Let me preface this tutorial from Josh with a quote from my favorite television show. – “Bazinga!”
Background:
Bazinga, indeed.
Friday Funny – how to do climate graphs
- Thursday, February 5, 2026
Let me preface this tutorial from Josh with a quote from my favorite television show. – “Bazinga!”
Background:
Bazinga, indeed.
Re Sharperoo’s “30 year trends” ….
Well, here are a few 30 year trend rates calculated each 10 years with the rate of increase per decade against each. Which would you like to cherry-pick Sharperoo? Data source is linked at the foot of http://climate-change-theory.com where you’ll see a plot including all the intermediate moving monthly values of such 30 year trends between the dates shown below.
Jan 1900 to Dec 1929: 0.020 deg.C/decade
Jan 1910 to Dec 1939: 0.086 deg.C/decade
Jan 1920 to Dec 1949: 0.096 deg.C/decade
Jan 1930 to Dec 1959: 0.036 deg.C/decade
Jan 1940 to Dec 1969: 0.002 deg.C/decade
Jan 1950 to Dec 1979: 0.016 deg.C/decade
Jan 1960 to Dec 1989: 0.064 deg.C/decade
Jan 1970 to Dec 1999: 0.113 deg.C/decade
Jan 1980 to Dec 2009: 0.084 deg.C/decade
So, according to you, any of these 30 year trends would have sufficed at the time to indicate “the” long-term trend. I’ll settle for the green “trend of the trends” line showing 0.06 reducing to 0.05 deg.C / decade. I had drawn that before calculating the arithmetic mean of the above 9 values for which I then got 0.057 deg.C / decade.
So take you pick anywhere around half a degree per century.
Any good reason for any advance on that?
I’m a fan of Tbbt. How many others think Bernadette is hot?
Bloke, I am with you. Bernadette is HOT ! Like her voice better since she moved in with Howard and his mother.
Doug Cotton says:
February 4, 2012 at 3:18 am
This is an interesting analysis. However I would expect the 30 year lines to vary widely since the climate seems to go in 60 year cycles. So if 60 year cycles were drawn, the numbers should be much closer. See:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/03/akasofu_ipcc.jpg
Un-oh. Per the Wikipedia:
Ref: http://www.trademarkia.com/bazinga-85210353.html
Better slap some ™ symbols (Ctrl-shift-u + 2122 on a proper Linux box) on the post above before the Warner Bros Trademark Enforcement Department swoops in with the Cease and Desist Order!
(PS: Authors are also not allowed to mention Velcro™ and Band-Aids™ without permission of the trademark holders and cannot use them without the appropriate ™ indicators. This information provided for non-commercial educational purposes only, so please don’t sue me, you wonderful multi-national corporate trademark holders who are legally obligated to defend your trademarks.)
Gras Albert, that is wonderful!
I can’t claim credit for this one. Except for the red circles, it is taken from a presentation by NASA’s Lee Fu at a NASA JPL symposium on climate change:
http://www.burtonsys.com/climate/Fu_Oct24_09_graphing_fraud_circled.jpg
Werner: “since the climate seems to go in 60 year cycles” – yes, The green “trend of the trend” line on the plot I mentioned (at the foot of my Home page) takes out the 60 year and ENSO cycles. Of course the plot of the gradients also shows evidence of the 60 year cycle which I further discuss on my original site http://earth-climate.com .
Doug Cotton says:
February 4, 2012 at 2:03 pm
Thank you! I also read the paper by Nahle. Interesting stuff! All of these people with doctor’s degrees in physics disagreeing with each other is enough to make one’s head spin!
epic video, i nearly died laughing!!
now, back to climate graphs
LOLOL!
My backyard experiment (February 5 & 6, 2012)
I shielded a small section of my backyard with a car windscreen shade (silver on each side) which I suspended at an angle of about 45 degrees so that it would not interfere with convection loss and would reflect away upward radiation from the ground. I used a digital thermometer with a metal spike which I inserted into the ground, or held in the air just above the ground for the ambient readings. The “shielded” ground readings were taken under the shade about 20cm from where it came down to the ground, whilst the “unshielded” readings were taken in an open area about 2m away.
Below are the results (temperatures in deg.C) …
time unshielded shielded ambient
21:33 23.3 23.1 22.1
05.34 21.7 21.7 17.7
(a) I found no evidence of “backradiation” slowing the rate of cooling.
(b) My results agreed with those of Prof Nahle (Sept 2011) showing that the air was cooler than the surface and also cooled faster than the surface.
When I saw this video I spat coffee all over my keyboard. Very Funny, Bazinga, indeed!
Werner: I’m not sure which of Nahle’s papers you are refering to. I just quoted above his Sept 2011 experiment in which he showed the air cooled faster than the surface at night. His deductions from that information may or may not be correct, so I don’t quote such.
What makes my “head spin” is all these “climate scientists” who don’t understand the prerequisites for the Stefan-Boltzmann Law to apply, and thus abuse physics when they calculate that the Earth’s surface would be -18 deg.C if there were no water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane etc.
My backyard certainly doesn’t go down to that temperature when I shield all that “backradiation” and furthermore, I understand why it doesn’t vary even a tenth of a degree from the unshielded area – from basic undergraduate physics.
Doug Cotton
http://climate-change-theory.com
Doug Cotton says:
February 5, 2012 at 8:00 pm
Werner: I’m not sure which of Nahle’s papers you are refering to.
I was talking about the 18 page paper you referred to at one time.
… and thus abuse physics when they calculate that the Earth’s surface would be -18 deg.C if there were no water vapour, carbon dioxide, methane etc.
Have you seen the following where this is also questioned:
http://climatechangedispatch.com/home/9799-that-bogus-greenhouse-gas-whatchamacallit-effect
“Dr. Latour is one of many experts old enough to remember that in 1981 James Hansen stated the average thermal T (temperature) at Earth’s surface is 15°C (ok) and Earth radiates to space at -18°C (ok). From that he declared the difference 15° – (-18°) = 33°C (arithmetic ok) to be the famous greenhouse gas effect.
This is not ‘ok’ to more astute analysts critical of Hansen’s number fudging. They say Hansen’s math is very seriously awry because there is no physics to connect these two dissimilar numbers.”
“NotTheAussiePhilM says:
February 3, 2012 at 10:36 am
As my primary school teacher used to say, ‘Two wrong’s don’t make a right!’”
Oh yea, my redneck teacher, across the road from your one, used to say;
“Two wongs don’t make a white.”
Werner and others. Frankly I don’t think any experiments done with boxes really prove anything, and so I no longer refer to Nahle’s experiment early last year in which he tried to prove Wood correct, nor to Wood’s experiment, even if they do seem to support my general viewpoint. There are too many possibilities for heat transfer by conduction and reflection etc in such boxes.
In regard to Nahle’s experiment in September 2011 http://principia-scientific.org/publications/New_Concise_Experiment_on_Backradiation.pdf all I take from this is that the atmosphere is generally cooler at night, and cooling faster than the surface. (My backyard experiment showed likewise.) I don’t think it is really valid to deduce that Nahle’s experiment disproves the GH effect as he claims.
To do that we need more experiments showing that warmer bodies do not acquire thermal energy from radiation from (significantly) cooler ones. It is easy to show with gases using spectroscopy – but we need more empirical data relating to solids and liquids. Prof Claes Johnson has proved it computationally, but the world needs to see supporting experiments.
Werner, yes I have read what Dr Latour wrote about the 18 degree figure. In effect he was using the same point which arises from the fact that the air temperature close to the ground is not controlled by radiation anywhere near as much as it is by diffusion (molecular collision) which brings about the close thermal equilibrium observed between the surface and the first 1mm of the air above it. Of course solar radiation at noon can feel warmer than the air at the top of a high mountain, but that’s not really proving anything.
To show why the 18 degree figure is so wrong, you can start by deriving a much lower figure using zero radiation for 12 hours (at night) and twice their mean radiation for the other 12 hours, then take a mean of the two values. The logic is more sound than their flat disk concept. Of course integration would be better still. But their “science” is flat-Earth science and just as wrong.
But that’s not all. If, say, 50% of the energy is transferred from the surface to the atmosphere by diffusion and evaporation, then you only have 50% left to attribute to radiation from the surface. The other 50% goes into the atmosphere first and is then radiated by the atmosphere. Mind you, that 50% by diffusion and evaporation is probably more like 70%, but we don’t need to cause arguments over that detail.