with the principle of falsifiability.”
The point I was trying to make is that you can’t prove a negative, but I take your point about falsifiablity.
“…the assertion that climate is within normal limits is both positive and falsifiable…”
We are agreed on that. I’m claiming that the current climate is not within normal limits due to the human contribution to CO2 levels. That may be a technical point, but I think it is a valid one, since as far as we know this is a unique situation.
Peter (13:40:50) :
steam does not increase in temperature as it condenses, as you alluded
– it does not increase the temperature of its surroundings – as you also alluded.
Peter, will you at least read what I wrote not what you think I wrote. Look carefully, I said the processes release energy not increase temperature. As I said before a typical ploy by deniers to get their point of view across, cherry pick and misquote.
Brendan H says:
Brendan H says:
Please explain how the environment can tell the difference between human production of CO2 at 385 ppm vs non-human sources of CO2 at 3000 or more PPM?
You AGWers always seem to ignore the good evidence geologists have given us about past environmental conditions.
Mary Hinge:
No you did not. What you actually said was:
Now, where’s the ‘typical ploy’, misquote or cherry-picking? Or are you just trying to make mischief?
Peter, Mary!
When steam condenses, it releases energy. This does heat the surroundings if they are lower than the vaporization temperature of water! You guys are getting into a semantics argument.
When Water freezes it releases heat to the surroundings. As long as the surroundings are colder than the freezing point, this raises the temperature of the surroundings. This is a very easy and basic heat transfer experiment for college juniors in thermodynamics.
If the underlying water is above freezing temp, then it will not increase in temp when adjacent water freezes. If the atmosphere above the water is below freezing, then the temperature of the air will be increased by the freezing water.
I hope this helps clear things up.
Old Coach,
You are talking about steady-state conditions, which don’t really apply, because it’s the very act of freezing which releases the latent energy. Under steady-state conditions, the water’s either frozen or it’s not.
It starts when the water is liquid and the atmosphere is above freezing. Then the atmospheric temperature starts dropping and, because the thermal capacity of the water is much greater than that of the air, we soon reach the point where the water temperature is greater than the air temperature, even if it was colder to start with. At that point, the nett flow of heat becomes from the water to the air. As the air temperature continues to drop, the nett flow of heat from the water increases, but the water continues to cool. When the water reaches freezing point, it starts releasing latent energy, which then increases the rate of heat flow from the freezing water, both to the unfrozen water and to the air. Depending on the rate at which the air is cooling, it will either mean that the rate of cooling of the air slows down, or the air temperature remains the same. If the air temperature starts rising then the rate of heat flow from the water to the air slows down and the water consequently stops freezing, so the latent energy falls and so the temperature tends to stabilize at that point. However, if the air continues to cool below freezing point then, although the nett flow of heat from the water is greater while the water is in the process of freezing, the air temperature does not rise and will continue to tend to fall, albeit at a slower rate.
Mary, I should have added your other statement:
Tell me how this can be (mis)interpreted to mean anything other than a temperature rise?
Peter,You are exactly correct.Up until: Depending on the rate at which the air is cooling, it will either mean that the rate of cooling of the air slows down, or the air temperature remains the same.
Air temp can rise. This is happening as we speak over lake Ontario.
Then you write: If the air temperature starts rising then the rate of heat flow from the water to the air slows down
Yes, this is correct, but then you say
water consequently stops freezing [not unless it is warmer than air temp], so the latent energy falls and so the temperature tends to stabilize at that point. However, if the air continues to cool below freezing point then, although the nett flow of heat from the water is greater while the water is in the process of freezing, the air temperature does not rise and will continue to tend to fall, albeit at a slower rate.
The air temp will not continue to fall unless there is an external driving force causing it to fall, such as thermodynamic cooling (as from a developing low pressure system), convection away from the heat source (although the air does warm before is is whisked away), from radiation to deep space, etc… The heat flows from the ice-water to the air. Even if flow rate is small, heat still flows from the icewater to the air. The air gains heat and the water loses heat. This principle has never been shown wrong in even one instance. We know of no exceptions in the universe. We used to think we might have a way around it at the event horizons of black holes, but that turned out to be false.
How did the air ever get colder than the water?
Most likely: Started over snowy land or icecap and got frigid by radiational cooling, then moved via convection.
Less likely: Thermodynamic cooling from pressure drop.
Still Less likely: Precip falling through extremely dry air.
The temperature of the air stabilizes when the heat gained from the water equals the heat lost due to radiative transfer into deep space or convection. Depending on the balance of these heat flows, the temperature of the bulk of the air can either drop or raise when over freezing water. The layer of air immedialely adjacent to the water ALWAYS raises, but whether the layers above this also raise is dependent on the source of heat transfer away from the air, as described above.
Of course, maybe this is kind of what you were saying all along :), but it worried me when you said that the air could gain heat from the water and still cool, which is only possible if the air is radiating heat to space faster than it is receiving it from the ocean.
Richard Sharpe: “Then you need to define normal …”
By “normal” I mean “natural”, since the point of difference is between the atmosphere as a wholly natural phenomenon and the atmosphere containing a human contribution to CO2 levels.
“Please explain how the environment can tell the difference between human production of CO2 at 385 ppm vs non-human sources of CO2 at 3000 or more PPM?”
The paleoclimate with CO2 at 3000 ppm was much different to the current environment and would not have supported human life. So it’s meaningless to speculate whether an environment could detect any difference between CO2 at 385 ppm – man-made or otherwise – and 3000 ppm, since the measures refer to two different environments.
Our (human) way of life has developed within a fairly constrained range of average climatic and environmental conditions. So appeals to long-past climatic conditions need to keep this in mind.
Brendan H said:
You have simply replaced one word with another word that has an overlap in meaning. How about you supply us with some numbers? What is the natural amount of CO2 in the environment and what is the correct range for it? What is the natural temperature range that you are referring to? When you give us some numbers you have given us that can be falsified.
Can you quantify that fairly constrained range of … ?
Humans are actually part of the ‘natural’ system, in case you have forgotten, but the appeals to ‘long-past climatic conditions’ were intended to point out that the system has continued to function and remain stable in the presence of quite large perturbations in the past, and larger perturbations that humans have currently caused. You seem unwilling to recognize that a strong stabilization exists, and humans increasing C02 by some fraction of 100ppm (going from some 280ppm to 380ppm, some part of which is a non-human caused increase), ie, 1 part in 10,000, should be compared with events in the past like the PETM to get a solid feel for whether or not CO2 is a driving force in the temperature response of the atmosphere.
Old Coach:
I don’t understand what you’re trying to say. The air temperature will continue to fall for as long as the heat flows out of it faster than it flows in, theoretically all the way down to absolute zero.
At night, over the ocean in winter, there is no (direct) inflow of heat from the sun, so its major inflow of heat is from the ocean. The major outflow of heat from the air is via radiation and convection (dry air being a very good insulator) The ocean loses energy to the air, which in turn, loses it, ultimately, into space. If the air stops cooling, so will the ocean.
A side point here is that the ocean loses heat by radiation to both the air (thanks to greenhouse gases) and to space, and to the atmosphere by direct conduction and this, via convection and radiation, ultimately to space. However, due to the insulating properties of dry air, the heat loss from conduction isn’t great, unless this is accompanied by strong convection. Witness how quickly your car engine overheats if the airflow through the radiator is restricted. The presence of greenhouse gases would tend to slow the loss from radiation, however it could be argued that this process allows heat to ‘jump’ the insulating layer of the air, which makes the convection layer deeper and more energetic, which in turn increases heat loss via conduction. Whether or not this is greater than the greenhouse effect is a topic worthy of discussion in its own right.
Precisely. I wasn’t disputing that.
Precisely again. As the water loses more heat it cools, therefore allowing the air to cool more. The water, due to it’s much greater thermal capacity, cools much slower than the air would in the absence of heat inflow, so this also limits the rate of cooling of the air.
Ah! The old cliche about being divided by a common language 😉
The keyword there is ‘faster’. Many people don’t realize that ‘heat’ is not a noun.
Peter,
I agree with everything you just posted!
It is difficult to explain heat transfer with words; maybe that is why the earlier confusion.
I think that the statement “Heat is not a noun” is a bit misleading. We use it as a noun in sentences all the time, including the sentence “heat is not a noun”. Most of the confusion I encounter is in equating heat with temperature. Heat is not temperature. English is unwieldy sometimes. Mass and weight are used interchangeably, which we have to unlearn in physics.
Old Coach (15:07:51) :
At last, someone reasonable to discuss something with! You can add energy to the equating heat and temperature reference. As you know ,and Peter probably doesn’t energy, can do many things, even raise temperature if conditions are right!
Mary,
The rate of thermal energy transfer from one body to another is dependent on the thermal gradient between them.
For the water to get down to freezing point, the air must be losing energy at a higher rate than it’s gaining energy from the water.
When the water starts freezing its temperature stalls at freezing point. It doesn’t get any colder (until it’s frozen), but continues to transfer energy to the air at the same rate.
In the meantime, the air continues to lose energy at the same rate, but the transfer of energy from the freezing water stays the same. As it was getting colder before the water started freezing, it must continue to get colder.
In the worst case, as the temperature gradient between the freezing water and the air increases, the energy transfer from the water to the air may now equal the energy loss from the air, at which point the air will stop getting colder.
But it will not get warmer, unless conditions change during the process like, for example, the energy loss from the air decreases because of clouds forming or the wind changing direction.
I hope this finally makes things clear.
Richard Sharpe: “You have simply replaced one word with another word that has an overlap in meaning.”
Yes, but I was contrasting natural vs man-made.
“Can you quantify that fairly constrained range of … ?”
The average climate for the past 10,000 years, which is the period relating to the rise of human civilisation. Temperatures over that period varied probably by less than 2 deg C, so the climate during which we developed our way of life was very consistent when compared with the long-term geological time scale.
“…appeals to ‘long-past climatic conditions’ were intended to point out that the system has continued to function…”
I’m sure the “system” will continue to function. My interest is in the functioning of humans within that system. Climatic conditions need to be hospitable to human life on a crowded planet.
“…should be compared with events in the past like the PETM to get a solid feel for whether or not CO2 is a driving force in the temperature response of the atmosphere.”
The PETM rise in temperature of around 6 deg C was accompanied by large increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide. Methane may also have exacerbated the warming, which continued for around 100,000 years, suggesting a high sensitivity to CO2. Perhaps more to the point, the rate at which carbon was being added to the atmosphere was around the same as today from human sources.
Mary, Peter,
I think this argument boils down (sorry) to how the air gets cold over the open water. If the air is stationary over the open water, then Peter’s argument is mostly correct. The air will cool because of radiation to deep space and warm from conduction/convection from the ocean. In order for the air to start cooling, the entire air mass must be losing more heat from radiation than it is gaining from the water. Thus, the average temperature of the entire column of air should drop or at least remain constant.
Having said this, the air will have a lapse rate. Convection will determine how fast the heat is transferred from the lower altitudes to higher. As this is not instantaneous, the sea level air could easily warm. In fact, the air immediately over the water must warm. But… how thick is this layer? 1 mm? 100m? I have no idea. I have little desire to model the heat transfer from freezing ice water to a laminar layer of air that is complicated by turbulent flow and convection instabilities that vary as a function of the heat exchange rate. This would be the job of a grad student. Anyway, if the warming we have seen over Asia is due to fusion of ice in the arctic, then surely we would see an abnormally large lapse rate. You guys know if this data is out there?
On the other hand, if the air cooled over Siberia, then was transported by bulk flow over the ocean, then the ocean began to freeze, the air would warm up a lot. This is a pretty obvious scenario, and one that is typical, I think. Still, I am more curious about the other possibility. I am curious if the rapid freezing of arctic ice this year coincides with an unusually steep lapse rate.
Good discussion, this is!
Old Coach:
Yes, you do have a lapse rate, but this is an ongoing process.
Over the ocean, well away from land, and in the absence of the sun, the major determinant of air temperature is the temperature of the ocean – because of its large thermal capacity. The air temperature does not suddenly drop by a large amount to another steady state.
I will concede that you could have very cold air blowing over the ocean from the land, but a) this tends to be localized near to the coast, and b) the air will warm, but as a result of the ocean being a lot warmer, not as a result of the ocean freezing.
The air can only warm as a result of the water freezing if the rate of energy loss from the air suddenly decreases while the water is in the process of freezing – but this is very much the exception rather than the rule.
Peter:
I will concede that you could have very cold air blowing over the ocean from the land, but a) this tends to be localized near to the coast, and b) the air will warm, but as a result of the ocean being a lot warmer, not as a result of the ocean freezing
In regards to a:
I am not sure that it would always be “localized near to the coast”. The arctic weather is not nearly as isolated as the antarctic. There are always periods when air masses flow from scandinavia over the ocean to siberia, and from siberia over the ocean to alaska and northern canada. Things are not static. One important thing to remember about polar meteorology: The air can get much colder over land than ocean. The coldest temperatures are recorded in interior alaska and russia, not the north pole.
In regards to b:
The rate of heat transfer is dependent on the temperature difference. The total heat that can transfer is dependent on the phase of the water. When water goes from liquid to solid phase, there is a lot of heat available for transfer. If the water cooled from +4 degrees to -4 degrees and remained liquid, the air would increase in temperature a given amount. If the water cooled from +4 degrees to -4 degrees but changed phase to solid, then the air would warm much more. Again, this is an easy experiment to carry out in a lab. It works.
This is a tricky subject to explain. I am likely not doing a good job of outlining how heat transfer works. Perhaps the analogies we are using (like Mary’s teapot and my lab experiments) are just confusing each other! 🙂
Old Coach:
It seems we’re still at cross-purposes here.
If the air was much colder than the water, as it would be if it had just blown over from the land, then:
a) If the rate of heat loss from the air was smaller than the rate of heat gain from the water, the air would warm. During the time the water was freezing, the warming would speed up.
b) If the rate of heat loss from the air was greater than the rate of heat gain from the water, the air would continue cooling, albeit at a slower rate. During the time the water was freezing, the cooling would slow down even further.
c) If the If the rate of heat loss from the air was about the same as the rate of heat gain from the water, then its temperature would stay almost the same, and it would warm up when the water started freezing. But I would suggest that the narrow set of conditions necessary for this to happen are more likely to occur in the laboratory than in real-life.
Question – It was discovered that the climate temperature data for the month of October was faulty.
If this is true, why are there still research papers avaiable that base sceintific theories from this faulty data?
Case in point: Here is an article that tells how the Arctic ice gain at a rapid pace in October even when the temperatures were 13 degrees above average!
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2008/111008.html
I believe that the temperatures were below average and the ice grew at a rate that was normal for the temperature. The data was faulty, the conclusion is faulty and the article should be removed.
Any thoughts?
Dr Jello asks:
This area has become politicized out the wazoo. Do not expect any real science from this area until the politics ceases.
I don’t take a particular stance on the Global Warming issues but I feel that I must point out errors in how you and your bloggers present statements and analyze data, especially your graph interpretations.
First, as informations changes so do analysis results and GISS did “pony” up to their data problem in August 2007. See:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/updates/200708.html
Secondly, GISS also confirmed that the September 2008 duplicated data was taken in error and GISS corrected the data two days after be made aware of the error.
Thirdly, “Alan the Brit” (the 1st post) is a good example of those those who misunderstand data analysis such as running means (in this case 5-year annual means – the “red line” on your graph).
For example: “Alan” says “I note that in the latter graph, temp red line is omitted at 1880, bringing temp down not appear to extend passed 2005, so why it is labelled US temps to 2008 I cannot think!”
Alan is correct in saying: “I cannot think!”.
Alan missed the point of the “red line”. The “red line” is a 5-year mean. A mean value cannot start on the graph at the zero point. It starts at the midpoint of the mean duration. In this case the “red line” represents a 5-year mean; therefore, the first data-point will begin in 1882.5. The last data-point will be shown 2.5-years before the last point on the graph.
Alan, the black line represent annual mean temperatures from 1880 – 2008, that’s why the graph contains 2008 in its title. The red line represents the 5-year mean.