I’m taking the rest of the weekend off – for two reasons:
1. With 100million views under my belt, I’ve earned it.
2. I’m rebuilding my home personal computer as it is becoming flakey, and such things take three times as long as you figure. Windows doesn’t take well to new mobos, and backup/prep must be done. So I’ll be down anyway.
Talk quietly amongst yourselves on any topic within site policy – don’t make me come back here until late Sunday night whenI start my regular work week. 😉 – Anthony
UPDATE: Sunday AM – My computer rebuild went well, and I learned some valuable things that I’ll share in an upcoming post. I went from an old AMDx2 64 dual core to a Intel I5 quad core CPU, doubled my memory speed, doubled my video card speed, and went from a SATA2 to SATA3 SSD. I can blog even faster now. Speaking of which, my email load this morning contained two stories (one quite dramatic) that I’ve put on auto-scheduled publishing that will appear soon. I’m still taking the rest of the day off though. – Anthony
“”[Reply] I reach more people via my blog than I would via a paywall. TB – mod””
You will never appreciate just how much dopey lay people like myself appreciate your efforts in global education of the climate paradox.
“R. Gates says: January 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm
tokyoboy, Odd that you would stop at 2009 with CET,…”
Sorry but I don’t think the end year is 2009. It appears to be 2011, from the update date, see bottom right.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:22 pm
Daily weather patterns (except for diurnal changes) can be considered “noise” to the longer-term solar changes, just as the longer-term solar changes can be considered “noise” to the very long-term Milankovitch cycles.
Exactly my point. Climatic changes on a scale of 1000 years are simply noise in the 100,000 year scale. To humans with our relatively short lifespans in climatic terms, what we see as climate change is simply noise in the longer climate signal.
As our paleo records have improved in resolution we now know that there is nothing unusual about the past 50 years in climatic terms. The earth has been warmer within the past 10,000 years, and has experienced much more rapid changes in temperature.
R Gates@4:29PM
1. I didn’t know that Dr. Hansen was evil. Can you confirm this?
2. 4.2 months has been the accepted lag time for water basin recycle since I was in college..and that was a long time ago.
3. Grace data. I have not researched Grace for some time. I know there were problems with its data concerning Antarctica. There was a paper published on this that I posted at SkS once. I hope that you read it. As far as recent data, I won’t dispute nor confirm it. Burned once……won’t be burned again.
4. Envisat data covers more of the world than the Colorado site.
5. Precipitation patterns in the NH, where most water is stored because it has the most land mass, have been below normal levels for over 5 months. During the summer, the water flows easily and is not locked by ice etc. The NH winter so far has been one of very little snow on average in the NH and one of less than average precip in the SH as well.
6. There has now been more than ample time for the precip fallen during sping in the NH to have flowed back to the oceans. The sea level has not recovered, which indicates there is a reason that it hasn’t.
7. This is something that can be measured/observed on a short time span. Sea level recovery has not been apparant by either Evistat nor Colorado, hence the volume of water has to have shrunk.
8. We all know that water flow from Greenland has increased. Altho, in the mean mass, the volume while up, is not a large volume. Antartic Ice Volume, in your opinion, has gone down. Yet, the oceans are not reflecting the increase in water from said volume.
Don’t know if this is scientific enough for you, but it is something observed.
Ferd Burple said:
“The fact that the satellites confirm that the deep oceans are not warming…”
_____
Some amazing satellites, for sure, seeing down 2000, 3000, 4000 meters and more.
Evaporation is a far more effective way of removing water volume than thermal contraction, and as the Grace satellite data showed, that’s exactly what happend during the 2010-2011 La Nina.
Gates: consider this. To measure the sea surface to within a few mm using satellites, you need to know where the satellites are in space, to within a few mm.
Have a think about it.
Then think some more.
Then read this:
http://www.john-daly.com/altimetry/topex.htm
“R. Gates says: January 7, 2012 at 4:42 pm
tokyoboy, Odd that you would stop at 2009 with CET,…”
The numerical data says the end year for the graph was 2010, not 2011.
As you say, the 2011 temp is much higher than 2010 (sorry…..).
Envisat sea level with no adjustments………
http://www.real-science.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/ScreenHunter_57-Dec.-07-07.45.jpg
“Camburn says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:52 pm 8. We all know that water flow from Greenland has increased. Altho, in the mean mass, the volume while up, is not a large volume. Antartic Ice Volume, in your opinion, has gone down. Yet, the oceans are not reflecting the increase in water from said volume.”
Here is some recent anecdotal evidence suggesting Antarctic Ice volume has gone up.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/douglas-mawson-centenary-trip-to-antarctica-frozen-as-cold-reality-sets-in/story-e6frg8y6-1226227156367
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:35 pm
I’d really like an experts opinion.
If sea levels were indeed rising, then the marine charts of the world would have on them a datum showing the correction. It is as simple as that. They have datum on every other change that might make them inaccurate. This is clear proof that sea level change is not occurring, from the foremost experts on earth. The ocean cartographers.
I spent nearly 20 years sailing the Pacific and Indian Oceans on a 40 foot sailboat. We visited hundreds of remote coral atolls. Most of our charts were copies of British Admiralty Charts, drawn 150-250 years ago, drawn by the likes of Cook, Bligh, Vancouver, Flinders, etc. These areas have never been resurveyed as they are too remote.
If there has been any significant sea level rise over the past 150-250 years, it would be apparent in the charts. Unlike modern scientists, these charts were drawn by men whose very lives depended on getting the measurements right.
Cooking the sea level data……….
http://www.real-science.com/cooking-sea-level-data
Hmmm, the latest ESA sea-level data that I can find seems to confirm the CU sea-level data. We had a fall in sea-level during the 2010-2011 La Nina (as Grace data confirmed a lot of that water went onto the continents), and then we have had a recovery of some of that sea-level in late 2011 as that at least some of that water has drained back to the oceans:
Eurpean data:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
Versus CU data:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
Now, we would not expect all of the water to drain back, as some would be soaked into the ground in areas that have experienced drought prior to the big rains of 2010-2011, such as in Australia.
And the latest ocean heat content shows that once more, during the recent La Nina, the oceans are once more storing heat:
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/
From a scientific standpoint, I can’t see any conflict in any of this data. It all seems to make sense.
Being an open thread I would like to add my two cents worth. The closed shop of the hockey team and the abuse of science for personal and political gain has been outed.
We can thank them for their narrow view and corruption of science, as it has led to a plethora
of real scientific endeavour and recent discoveries are uncovering many of the mysteries of climate.
This rush of real science will give us a real picture of planetary climate, thus forever abolishing
the carpet baggers who’s alarmism frightened gullible MSM and politicians into expensive stupidity.
People like R.GATES et al have done the world a favour as it prods people in the direction of real science.
AGW will die a death of a thousand cuts as more and more diligent scientists release their findings. The internet has been the only source of dissent as the cabal controlled information,
the next global problem for freedom will be keeping the internet free of political control.
One can only hope that the lessons learned in climate science will spread to other disciplines
of science that allow no dissent from the consensus view.
An old proverb that measures the hockey team rather well.
“What a tangled web we weave, when we practice to deceive” Thank you to all here whom are untangling the web.
Baa Humbug says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:45 pm
“Here is the conundrum:-
According to the GH Theory, the atmosphere is heated FROM THE INSIDE by the surface. Imagine the atmosphere as a box with the earth surface as the heater.
If I want to keep the inside of the box as cool as possible, I would “paint” the box with HEP. But since I can’t paint the atmosphere, the next best thing I could do is to infuse the atmosphere with High Emissivity gas molecules……CO2
What is wrong with the above?”
Gases don’t radiate like blackbodies. They absorb and emit only in their characteristic absorption lines. Absorption and Emission are equal under local thermal equilibrium.
However, there does appear to be a great divergence in correlation in the later part of the 20th century (after about 1980) between solar activity ( as measured any number of ways) and global temperatures. How do skeptics to AGW explain this?
Define “solar activity”.
Simply put, there has only been serious study of the sun and it’s various kinds of activity done or even been possible for a few decades now, since we have been able to measure all that it is doing, directly (solar wind, UV changes, magnetism etc) and indirectly (changes in cosmic rays). During that time, there has been no significant change in “solar activity”. By significant, I mean on the order of magnitude of those during the little ice age and the Maunder and Dalton minimums. The small changes seen since 1980 hardly count as ‘solar activity”.
However, there is significant and growing evidence that, in the next solar cycle, we will indeed see another minimum. Then you will see actual “solar activity. Until then, you haven’t really seen it.
Wait a few years here, and, if the information is not censored completely by then to prevent you from finding out, you will know. If it is, you will still know, because it will be cold.
“In 2003 the satellite altimetry record was mysteriously tilted upwards to imply a sudden sea level rise rate of 2.3mm per year.”
That is because the land was discovered to be rising at 2.3mm per year.
Of course it is a scientific fraud, because it makes the oceans appear to be rising when in fact they are simply keeping pace with the rising land. In the same time the oceans rise 1 meter, the land will also rise 1 meter.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 5:10 pm
“Hmmm, the latest ESA sea-level data that I can find seems to confirm the CU sea-level data. We had a fall in sea-level during the 2010-2011 La Nina (as Grace data confirmed a lot of that water went onto the continents), and then we have had a recovery of some of that sea-level in late 2011 as that at least some of that water has drained back to the oceans:
Eurpean data:
http://www.aviso.oceanobs.com/fileadmin/images/news/indic/msl/MSL_Serie_EN_Global_IB_RWT_NoGIA_Adjust.gif
Versus CU data:
http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
”
Looks like you’re comparing non-seasonally adjusted Envisat data with seasonally adjusted CU data. As the Envisat gif has no legend I can’t tell for sure but that’s how it looks like.
“R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 4:54 pm
Some amazing satellites, for sure, seeing down 2000, 3000, 4000 meters and more.
Evaporation is a far more effective way of removing water volume than thermal contraction, and as the Grace satellite data showed, that’s exactly what happened during the 2010-2011 La Nina.”
All whole lotta water has disappeared, much more than would be needed to fill aquifers from a 10 year drought.
Precipitation occurs in volumes to lower sea levels whilst the oceans are thermally expanding and experiencing deep ocean warming.
Is this the current (ever changing) AGW theory?
Late to the party, as usual…
But there was this:
R. Gates says (January 7, 2012 at 11:52 am)
“…Okay, I’m a well known warmist here on WUWT, but I’m open to learning…”
Step one – admission that you have a problem.
“…I’m fairly well convinced that prior to the massive influx of anthropogenic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere, that solar fluctuations caused most of the short-term (i.e. non-Milankovtich) fluctuations in climate. These fluctuations can be anywhere in length from sunspot cycles to much longer Bond Event (i.e. around 1500 year) cycles…”
So before the “massive influx of anthropogenic greenhouse gases into the atmosphere”, there were natural causes to weather and climate changes. Agreed – we’ve been saying that for years.
“…However, there does appear to be a great divergence in correlation in the later part of the 20th century (after about 1980) between solar activity (as measured any number of ways) and global temperatures. How do skeptics to AGW explain this?…”
In about the same way that climate scientist have explained the divergence between global temperatures and proxy results. Wait – they ignore that.
But maybe you’ll answer a question – can you mention exactly when (month/day/year) that GHG’s became the main driver of temperatures (overriding natural drivers)? For example, if there were massive floods in Queensland Australia in the 1800’s, and in the 2000’s, which was was driven by CO2, and which one by natural causes?
To paraphrase an old saying: “Those who ignore extreme weather in the past are doomed to say that current extreme weather is unprecedented”.
DirkH says:
January 7, 2012 at 5:16 pm
What is wrong with the above?”
Fill a box with CO2 and heat it with IR and it will warm faster than air. Fill a box with moist air and it will warm slower than a box of dry air when heated with IR. The opposite of CO2.
We know that water vapor warms the atmosphere due to GHG effect, so it must be true that CO2 is having the opposite effect.
Latitude says:
January 7, 2012 at 5:08 pm
Cooking the sea level data……….
http://www.real-science.com/cooking-sea-level-data
______
So this graph, that Tallbloke presented (note: I don’t blame him for the content of the graph) is a an extreme case of the Picking of Cherries:
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TJRV2_iLHUg/TrZDLi9qcEI/AAAAAAAAB_0/eog1N-_P_gk/s1600/Searise.gif
Try it some time. It’s better than ***.
And when you get bored with that, you can start sampling different flavors of Linux.
..and more cooking the sea level, ring of fire, gravity
and why is all the satellite sea level rise above Australia where gravity is pulling the satellites down
http://suyts.wordpress.com/2011/06/25/discussion-so-far/
R Gates, our welcomed devil’s advocate:
You forget the most important part of the controversy.
We discuss the significance of tenths of a degree (!) statistics
as if it had anything to do with the last thirty years of apocalyptic alarmism,
with Al Gore’s ludicrous movie, and the relentless BigGovt tax push.
Can’t you smell the stench of self-interested rent-seeking?
Can you really tell me that you, as someone committed to Science,
are on the same side as the utterly corrupt Hansen, or Mann?
Do you really want all coal plants shut down right away?
Do you cuss out every SUV you see? I think not.
Surely, Mr. R, you don’t advocate economic lunacy.
What true scientist would?
Without prosperity, which collectivism always kills,
we couldn’t afford any Science.
One last thing, dear R:
If the Alarmists actually cared about ‘the planet’,
they wouldn’t be so rabidly opposed to geoengineering,
so much so that they shot down the harmless Stratus Project.
Only fear of the truth could motivate such fanaticism.
R. Gates says:
January 7, 2012 at 5:25 pm
================
Gates I know you’re not a well puppy….but they agree
http://www.real-science.com/shock-news-sea-level-high-years