The global temperature has fallen .653°C (from +0.554 in March 2010 to -0.099 in March 2011) in just one year. That’s a magnitude nearly equivalent to the agreed upon global warming signal agreed upon by the IPCC. It is quite a sharp drop.
According to the 2007 Fourth Assessment Report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), global surface temperature increased by 0.74 ± 0.18 °C (1.33 ± 0.32 °F) during the 20th century
Comments from Dr. Roy Spencer: (plus graph)
(Graph by Anthony Watts, data and commentary from Dr. Spencer/UAH)
UAH Temperature Update for March, 2011: Cooler Still -0.10 deg. C
La Nina Coolness Persists
The global average lower tropospheric temperature anomaly for March 2011 fell to -0.10 deg. C, with cooling in both the Northern and Southern Hemispheric extratropics, while the tropics stayed about the same as last month. (I’m on the road in Virgina, so the temperature graph will not be updated until I return on Thursday.)
April 5th, 2011
YR MON GLOBAL NH SH TROPICS
2010 01 0.542 0.675 0.410 0.635
2010 02 0.510 0.553 0.466 0.759
2010 03 0.554 0.665 0.443 0.721
2010 04 0.400 0.606 0.193 0.633
2010 05 0.454 0.642 0.265 0.706
2010 06 0.385 0.482 0.287 0.485
2010 07 0.419 0.558 0.280 0.370
2010 08 0.441 0.579 0.304 0.321
2010 09 0.477 0.410 0.545 0.237
2010 10 0.306 0.257 0.356 0.106
2010 11 0.273 0.372 0.173 -0.117
2010 12 0.181 0.217 0.145 -0.222
2011 01 -0.010 -0.055 0.036 -0.372
2011 02 -0.020 -0.042 0.002 -0.348
2011 03 -0.099 -0.073 -0.126 -0.345
I suppose I’d care if I thought “Global Temperature” made any sense at all.
How many years of static or falling temperatures did Gavin say it would take to falsify AGW? Was it 15 or 20?
/Mango
I don’t deny climate change, I know climate changes
…….and most of the Northern hemisphere is still covered in ice and snow
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=28&fy=1981&sm=03&sd=28&sy=2011
I got some interesting results from Marion Island
Latitude -46.88333
Longitude 37.86667
Altitude 22
This is quite a bit south of South Africa
So far I looked only at all the temperature data.
I collected all average mean-, maximum-and minimum- temperatures for all months of the year from 1976 and plotted these against time. A linear regression was then performed. The slope of these formulae i.e. the figure before the “x” in each of the reported formulae, is also the rate of incline or decline (if negative) by which the temperature has increased or decreased over the last 35 years in degrees C/year.
Taking the average over each of the 12 slopes for each of the months of the year, I find that from 1976 to 2010
1) the rate of change of the mean temperature was 0.00 degrees C per annum: in other words: flat
2) the maximum temperature has increased at a rate of 0.05 degrees C per annum
3) the minimum temperature has decreased at a rate of 0.02 degrees C per annum
Again these results indicate that heat content has stayed the same even though max. temps. have been rising.
If warming is due to an increase in greenhouse gases, it is the minimum temperatures that should rise as heat would be trapped due to the green house effect. You would then expect the minimum temperatures to rise at a rate as fast as – or even faster than – the mean- and maximum temperatures. What I find is exactly the opposite: minimum temperatures in Marion Island have actually declined by 0.02 degrees C per annum whereas the means have stayed the same and the maximum temperatures have increased. The theory of warming caused by an increase in green house gases is therefore again proved invalid by the evidence presented from the measured results here, at Marion Island.
Thanks for posting this. So far in this new decade, every month has been well below the 2001-2010 decade average.
silly. everyone know global cooling is caused by…uhm… global warming.
“How many years of static or falling temperatures did Gavin say it would take to falsify AGW? Was it 15 or 20?”
That’s the problem. CAGW cannot be falsified. As demonstrated by by the papers shown in this post: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/03/the-big-self-parodying-climate-change-blame-list/#more-37187
Every weather or climate event can be construed as evidence of climate change and then blamed on mankind.
This is why the AGW theory is not scientific.
The post 1998 cooling trend persists. In spite of the gross exaggeration of temperatures reported by the Warmists for circa 2010.
AGW is unfalsifiable religion.
“More on RealClimate’s Unfalsifiable Models”
http://omniclimate.wordpress.com/2008/04/24/more-on-realclimates-unfalsifiable-models/
“How many years of static or falling temperatures did Gavin say it would take to falsify AGW? Was it 15 or 20?”
Gavin Schmidt of NASA has a website called RealClimate. A couple of years ago there was a post on signs of climate change.
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/a-barrier-to-understanding/
In the discussion thread Daniel Klein asks at #57:
OK, simply to clarify what I’ve heard from you.
(1) If 1998 is not exceeded in all global temperature indices by 2013, you’ll be worried about state of understanding
(2) In general, any year’s global temperature that is “on trend” should be exceeded within 5 years (when size of trend exceeds “weather noise”)
(3) Any ten-year period or more with no increasing trend in global average temperature is reason for worry about state of understandings
I am curious as to whether there are other simple variables that can be looked at unambiguously in terms of their behaviour over coming years that might allow for such explicit quantitative tests of understanding?
[Response: 1) yes, 2) probably, I’d need to do some checking, 3) No. There is no iron rule of climate that says that any ten year period must have a positive trend. The expectation of any particular time period depends on the forcings that are going on. If there is a big volcanic event, then the expectation is that there will be a cooling, if GHGs are increasing, then we expect a warming etc. The point of any comparison is to compare the modelled expectation with reality – right now, the modelled expectation is for trends in the range of 0.2 to 0.3 deg/decade and so that’s the target. In any other period it depends on what the forcings are. – gavin]
That is an impressive graphic. The 28 March 1981 snow and ice cover looks pretty dire. By the way sea ice concentration also looked better.
Obviously, the Koch brothers have bribed the UAH data.
/sarc
HenryP says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:53 am
Nice work Henry.
I’m embarrassed to say but I can’t quite figure out what this graph represents. I get that it’s showing something about the global temperature in the lower troposphere but what exactly?
Arctic ozone levels in never-before-seen plunge
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-12969167
“due to cold weather in the upper atmosphere” apparently. “It seems that we have some winters that get much colder than before and also the cold periods last longer, into the spring.”
“The low temperatures were not that different from some other years, but extended much further into March and April – in fact it’s still going on now,” said Farahnaz Khosrawi, an ozone specialist at the Meteorological Institute at Stockholm University, Sweden.
Another, Dr Florence Goutail from the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS), put the 2010/11 winter in context.
“Usually in cold winters we observe that about 25% of the ozone disappears, but this winter was really a record – 40% of the column has disappeared,” she said.
“This winter, while the Arctic was unusually warm at ground level, temperatures 15-20km above the Earth’s surface plummeted and stayed low.”
Correct me if I’m wrong (and I may be) but isn’t this exactly where we would expect to detect global warming first?
Here’s a fun game….
Since we now know that warmer winters make more snow….
Overlay the UAH temp graph with the Rutgers snow graph.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2010/12/rutgers_week_49_snow_extent.png
Yes, but . . . it’s worse than we thought!
Bruckner8 says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:35 am
I suppose I’d care if I thought “Global Temperature” made any sense at all.
========================================================
Boy howdy, ain’t that the truth !!!!!
(or if it really meant anything)
Actually, this global warming nonsense has a purpose. Mankind does not NOW affect temperatures or other aspects of climate. Occasionally, we affect weather, as in cloud seeding. But in the future, we WILL control climate, and we will need to be responsible with it.
That is why I am outraged when I see falsified temperature graphs. We cannot either learn real climate science on “models” of no predictive value, nor via falsified data. And without a real subject, we truly could cause harm to the biosphere.
We could actually cause the Earth to cool, for instance. That would cause extinctions.
Obviously, Global Climate Disruption – – – – or GSM Disruption
Interesting update…even mentioning such short term ENSO ups and downs in the context of longer term global warming seems like talking about apples and oranges. Such declines are to be expected when transitioning from a decent El Nino to La Nina.
We are Two weeks late with spring here in NE Oregon. More snow is expected. I have painting planting and mowing to do. Our local robins have barley started the”Dawn
Chorus”-it is cooling off, pards….
It really is appalling that you can’t or won’t learn the simplest basics of statistics. Comparing noise with trend is stupid – no other way to describe it.
Well something must be wrong with those satellites . . . the IPCC models have not predicted this to happen and because the IPCC is made up of really, really smart people and only uses the best peer reviewed literature – never any Greenpeace agitprop, it must be right.
I’m sure this temp record will prove to be flawed and somebody will have to scrape and bow and beg forgiveness from Al Gore.
Because AGW Progressives are so much smarter than us rubes.
It’s falling! The temperature’s falling!
My friends, this is simply appalling!
If it keeps up this rate
Until Two Four Four Eight,
We’ll have Absolute Zero. How galling.
Hmm …: Maybe we should call ourselves “climate changedefiers“!? I.e., we know what the alarmists’ claims are but we dismiss (defy) them. What say you all?
More than couple of months below -0.25 might start to be interesting, but it’s such a noisy series that drawing much of a conclusion from month to month is difficult (even if it is slightly surprising to see the continuing downward trend)
Which means that once the warmists finish massaging the numbers, this will still be one of the warmest years on record.
We’re doomed, DOOMED !!!
or not…
“Correct me if I’m wrong (and I may be) but isn’t this exactly where we would expect to detect global warming first?”
If that had been what was predicted to be detected first, then boy howdy, would it carry a lot of weight. Except, it isn’t. We were supposed to see all kinds of Biblical class catastrophes. Instead, you had Calamity James Hanson heading up the propaganda war. I haven’t looked at your story yet, but don’t you wish that you had your credibility back?
Alarmists on Government Payroll should confine to their own time their incessant shilling for ‘Immediate Massive Statism as the Only Solution to the Obvious Catastrophe Just Around the Corner’.
“It really is appalling that you can’t or won’t learn the simplest basics of statistics. Comparing noise with trend is stupid – no other way to describe it.”
Care to elaborate Stevo?
@Latitude says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:49 am
Are you sure they included ground cover back then? I thought there was some deal where they only recorded sea ice. I mean, there is no damned ice at all in March 1981, which seems wrong.
Hi Stevo
How do you define noise in relation to this graph and how do you decide when your ‘noise’ has become part of a new trend or step change?
Cheers
Michael
I think we’ll have to thank Kim Jong Il for global cooling after all – if I am reading the latest headlines correctly 🙂
And as I normally link at this time, for those interested, I’ve posted the Preliminary March 2011 SST anomalies:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2011/03/29/really-preliminary-march-2011-sst-anomaly-update/
Please note the new home at WordPress.
Latitude says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:49 am
> …….and most of the Northern hemisphere is still covered in ice and snow
> http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=28&fy=1981&sm=03&sd=28&sy=2011
Check the caption: Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. … Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.
Snow cover imagery showed up around 2006.
Air temperature down – sea temperature down – solar activity down…
but, CO2 levels are still rising??? The IPCC cabal of cargo-cult climate scientists must be having apoplexy… :-))
stevo says: “It really is appalling that you can’t or won’t learn the simplest basics of statistics. Comparing noise with trend is stupid – no other way to describe it.”
What noise are you talking about? The wide year to year variations resulting from ENSO are not noise. ENSO is a natural process that helps to reduce temperature difference between the tropics and the poles.
HenryP says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:53 am
I got some interesting results from Marion Island…….
May be OT, but nevertheless very interesting.
Does anyone know of any other isolated stations (e.g. Falklands, Macquarie Island) with relatively long records with raw (unadjusted) data available?
I’m sure that honest analysis of data unaffected by UHI, land use changes or other human induced impacts will greatly enhance our understanding of global temperature variations in recent years.
Perhaps such a study has already been undertaken, in which case could someone point me in the right direction.
Ric Werme says:
April 5, 2011 at 12:49 pm
Check the caption: Historic snow cover data not displayed on these images. … Snow cover data is displayed only for most recent dates.
===================================================
nope, don’t care
I only looked at the one on the right. Didn’t say a thing about the one on the left.
” …….and most of the Northern hemisphere is still covered in ice and snow”
and it is…………..
I borrowed that link from Steven, that’s the way it is…………
R. Gates says:
April 5, 2011 at 11:26 am
Interesting update…even mentioning such short term ENSO ups and downs in the context of longer term global warming seems like talking about apples and oranges. Such declines are to be expected when transitioning from a decent El Nino to La Nina.
You missed the point. The claimed range of warming was spanned in one year. This indicates that the *ALARMING* warming is not larger than natural variations in the system.
stevo:
It is really appalling that you can’t or won’t learn the basics of statistics. One of those basics is that simple linear trends mean nothing when the data exhibit cyclical, or chaotic, characteristics. Furthermore, when applying statistical methods to data with noise, you have to have a priori knowledge of what that noise is. Doing so without such knowledge is stupid – no other way to describe it.
Mark
I think we could safely assume that unless there is another rise in global temperatures like 2010-2009, this year, global warming is over is essentially over. H/T to Kelly O’Day
http://processtrends.com/images/RClimate_UAH_Ch5_latest.png
@R Gates.
As always.
Yeah but…
No but….
Yeah but, No but, Yeah but, No but, Yeah but, No but, Yeah but…
Choose some baseline we can examine, and stick with it. Do not change when YOUR baseline does not show what YOU want.
So please. Choose one baseline method of calculating what YOU want to prove.
Do Not attack every contrary view until you tell us which one you will stick with.
Actually, the drop from 1998 is much larger, plunging us into a veritable ice age as we all remember.
Here you can compare nh ice 2006 with current looks similar snow, but the actual ice appears to much thicker and extensive now. However cryosphere today with Serreze at NDCD always manage to make the graphs looks worse every year hahahah
http://igloo.atmos.uiuc.edu/cgi-bin/test/print.sh?fm=03&fd=28&fy=2006&sm=03&sd=28&sy=2011
stevo says:
It really is appalling that you can’t or won’t learn the simplest basics of statistics. Comparing noise with trend is stupid – no other way to describe it.
====================
But the funny thing is that during the period from 1979-1997, the satellites showed nothing but NOISE in temperature trends.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1997/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1997
And for 40 years from 1940 to 1978 the Land based thermometers showed nothing but NOISE
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:19940/to:1978/plot/gistemp/from:1940/to:1978
So we all agree that there was an enormous El Nino in 1998, caused by the oceans releasing a tremendous amount of heat. But since then, nothing has happened.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/plot/uah/from:1998
Is that the noise you are referring to? One noisy year. Yes, the Alarmist make quite a bit of noise about that one event in one year, wouldn’t you say?
Ot but there is one very basic tool missing on this site that is real time global temperatures UHA satellite graph and other temperature graphs silimalr to ice, solar pages
Huh. Based on the real low drop last month, I thought that we were done going down, at least for a while.
Are the oceans still releasing heat? Are we going to see this continuing in April? Is there anyone with knowledge making an educated prediction either way?
MangoChutney says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:45 am
What has really changed is the pitch of the voices who claim that it’s a portent of climate catastrope. Th climate will meander lazily to the next Ice Age soon enough: No need to hasten it’s arrival with doomsday-style panic button experiments. The latter is the real catastrophe.
You guys are forgetting about the feedbacks! It’s like you believe the temps instead of the models!
I like to keep an eye on this collection of temperature readings from time to time:
http://www.athropolis.com/map2.htm
Let’s see….Resolute, Nunavut is -29F right about now. Where’s the “melt season” that NSDIC is talking about?
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
We have built up some nice, thick polar ice over the past few years, I’m wondering if the Northwest Passage will open up again this year?
RGates says :
Interesting update…even mentioning such short term ENSO ups and downs in the context of longer term global warming seems like talking about apples and oranges. Such declines are to be expected when transitioning from a decent El Nino to La Nina.
Likewise, RGates, such increases are to be expected when transitioning from La Nina (or La Nada) to El Nino. Furthermore, a long term increase is to be expected when in a Warm PDO because El Nino’s are stronger and more frequent (1980’s – 2000), and a long term decrease is to be expected when in a Cold PDO because La Nina’s are stronger and more frequent (1950’s – 1970’s). In addition, these increases or decreases will be squelched or exacerbated depending on the phase of the AMO.
So please spare us your hypocrisy.
JDN says:
April 5, 2011 at 12:23 pm
@Latitude says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:49 am
Are you sure they included ground cover back then?
===============================================
I think the point was only about the current state, however, it is noteworthy to compare the sea ice coverage. After 30 years of crying about the arctic ice, wailing about our impending doom, lamenting the certain demise of our polar bears and all sorts of gnashing of the teeth, can you see a discernible difference in the ice coverage? One would have expected a significant difference.
And Australia had its coldest March on record (or at least for the past 60 years).
but they promised that warmer air held more moisture and that was why there was more snow……….
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2011/04/05/no-correlation-between-global-winter-temperatures-and-snow-cover/
R. Gates, One interesting thing to note is the anomaly was near zero when the most recent el Nino began. The entire AGW movement had all its marbles riding on the peak of that el Nino.
Jack Linerd
for a lot of long term temperature data, got to
http://www.rimfrost.no/
The have St. Helen’s from the early 1900’s, plus a lot of other long term data.
Last year I kept telling the Warmists about the coming cooling and they just didn’t want to know. It will be interesting to hear how the narrative changes over 2011. It may warm up next year though.
Well I hope this information reaches Ross Garnaut. If it does, no doubt he will consider it to be just some more misinformation that “high profile’ commentators are spreading around about global warming.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/04/05/3182866.htm
I just posted this at Notrickszone
@stevo
Check out that 1998 to 2011 trend!
Climate of Corruption: Politics and Power Behind The Global Warming Hoax by Larry Bell (300 pages, published Jan. 1) is free (Kindle version) at http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B004J17AUY/?tag=thrshoguideaa-20
Warmies can tell noise from a trend because they know what the future trend is — they have models to prove it.
An unrepentant global coolist still at work with speculation since the 1970s:
Clarification:
I know that Professor George Kukla is retired. I just meant he is still working with speculation.
Jack Linard
Try Campbell Island from well South of New Zealand.
The data can be found at the NIWA (National Institute of Water and Atmospheric Research for New Zealand) website. When you get there log onto the cliflo database which is maintained by NIWA. You will have to register but the NZ data is free and searchable.
There are about 100 datatypes to chose from in the database. Mean daily air temp (given as a monthly and annual average) is the 02 dataset. The mean max daily temp (given as a monthly and annual average) is the 03 dataset. The mean min is the 04 set. Other relevant sets are 05, 06, 07, 08 including grass max and grass min. Soil temps are the 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 47 sets (5 cm, 10 cm, 20 cm, 30 cm, 1 m, 50 cm).
Campbell Island data is divided into two stations (basically the same site but different equipment). The “agent numbers” that identify the sites and data in the database are 6172 and 6174. Fortunately there is a 3 year overlap. The data commences in 1941 and goes through to 2011.
The data should be the raw data though you probably will not be able to get the actual daily reports (to check) unless you make a special request to NIWA
Mango, the real climate deniers are the warmists, as they are the ones that deny natural climate change.
mike g says:
April 5, 2011 at 3:03 pm
R. Gates, One interesting thing to note is the anomaly was near zero when the most recent el Nino began. The entire AGW movement had all its marbles riding on the peak of that el Nino.
____
I think you are quite confused. By the “AGW movement”, I suppose you mean those who believe that it is more likely than not that CO2 could have a long-term climate positive forcing (warming) effect. The educated of those in this “movement” would certainly understand the short-term natural variations that come with ENSO, PDO, solar cycles, and such, and would not, in any way have “all its marbles riding on that El Nino”.
If such a long-term effect such as AGW warming is occurring, it would be most visible and the most earliest visible in the areas most sensitive to such NET global energy changes. Those areas would be the polar regions, with the the N. Hemisphere being even more sensitive than the S. Hemisphere due to the vastly different physics of the regions (i.e. the large mass of ice at the S. Pole, the differences in total insolation, the southern ocean heat sink, etc.)
Currently, the trend in Arctic sea ice, the earliest of the “bell weathers” for AGW is proceeding in the long-term way that GCM’s have indicated would happen when factoring in the long-term NET forcing of anthropogenic CO2. 2011 should give 2007 a good run for being the lowest summer sea ice extent on record. These longer term trends are far more important that what a short-term ENSO cycle is doing.
Robert of Ottawa says:
April 5, 2011 at 5:13 pm
Mango, the real climate deniers are the warmists, as they are the ones that deny natural climate change
_____
I know of no professional climate scientist who denies natural factors in climate change…both very long term, such as Milankovitch cycles, and the very short climate effects such as ENSO cycles. The real difference between skeptics and “warmists” also can accept the fact that the 40% in CO2 since the 1700’s, rising to the highest levels in over 800,000 years, could have an effect on the climate as well and can accept the evidence of that.
Jimbo says:
April 5, 2011 at 3:04 pm
Last year I kept telling the Warmists about the coming cooling and they just didn’t want to know. It will be interesting to hear how the narrative changes over 2011. It may warm up next year though.
___
Any “warmist” who has been around a while knows that temps rise and fall on a short term basis with ENSO cycles. It is the longer term that is important in looking at the NET forcing from CO2, and the first sign of that would be in the Arctic– exactly as is occurring.
Bob Tisdale says:
April 5, 2011 at 12:55 pm
stevo says: “It really is appalling that you can’t or won’t learn the simplest basics of statistics. Comparing noise with trend is stupid – no other way to describe it.”
What noise are you talking about? The wide year to year variations resulting from ENSO are not noise. ENSO is a natural process that helps to reduce temperature difference between the tropics and the poles.
____
I think the point is that over the long-term, ENSO is not NET forcing event, but simply a way of balancing out heat around the planet. ENSO does not create any NET long term heating or cooling (and it better darn well not, or we’re in trouble!)
Gates says:
“I know of no professional climate scientist who denies natural factors in climate change…both very long term, such as Milankovitch cycles, and the very short climate effects such as ENSO cycles.”
Let me introduce you to a certain Michael Mann [who fancies himself a professional climate scientist]. Mann attempted to show there was very little temperature change from 1400 AD until the industrial revolution. He tried to erase the MWP and the LIA, but his attempt was debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick.
See? You learned something new today.
This is how the UAH daily temperatures have changed since the beginning of 2010.
Global temperatures have really fallen by about 0.8C since some of the January, March 2010 individual daily peaks. Tropics temperatures are down about 1.3C since the January, 2010 peaks.
http://img715.imageshack.us/img715/3566/dailyuahtempsmar312010.png
I expect UAH to stay in the -0.1C range until about July.
It caused by Global Dimming! No joke! Take a look at this BBC documentary about this phenomenon sweeping the planet! It’s the ultimate it climate change.
LOL!
TheFlyingOrc says:
April 5, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Huh. Based on the real low drop last month, I thought that we were done going down, at least for a while.
Are the oceans still releasing heat? Are we going to see this continuing in April? Is there anyone with knowledge making an educated prediction either way.
____
The net effect of La Nina is not a release of heat from the Pacific, but rather, more heat is absorbed during a La Nina, only to be released during the next EL Nino cycle. Note: heat is released as we see the warmer waters pushed toward the western pacific (i.e. why we saw flooding in Australia this winter), but taken as a whole, over the entire pacific, more energy is absorbed during a La Nina than released. Hence, the the overall NET energy effect of the complete cycle (La Nina + El Nino) is exactly 0. The troposphere cools during La Nina as less total energy is released, and the troposphere warms during El Nino as more net energy is released from ocean to troposphere.
Smokey says:
April 5, 2011 at 5:47 pm
Gates says:
“I know of no professional climate scientist who denies natural factors in climate change…both very long term, such as Milankovitch cycles, and the very short climate effects such as ENSO cycles.”
Let me introduce you to a certain Michael Mann [who fancies himself a professional climate scientist]. Mann attempted to show there was very little temperature change from 1400 AD until the industrial revolution. He tried to erase the MWP and the LIA, but his attempt was debunked by McIntyre and McKittrick.
See? You learned something new today.
____
Thank you Smokey, but I seriously doubt whether Michael Mann would deny the Milankovitch cycles or the shorter-term effects of ENSO. I know he is the “devil” to many skeptics (a devil with a hockey stick instead of a pitch fork), but I trust he understands the longer and shorter term natural variations in the climate.
onion2,
Thanx for your parameter-free speculation. However, the natural warming since the LIA isn’t a problem. In fact, it is a net benefit. More is better.
You’re still stuck on the misguided belief that a warmer, more pleasant world is bad. It isn’t. It’s all good.
Everytime I eyeball this graph it just strikes me that something weird occurred around the year 2000. It just looks like someone started adding a constant of around 0.25 to all the temperature readings. Its just weird – I wouldn’t expect nature to act this way; it looks more like a change in algorithm or how data is cleansed or something.
Anyway, I live in Texas and look forward to a cooler summer – bring it on.
“How many years of static or falling temperatures did Gavin say it would take to falsify AGW? Was it 15 or 20?”
it is always 10 years in the future from whatever date it is now. 5 years from now, it will still be 10 years in the future. however long it takes before it starts going up, 5 years byond that is how long it takes to falsify AGW.
“TheFlyingOrc says:
April 5, 2011 at 2:12 pm
Are we going to see this continuing in April? Is there anyone with knowledge making an educated prediction either way?”
I will give it a shot and say the low values WILL continue in April at least. (I thank the person who posted the following very recently). It shows the Northern Hemisphere snow cover at about 1.5% higher than the recent 15 year average as of April 1. And as we know, whenever there is a blanket of snow on the ground, it is very hard for any surface temperature to get too much above freezing, generally speaking. And for the same reason, I will predict that at least for April, the rate of loss of Arctic sea ice will be slower than normal.
http://stevengoddard.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/screenhunter_87-apr-03-08-40.gif
“Thank you Smokey, but I seriously doubt whether Michael Mann would deny the Milankovitch cycles or the shorter-term effects of ENSO. I know he is the “devil” to many skeptics (a devil with a hockey stick instead of a pitch fork), but I trust he understands the longer and shorter term natural variations in the climate.”
Ahh…but your trust may be misplaced.
@James Sexton says:
April 5, 2011 at 2:42 pm
… After 30 years of crying about the arctic ice, wailing about our impending doom, lamenting the certain demise of our polar bears and all sorts of gnashing of the teeth, can you see a discernible difference in the ice coverage? One would have expected a significant difference.
Completely agree. I thought he was making an error pointing out a difference in snow cover.
That low temperature value is due to the presence of a La Nina phase of ENSO. ENSO is a temperature oscillation that alternates between cool La Nina an warm El Nino phases while the global average temperature remains the same.
Arno Arrak says:
April 5, 2011 at 7:58 pm
That low temperature value is due to the presence of a La Nina phase of ENSO. ENSO is a temperature oscillation that alternates between cool La Nina an warm El Nino phases while the global average temperature remains the same.
What needs to be added is that the UAH and RSS data bases have been shown to be more sensitive to the El Nino/La Nina cycles than the thermometer data base.
http://tamino.files.wordpress.com/2011/01/all5raw.jpg
REPLY: While that doesn’t really mean much in the context of what these were designed to look at, the LT, it proves my point about heat sinks around land thermometers. The variance of land base thermometers gets reduced by being next to a heat sink. – Anthony
Notice how the La Nina minima are getting warmer. In 1985 La Nina was 0.5 degrees colder than this one. This is 0.2 degrees per decade.
@R. Gates says:
April 5, 2011 at 5:26 pm
2011 should give 2007 a good run for being the lowest summer sea ice extent on record.
REPLYAre you serious? The Arctic ice mass had a decent recovery last year, and multi-year ice has been increasing.
RG, these types of predictions are what get proponents of AGW theories into so much trouble. Climate is a far more complex system than we are able to model reliably, and predictions about sea ice extent seem about as reliable as guessing which crow flies first.
I keep a very open mind about all of this, but any effects of warming will be quite long range, and probably on the mild side. Now, ocean acidification on the other hand….
ferd berple says:
April 5, 2011 at 6:59 pm
“How many years of static or falling temperatures did Gavin say it would take to falsify AGW? Was it 15 or 20?”
The fraud will collapse when the free money runs out. And yes the money will run out eventually and when it does the fraudsters will melt away and suddenly ala post war Germany you will be hard put to find anyone who actually suppported CAGW in the fist place.
We are all sceptics now? We are going to find in the next few years that even the most fanatical CAGW cultists who now spray around the term ‘denialist’ were in fact secret sceptics from the start. I keep getting a sneak peak of the near future where we are entertained by the likes of Mann/Thorne/Gore/Briffa et al claiming they were really sceptics secret double agents working from within to bring down the CAGW monster.
Werner Brozek says:
April 5, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I will predict that at least for April, the rate of loss of Arctic sea ice will be slower than normal.
___
Uh, I wouldn’t be so confident in that prediction, as indications are that we could be in for a very interesting ride down to the minimum and challenge 2007 for the lowest modern summer arctic sea ice minimum. I’ve also noticed you gave a link to Steve Goddard’s site. After his PIPS2.0 nonsense here last year, I’m surprised anyone would put a lot of stock in his forecasts. His prediction LAST year- 5.5 million sq. km. minimum, Mine: 4.5 million sq. km. He based his on his beloved PIPS2.0. It’s a MODEL, so tread carefully with this MODEL data…really.
A very good blog (in addition to WUWT of course!) for some in-depth Arctic Sea Ice discussion is at:
http://neven1.typepad.com/blog/
(will the moderators let this pass?, hope so, it’s a good blog for sea ice fanatics)
Caution: most the posts on this blog are from “warmists”, but the discussion on sea ice (IMO) is quite good and very in depth, with clean analysis that tends to avoid the political commentary that some of us can do without. There even currently is a great link to a video of a recent submarine breaking through the Arctic sea ice. Pretty cool…
Looking forward to how the 13 month rolling average looks on Thursday.
Also, is their a reason why that level of the atmosphere took so long to cool down after onset of the cooler surface from El Nina?
Andy
R Gates: I always appreciate your comments which suggests you might have a more than passing knowledge of the science. Even though I agree with you that the physics of CO2 should lead to some net warming i cannot find that effect in the data. I note that temperature has been rising (taking NOAA ocean and air temperature for example) since 1959 but I cannot find any association between the year on year changes and changes in CO2 levels as recorded at the Mauna Loa observatory*. Loss of Arctic sea ice is a function of warming – of itself it does not establish the causal link between temperature and CO2. I appreciate that climate science and its predictions are based upon Boltzmann’s Law and various theories of climate change, and the models that formalise those theories (that is after all what models do). But in no other science that I am aware (natural or social) does theory trump observation. So the question I ask, taking the hypothesis that changes in annual levels of CO2 explain changes in either ocean or air temperature, can you tell me what explanatory model with what lag produces an R2 significantly different from zero?** I will even take and work with the specification of a distributed lag model if you can provide one. I would appreciate your assistance because CO2 forcing is such a simple explanation that it would be nice if it were true – it would be with considerable regret to learn that this is the one case where Ockham’s Razor hasn’t worked and that we need to work with a much more complex theory.
* I agree that humans emit measurable amounts of CO2 but the quantities we produce are only significant if causality can be established which is physically significant at the levels involved.
** I have been fascinated to read the debate in the literature on multi-attribution fingerprinting. What is equally fascinating is the almost complete lack of convincing results – the approach is now going bayesian in order to bring in theoretically conditioned priors to try and obtain the desired results. It is truly amazing the data torture being employed to bolster the AGW case.
You can bet on that at the link below. At present, the given odds that 2011’s ice will be higher than 2007’s are only 40%, so you’d have to put up $6 to get $10 back.
https://www.intrade.com/v4/markets/?eventClassId=20
Jim D at 8:58 pm says:
Notice how the La Nina minima are getting warmer. In 1985 La Nina was 0.5 degrees colder than this one. This is 0.2 degrees per decade.
===========================================================
The temperature down-spike in ’85 was accentuated by the El Chichón eruption in ’82.
To get a feel for the underlying warming trend why not look at the longest record available viz. HADCRUT3 (which nicely coincides with the rise in CO2 concentration)?
That trend includes solar irradiation, internal fluctuations like ENSO & PDO, GHGs, aerosols, water vapor feedbacks and all, and shows +0.7°C or 0.5°C/century.
Some of that trend must be attributable to a continuing recovery from one of the coldest episodes during this interglacial.
It has been mentioned before, but a great deal of clarity can be injected into the mind by reading this recent essay:
http://www.geoffstuff.com/Understanding_the_Atmosphere_Effect%20%282%29.pdf
(I could not get a direct link to work, so I put Dr Postma’s essay onto my site, purely to assist distribution)
I told you I could feel a draught.
Anthony,
The logic of climate science really is not that bright.
Take a pound of warm air and take a pound of cold air and it is a pound. End of story.
Now logic dictates that there is far more molecules in that cold air than warm vibrating air.
stevo:
At April 5, 2011 at 11:38 am you say:
“It really is appalling that you can’t or won’t learn the simplest basics of statistics. Comparing noise with trend is stupid – no other way to describe it.”
I agree.
The trend of global temperature is COOLING over the last 10 thousand years.
There has been some noise in the trend that has given us; e.g.
the Roman Warm Period,
the Dark Age Cool Period,
the Medieaval Warm Period,
the Little Iced Age, and
the Present Warm Period.
In other words, there is a clear and undeniable trend of global cooling that has a lot of “noise” in the data.
As you say, it really is “stupid” that you and me can see this but so few others can.
Richard
Anthony,
One basic simple question not being asked:
WHY IS THE OCEAN NOT ABSORBING HEAT ANYMORE?
Any time I bring up surface salt changes, they go on deaf ears.
Posts like this will be referred to in the future as people wonder how it was that people historically denied basic, centuries old science being plainly demonstrated in simple plots such as this. Sorry, but i really did laugh out loud as I scanned through the comments of the “sceptics” as they managed to completely ignore the mind numbingly obvious trend in the data – even neglecting the intricacies of the El Nino/La Nina oscillations complicating the story. There’s a very sad lack of honesty at this site and I really am left wondering how people can be so demeaning to their own intellect in this way. Really, worryingly sad. I know you’ll have your clever refutations that will be relentlessly backed up by the entrenched group think but, really?
To DeanL who said:
“Posts like this will be referred to in the future as people wonder how it was that people historically denied basic, centuries old science being plainly demonstrated in simple plots such as this. Sorry, but i really did laugh out loud as I scanned through the comments of the “sceptics” as they managed to completely ignore the mind numbingly obvious trend in the data – even neglecting the intricacies of the El Nino/La Nina oscillations complicating the story. There’s a very sad lack of honesty at this site and I really am left wondering how people can be so demeaning to their own intellect in this way. Really, worryingly sad. I know you’ll have your clever refutations that will be relentlessly backed up by the entrenched group think but, really?”
You are right about some posters here, but don’t put us all in the same boat. Michael Mann and company made things up, prevented dissenting articles from appearing, were the judge and jury for their own wretched work, so please don’t criticize just this web site’s view of things.
Many of us here do understand that CO2 warms the climate, but the issues are, How much, With what effects, and At what cost to cause any meaningful change.
The UAH data — better in my view than land based data — shows warming trends of about 1.5 degrees per C, less than the low end of the IPCC range. I trust reality at this point more than I trust the IPCC, thanks to what I learned at Climategate. But I don’t deny some warming, and I don’t deny CO2 is partly responsible.
What I want right now is science I can trust. And I don’t want to further hamstring our economy when almost all the CO2 increases will come from elsewhere in the world then next century, and when the warming trend is so low.
BTW, did you notice that CO2 emissions from the US went down about 6.2% in 2009?
@R. Gates says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Caution: most the posts on this blog are from “warmists”
—–
Reply I beg to differ, RG….I happen to see AGW as a non-issue, but believe that ocean acidification is a real problem. This makes me an “ass”. – CRS, Dr.P.H.
Intensive reading over the past ten years has not revealed one scintilla of science-based evidence affirming the AGW hypothesis. What have I missed?
Christopher Hanley: ‘To get a feel for the underlying warming trend why not look at the longest record available viz. HADCRUT3 (which nicely coincides with the rise in CO2 concentration)?’
I have had a look at this one but there is no association. The problem is that you cannot simply compare trends – the HADCRUT data is highly correlated with vicars’ salaries but there is no association. The other problem is that the time series are fundamentally different so we have to go to first differences to see if there is even a statistical never mind a causal relationship. With first differences we are looking to see if we can explain changes in temperature using CO2 as the explanatory variable. Here we discover that there is no relationship whatsoever even when varying the lag between T an CO2. I suspect it is this fundamental lack of association which has driven some climate scientists to create models based upon the physical science – this would I suspect be largely redundant if there was a robust empirical relationship. A strong statistical relationship would also help nail the ‘sensitivity’ issue as we would be able to measure the actual response of T to CO2 by looking at the regression parameters. Other climate scientists have sought to uncover attribution in the data using multivariate fingerprinting methods but unfortunately without real success. All they can say is that the temperature rise is ‘consistent’ with the rise in CO2 but only if there are any forcings they haven’t missed. That is not very convincing.
From eyeballing the graph, this is what I see. From 1979 until just before the start of the 1998 El Nino, temperature trend was essentially flat. In 1998, there was strong El Nino, resulting in rapid warming, followed by a La Nina, resulting in rapid cooling. After recovering from the La Nina, average global temperatures went up a notch (maybe about 1 degree). Since then, the trend looks essentially flat. If CO2 were driving the warming, I would expect to see a steady increasing trend in temperatures over the entire period consistent with the steady increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. The empirical data seem especially inconsistent with the notion that there are strong positive feedbacks in the climate system. The termperature trends seem more consistent with the hypothesis that the major driver is the ENSO cycle. I am curious how those who believe in a high climate sensitivity explain the empirical data.
The penultimate sentence should read: ‘All they can say is that the temperature rise is ‘consistent’ with the rise in CO2 but only if they have not missed any forcings out of their analysis.’
Apologies
@Robert of Texas: That’s an interesting observation. You’re right, it looks like a flat trend from 1979 to the 1998 El Nino, and then another flat trend (about a higher mean) to the right of the 1998 El Nino spike. Did something change in the way the data is gathered or processed? Certainly this could be a natural phenomenon, but I’ve always found it interesting how many people never seem to consider the possibility of measurement or data processing errors when examining these trends. Taking good experimental data is actually hard. Has anyone on either side of the climate change debate run a gage R&R study of the measurement systems used? Given the small magnitude of the temperature changes being discussed it seems like it would be a prudent thing to do.
This is ridiculous.
Had the numbers pointed the other way, most of the people commenting here would have noted that the numbers are averages of averages drawn from flawed source measures whose predicted accuracy is much less than that produced by the arithmetic contortions needed to produce the numbers here.
R. Gates says:
April 5, 2011 at 9:55 pm
Werner Brozek says:
April 5, 2011 at 7:03 pm
I will predict that at least for April, the rate of loss of Arctic sea ice will be slower than normal.
Uh, I wouldn’t be so confident in that prediction, as indications are that we could be in for a very interesting ride down to the minimum and challenge 2007 for the lowest modern summer arctic sea ice minimum. I’ve also noticed you gave a link to Steve Goddard’s site. After his PIPS2.0 nonsense here last year, I’m surprised anyone would put a lot of stock in his forecasts. His prediction LAST year- 5.5 million sq. km. minimum, Mine: 4.5 million sq. km. He based his on his beloved PIPS2.0. It’s a MODEL, so tread carefully with this MODEL data…really.
And your beloved PIOMAS that you rely on for Arctic ice prediction is of course, as we all know – directly measured data. (not – its an even more indirect separated-from-reality model than PIPS).
Guess you thought we wouldn’t notice and let that one slip. Anyway – if as you also say we’re all warmists here at WUWT, then we’re all on the same side!
Anyway – we shall see. BTW, if all this hot water is gushing into the Arctic as you suggest, why is the OHC in the Arctic ocean declining?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/17/tisdale-update-on-ocean-heat-content/
and why are the UNISYS Arctic ocean temperature anomalies about neutral?
http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.gif
Sure you’ll have plenty of words in reply, but do you (ever) have any answers?
Richard S Courtney says:
April 6, 2011 at 2:52 am
Well, yes, of course, if you look at the entire temperature record for the current interglacial, you’ll notice a steady cooling trend that has lasted for thousands of years. But let’s not confuse the debate with facts. Let’s stick to the trends that show undeniably that not only is there a warming trend, but that the only possible explanation is human emissions of CO2. What is with you people on this site with yuor heads in the sand? How can any of you truly believe that observations and reality are more important than hypotheses and computer models. Such archaic mindsets you guys (and gals) have…
It’s true! If you need more proof, they used to be .
Jack Linard:
Go to
http://objectivistindividualist.blogspot.com/2009/12/rura-us-sites-show-no-temperature.html
Jack Linard:
oops. the “rura” in above referenced website should be “rural”
“To get a feel for the underlying warming trend why not look at the longest record available viz. HADCRUT3 ”
The HADCRUT3 that had a .206C January anomaly?
1942 0.215
1944 0.240
1958 0.224
And since UHI is not accounted for, my guess is that 2011 is probably higher than it really is and should be cloer to zero.
I’m not a scientist, nor a statistician, I’m an interested amateur and I’m learning all the time, mostly by reading blogs such as this and asking damn-fool questions. So here’s a damn-fool question to show my ignorance.
When I look at that graph, I see an overall warming trend. Sure, we’ve got a spike in 1998 and another in 2010, which are attributed to El Nino, with corresponding drops in temperature afterwards – but that’s just regression to the mean (if I understand that term correctly). But we’ve also got an apparent average increase along the timescale shown. So what am I missing in this graph that refutes AGW?
Don’t misunderstand me, I’m not an AGW true believer, I just don’t see how this graph says anything contrary to AGW doctrine.
Yes there is a slight upward trend, but it looks in the region of ~0.05 C a decade, only about a fraction of the rise that Schmidt is claiming. Add in that there was slight global cooling from the 1940s to the 1970s (which explains all those cooling scare stories of the time) and the trend since the war seems to be only negligibly upward. The recovery from the LIA seems to be, prima facie, all but over. But stay tuned!
It time that the term “greenhouse gases” be retired to the world of Mother Goose Rhymes- there is no such thing- yes there are 3 atoms or more gas molecules that absorb IR radiation therefore they should be referred to as IRag. It has been shown by the work of Niels Bohr that when a gas -any gas absorbs radiation whether IR,UV,microwave, radio wave etc it does not cause the gas to “heat”. The absorbed energy goes into intermolecular activity either by jumping an electron to a higher energy level or by vibration in the nuclei.
When this energy is radiated it will be at the same wavelength as was absorbed however the quantity will be at a diminished value.( there are always energy losses even if very small). This energy is as a photons and the photons can interact with other molecules as the earth or water on the earth or as clouds(liquid or solid-ice). If the photons interact with water vapor again this will not “ heat” the water vapor, (remember Niels Bohr) however if the photons interact with water liquid or solid it can cause heating.
Water liquid or solid is not a “greenhouse gas”!!!
Water/l/s/v, CO2, No2, etc are IRag and are essential to life on this planet. They do not cause “Mann-made global warming” they do not cause climate change they may effect some aspect of weather but the real cause of climate change is Solar output. To waste time calculating average temperature and other circumstantial evidence of a Hypotheses that has never been proven by creditable experimental data is not science, to project weather 100 years in the future is the job of the Flat screen fortune tellers another group of Mother Goose rhyme writers. – Climatology is not a science it is a group of historians that study temperature then fantasize about the future.
It time to get back to real science that applies to this subject -”physics” and the list of references below is a good starting point. List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
It time that the term “greenhouse gases” be retired to the world of Mother Goose Rhymes- there is no such thing- yes there are 3 atoms or more gas molecules that absorb IR radiation therefore they should be referred to as IRag. It has been shown by the work of Niels Bohr that when a gas -any gas absorbs radiation whether IR,UV,microwave, radio wave etc it does not cause the gas to “heat”. The absorbed energy goes into intermolecular activity either by jumping an electron to a higher energy level or by vibration in the nuclei.
When this energy is radiated it will be at the same wavelength as was absorbed however the quantity will be at a diminished value.( there are always energy losses even if very small). This energy is as a photons and the photons can interact with other molecules as the earth or water on the earth or as clouds(liquid or solid-ice). If the photons interact with water vapor again this will not “ heat” the water vapor, (remember Niels Bohr) however if the photons interact with water liquid or solid it can cause heating.
Water liquid or solid is not a “greenhouse gas”!!!
Water/l/s/v, CO2, No2, etc are IRag and are essential to life on this planet. They do not cause “Mann-made global warming” they do not cause climate change they may effect some aspect of weather but the real cause of climate change is Solar output. To waste time calculating average temperature and other circumstantial evidence of an Hypotheses that has never been proven by creditable experimental data is not science, to project weather 100 years in the future is the job of the Flat screen fortune tellers another group of Mother Goose rhyme writers. – Climatology is not a science it is a group of historians that study temperature then fantasize about the future.
It time to get back to real science that applies to this subject -”physics” and the list of references below is a good starting point. List of references:
The paper “Falsification of the Atmospheric CO2 greenhouse effect within the frame of physics” by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is an in-depth examination of the subject. Version 4 2009
Electronic version of an article published as International Journal of Modern Physics
B, Vol. 23, No. 3 (2009) 275{364 , DOI No: 10.1142/S021797920904984X, c World
Scientific Publishing Company, http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb.
Report of Alan Carlin of US-EPA March, 2009 that shows that CO2 does not cause global warming.
Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics” by Dipl-Ing Heinz Thieme This work has about 10 or 12 link
that support the truth that the greenhouse gas effect is a hoax.
R.W.Wood
from the London, Edinborough and Dublin Philosophical Magazine , 1909, vol 17, p319-320. Cambridge UL shelf mark p340.1.c.95, i
The Hidden Flaw in Greenhouse Theory
By Alan Siddons
from:http://www.americanthinker.com/2010/02/the_hidden_flaw_in_greenhouse.html at March 01, 2010 – 09:10:34 AM CST
The below information was a foot note in the IPCC 4 edition. It is obvious that there was no evidence to prove that the ghg effect exists.
“In the 1860s, physicist John Tyndall recognized the Earth’s natural greenhouse effect and suggested that slight changes in the atmospheric composition could bring about climatic variations. In 1896, a seminal paper by Swedish scientist Svante Arrhenius first speculated that changes in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could substantially alter the surface temperature through the greenhouse effect.”
After 1909 when R.W.Wood proved that the understanding of the greenhouse effect was in error and the ghg effect does not exist. After Niels Bohr published his work and receive a Nobel Prize in Physics in 1922. The fantasy of the greenhouse gas effect should have died in 1909 and 1922. Since then it has been shown by several physicists that the concept is a Violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics.
Obviously the politicians don’t give a dam that they are lying. It fits in with what they do every hour of every day .Especially the current pretend president.
Paraphrasing Albert Einstein after the Publishing of “The Theory of Relativity” –one fact out does 1 million “scientist, 10 billion politicians and 20 billion environmental whachos-that don’t know what” The Second Law of thermodynamics” is.
University of Pennsylvania Law School
ILE
INSTITUTE FOR LAW AND ECONOMICS
A Joint Research Center of the Law School, the Wharton School,
and the Department of Economics in the School of Arts and Sciences
at the University of Pennsylvania
RESEARCH PAPER NO. 10-08
Global Warming Advocacy Science: a Cross Examination
Jason Scott Johnston
UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA
May 2010
This paper can be downloaded without charge from the
Social Science Research Network Electronic Paper Collection:
http://ssrn.
Israeli Astrophysicist Nir Shaviv: ‘There is no direct evidence showing that CO2 caused 20th century warming, or as a matter of fact, any warming’ link to this paper on climate depot.
Slaying the Sky Dragon – Death of the Greenhouse Gas Theory [Kindle Edition]
Tim Ball (Author), Claes Johnson (Author), Martin Hertzberg (Author), Joseph A. Olson (Author), Alan Siddons (Author), Charles Anderson (Author), Hans Schreuder (Author), John O’Sullivan (Author)
Web- site references:
http://www.americanthinker.com Ponder the Maunder
wwwclimatedepot.com
icecap.us
http://www.stratus-sphere.com
SPPI
The Great Climate Clash -archives December, 2010 , G3 The greenhouse gas effect does not exist.( not yet peer reviewed).
many others are available.
The bottom line is that the facts show that the greenhouse gas effect is a fairy-tale and that Man-made global warming is the World larges Scam!!!The IPCC and Al Gore should be charged under the US Anti-racketeering act and when convicted – they should spend the rest of their lives in jail for the Crimes they have committed against Humanity.
The only thing more dangerous than ignorance is arrogance.”
—Albert Einstein
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb deciding what to have for dinner. Liberty is a well-armed lamb.” Benjamin Franklin
“Interesting update…even mentioning such short term ENSO ups and downs in the context of longer term global warming seems like talking about apples and oranges. Such declines are to be expected when transitioning from a decent El Nino to La Nina.”
R. Gates,
You cannot have it both ways. Either CO2 is THE primary driver of “climate” and “global temperature”, or it is not. The AGW hypothesis states that as CO2 concentration goes up, the global mean temperature goes up. The fluctuations due to natural variability disprove that hypothesis. The fluctuations you describe as “expected” ARE indeed actually expected, but the reason that they are expected is that CO2 isn’t even vaguely close to being the primary driver of “climate”.
In central MN bitter cold started by Thanksgiving and departed the ides of March. Snow covered the ground until this week.
Roy’s prediction of La Nina’s effect departing a couple of months back when SOI went neutral was decidedly premature.
Jct: And they can’t use their “trick to hide the decline” any more. So they’re left with the retards like David Suzuki and Elizabeth May who remain tricked!
Except that the graph shows at least two other drops that are just as sudden and just as big at the 125 and 150 month marks. This time it hasn’t gotten as cold as those times, so it appears the world is warmer now than it was then.
Did you mean for your graph to show evidence of global warming?
R. Gates says: “ENSO does not create any NET long term heating or cooling (and it better darn well not, or we’re in trouble!)”
It doesn’t? Why would we be in trouble?
(Sorry for the delay in replying.)