I liked this part:
According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge.
From CSIRO Australia
Southern Hemisphere becoming drier
A decline in April-May rainfall over south-east Australia is associated with a southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone according to research published today in Scientific Reports, a primary research journal from the publishers of Nature.
CSIRO scientists Wenju Cai, Tim Cowan and Marcus Thatcher explored why autumn rainfall has been in decline across south-eastern Australia since the 1970s, a period that included the devastating Millennium drought from 1997-2009.
Previous research into what has been driving the decline in autumn rainfall across regions like southern Australia has pointed the finger at a southward shift in the storm tracks and weather systems during the late 20th century. However, the extent to which these regional rainfall reductions are attributable to the poleward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone has not been clarified before now.
Mr Cowan said rainfall patterns in the subtropics are known to be influenced by the Hadley cell, the large-scale atmospheric circulation that transports heat from the tropics to the sub-tropics.
“There has been a southward expansion of the edge of the Hadley cell – also called subtropical dry-zone – over the past 30 years, with the strongest expansion occurring in mid-late autumn, or April to May, ranging from 200 to 400 kilometres,” Mr Cowan said. The CSIRO researchers found that the autumn southward expansion of the subtropical dry-zone is greatest over south-eastern Australia, and to a lesser extent, over the Southern Ocean to the south of Africa.
“The Hadley cell is comprised of a number of individual branches, so the impact of a southward shift of the subtropical dry-zone on rainfall is not the same across the different semi-arid regions of the Southern Hemisphere,” says CSIRO’s Dr Wenju Cai.
The researchers tested the hypothesis that the dry-zone expansion would give rise to a southward shift in the average rainfall during April and May, and questioned how rainfall across semi-arid regions, including southern-coastal Chile and southern Africa, would be affected.
“During April and May, when the dry-zone expansion is strong, rainfall over south-eastern Africa, south-eastern Australia and southern-coastal Chile is higher than over regions immediately to their north,” Dr Cai said.
Using high-quality observations and an atmospheric model the CSIRO team found that for south-eastern Australia, up to 85% of recent rainfall reduction can be accounted for by replacing south-eastern Australia rainfall with rainfall 400km to the north. Such a southward shift of rainfall can explain only a small portion of the southern Africa rainfall trend, but none of the autumn drying observed over southern Chile.
“For south-east Australia, autumn is an important wetting season,” Dr Cai explained. “Good autumn rainfall wets the soil and effectively allows for vital runoff from follow-on winter and spring rain to flow into catchments.”
According to the study an important issue remains as to why the poleward expansion is largest in autumn, and there is still uncertainty about the role of external forcings – such as greenhouse gases – as climate models underestimate the southward expansion of the Hadley cell edge.
This research was conducted through CSIRO’s Water for a Healthy Country Flagship, and was funded by the Goyder Institute for Water Research and the Australian Climate Change Science Programme. Wenju Cai, Tim Cowan and Marcus Thatcher are from CSIRO’s Marine and Atmospheric Research division.
UPDATE:
Some commenters can’t look beyond the title and see the bigger picture, so here’s an update just for them. Note that the study deals with the Hadley cell, which is NOT regional, but hemispherical. They looked not only at Australia, but also rainfall in southern-coastal Chile and southern Africa.
This is where I was coming from, which I thought would be obvious to anyone who’s been following the positive water vapor feedback issue for any length of time.
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/hall0001.pdf
===============
Abstract. Using two versions of the GFDL coupled ocean-atmosphere model, one where
water vapor anomalies are allowed to affect the longwave radiation calculation and one
where they are not, we examine the role of water vapor feedback in internal precipitation
variability and greenhouse-gas-forced intensification of the hydrologic cycle. Without
external forcing, the experiment with water vapor feedback produces 44% more annualmean, global-mean precipitation variability than the one without.
We diagnose the reason for this difference: In both experiments, global-mean surface temperature anomalies are associated with water vapor anomalies. However, when water vapor interacts with longwave radiation, the temperature anomalies are associated with larger anomalies in surface downward longwave radiation. This increases the temperature anomaly damping through latent heat flux, creating an evaporation anomaly.
The evaporation anomaly, in turn, leads to an anomaly of nearly the same magnitude in precipitation. In the experiment without water vapor feedback, this mechanism is absent. While the interaction between longwave and water vapor has a large impact on the global hydrologic cycle internal variations, its effect decreases as spatial scales decrease, so water vapor feedback has only a very small impact on grid-scale hydrologic variability. Water vapor feedback also affects the hydrologic cycle intensification when greenhouse gas concentrations increase. By the 5th century of global warming experiments where CO2 is increased and then fixed at its doubled value, the global-mean precipitation increase is nearly an order of magnitude larger when water vapor feedback is present.
The cause of this difference is similar to the cause of the difference in internal precipitation variability: When water vapor feedback is present, the increase in water vapor associated with a warmer climate enhances downward longwave radiation. To maintain surface heat balance, evaporation increases, leading to a similar increase in precipitation. This effect is absent in the experiment without water vapor feedback. The large impact of water vapor feedback on hydrologic cycle intensification does not weaken as spatial scales decrease, unlike the internal variability case. Accurate representations of water vapor feedback are therefore necessary to simulate global-scale hydrologic variability and intensification of the hydrologic cycle in global warming.
=================
So if positive water vapor feedback were occurring, based on this idea, we’d see an “intensification of the hydrologic cycle”, i.e. more rainfall, runoff, and evaporation. That would apply to the southern hemisphere continents too.
And the researchers by their own admission can’t even fit GHG feedbacks into the Hadley cell migration equation successfully. It is just more evidence of uncertainty in the “settled science” of AGW.
I posted the link. Click on it. The IPCC is the ‘authority’.
D Boehm,
So you prefer IPCC as a source. Fine, it appears that the IPCC also supports my estimate of total natural emissions of about 200 gtons, roughly the same as everywhere else I have looked. You can see the one at IPCC at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-7-3.html
In return could you provide me a that link the leads to your number of about 750,000 gtons per year? You said you posted a link, but I can’t find it. I saw nothing to “click on” in your last post..
ericgrimsrud,
Really, this is like hand holding:
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/eia_co2_contributions_table3.png
Now, since you have avoided answering my post showing that CO2 has no measurable effect, the following is a step by step explanation showing that rising CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature, and thus why the “carbon” scare is a false alarm:
To avoid complaints about ‘cherry-picking’, we will begin with a very long time period; more than three centuries. Let’s look at the natural global warming trend:
http://i35.tinypic.com/2db1d89.jpg
As we see, the long term trend is the same, whether CO2 is low or high. That is confirmed in this Wood For Trees chart. The naturally rising global temperature trend since the LIA has remained within its long term parameters. There is no acceleration of global warming. It is on the very same long term trend line that it was on before the start of the industrial revolution, thus falsifying the CO2=CAGW conjecture.
The fact that CO2 has no measurable effect on global temperature is confirmed here. Notice that the two recent warming episodes — again, one when CO2 was low, and the other when CO2 was high — show conclusively that any effect from CO2 is so minuscule that it is not even measurable, because the rising temperature trends are exactly the same.
Empirical measurements also show conclusively that CO2 follows temperature on all time scales, from decades to hundreds of millennia.
That proves that the alarmist crowd has cause and effect reversed. Temperature changes cause CO2 changes; not vice-versa. There is no empirical, testable scientific evidence showing that rising CO2 causes rising temperatures (if you disagree, post a chart for us showing that changes in CO2 precede temperature changes). The false belief that CO2 leads temperature is based on an entirely coincidental short-term correlation, which is now breaking down. There has been no global warming in more than 15 years, while CO2 has risen steadily. (I should point out that CO2 may cause an insignificant temperature rise; that is not ruled out by the logic of this argument. But since the effect is too minuscule to measure, it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes).
Finally, the planet is starved of harmless, beneficial CO2. More is better. With added CO2 the biosphere will thrive, and there will be no global harm or damage. The “carbon” scare is a false alarm.
Using verifiable scientific facts based on empirical evidence, it is demonstrated here that CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. None. The rising temperature trend since the LIA remains the same, whether CO2 was low or high. There are no testable measurements showing otherwise. Therefore, CO2 does not have the claimed effect.
The reason that the alarmist crowd cannot get anything right is because they are fixated on the false and disproven presumption that measurable temperature change is driven by CO2 — when, in fact, exactly the opposite is true.
Now, explain why CO2 has had no measurable effect on temperature since the LIA.
EricGrimsrud said: “If you did read my book you apparently missed one of its major chapters, chapter 3 in which I searched for a major flaw in the notion of AGW. I went through about 20 of the most ofter seen in the sceptic’s “literature”.” I read your chapter 3. You failed to address the #1 skeptic argument which is that AGW is not CAGW. Here’s a summary:
1. AGW is mild. Part of the increased warming in the 80’s and 90’s was from stored solar energy from the ongoing increased solar output. That ended with the 90’s and so did the “rapid” warming that was claimed to be 100% CO2 (some even say more than 100% using hypothesized but unmeasured aerosols as a source of AGC.
2. AGW is not catastrophic. No catastrophic weather is shown to result from AGW. There are increases in “extreme” rainfall events. Those are easily dealt with stormwater management in settled areas and ignored otherwise. Drought starts naturally and ends naturally. An added amount of warmth will make summer drought worse until it ends naturally with the end of the season or a change in the pattern. Strong tornadoes are currently decreasing. Hurricanes are probably decreasing long term but natural cycles rule in any case.
3. AGW will not become catastrophic. A continuation of the above with the addition of sea level rise of 1 inch per decade (not catastrophic and not accelerating).
4. Models don’t model weather so they can’t show what happens to weather in a warmer world. CAGW is based upon unsupportable positive feedbacks based on parameterized weather. Change the parameters and CAGW disappears.
EricGrimsrud, your chapter 3 mostly reflects your poor understanding of weather. Let’s look item by item: #1. “We can’t predict the weather” – obvious red herring. #2. “Warming is simple: solar, albedo and GHG” – no it is not simple. Global average temperature can change naturally in one week the same amount as a decade of AGW. Natural variations exceed AGW on every time scale. #3. “CO2 is not a powerful GHG” – red herring by the use of the word “powerful”. #4. “CO2 is secondary to water vapor” – you say it’s not true, but reality says otherwise (see #2). The distribution of water vapor controls the forcing from water vapor and natural factors control the weather patterns which control the distribution. # 5. “CO2 lags temperature” – there are a handful of posters here who dwell on that, but the red herring part of your statement is that skeptics believe the CO2 rise is natural. No serious skeptic believes that the rise is anything other than manmade.
#6. “Other GHG’s could become more important than CO2” – I have never heard that from a skeptic ever. That’s probably your projecting from your speciality of CFCs an similar gases. #7. “clouds”. Your cloud explanation is comically oversimplified. You claim with your usual handwavy lack of quantification that clouds will be neutral. Skeptic sites talk about tropical convection based thermostats. If you had read any skeptic site you would have known that. #8. “Global dimming offsets CO2 warming”. In this are you are just repeating some crap about aerosols which is contradicted by real world measurements (particularly the claim that aerosols are causing the current lull in warming). If you thought that garbage came from a skeptic site then you obviously don’t know the difference between alarmist and skeptic.
#9 “natural factors”. Your explanation is once again comically oversimplified. You do not seem to comprehend that the increased solar energy in the mid 20th century could be stored in the ocean yet you talk about CO2 heat storage in the thread above. #10 earth is massive. I’ve nver seen that on a skeptic site. #11 “Oceans will absorb CO2”. Your explanation is just wrong, I’ve addressed it here before. #12 “CO2 is saturated.” Not a red herring and your explanation is decent, congratulations you got one right. #13, “a need for real world observations”. You point to glacial transition data to support a claim that doubling CO2 leads to 11F temperature. Wildly misleading. Albedo changes will not be replicated today, there are no continental ice sheets. Dust changes will not be replicated. Weather pattern changes will not be replicated. You do not understand the inapplicability of glacial period data to today’s climate.
#14 “climate models are flawed”. It’s true that is a skeptical argument. Your answer is that they are “entirely adequate”. Obviously your knowledge of those models is entirely inadequate. Start by looking at the spatial and temporal resolution, then go outside on a day with cold air aloft and think about how models miss cooling (diurnal clouds, increase water cycle, etc). #15 “a temperature change of 1.6F won’t do any harm.” Red herring. Part of that change is natural as any skeptic will tell you. #16 “global cooling in the last year”. nope, the real skeptic argument is that global cooling to offset a decade of CO2 global warming occurred in one week. #17 “the sun” Already addressed on another thread. Your claim that solar based warming had to stop in 1950 is wrong. #18 “we have time” Yes a good skeptic argument, but your answer is awful. You claim the last time CO2 was 500ppm the seas were 70 meters higher. You inadvertently support the skeptic argument that we have time since at 1 inch per decade we have 27,000 years to go. #19 “scientists cannot be trusted” Your answer is I’m a great scientist, other scientists are great, blah blah blah. Have you heard of climategate?
#20. “looking for additional arguments” You claim in this section that you have scoured the web for anti-AGW arguments. As I detail above, you have not. You looked at a couple sites that you thought were skeptic, one was likely skepticalscience.com which contains almost zero skepticism of CAGW arguments. Then you mention Svensmark and dismiss it with your trademark combination of hand wave and red herring. Specifically you say it is not well supported and not well understood. Then you claim that skeptics want to delay action on AGW because of Svensmark. That’s mostly a red herring since Svensmark is not a major player in alternative explanations of warming, nor in suggesting that sensitivity is low, or any other major skeptical arguments.
So in summary, your 20-odd points in chapter 3 are only partly irrelevant and where they are relevant you provide thin counterarguments that are frequently incorrect and designed to appeal to people who don’t know any better. That is basically the purpose of your book, to propagandize using various well known pro-CAGW talking points and a few of your own. Where you occasionally provide a good explanation for a skeptic myth it stands out because it so rare.
To Anthony Watts,
As I think you know, I have no problem with your comment policies. I am glad, actually, that some of my comments do not get through. At the same time, if you look back at this thread you will see that this little detour that we are now concerning with was set in motion by a comment posted by your moderator who said to me “You (your replies) have NOT been cut, killed, trimmed, or eliminated” We both know that that is not at all true and I pointed that out.
Also, further back in this threat, you will find that one of your trusted regularsl, Mr. RichardsCourtney, announced his entrance with a mindless and personal insult to me. And, of course, he continues to lob them continuously – that apparently is his role at WUWT and I know and accept that. One your primary objectives here is to influence public opinion and that can be done with silver-tongued snake oil sailmen, as well as legitimate scientists. But please don’t ask me to hold any respect at all for the former who pretend to be the latter.
Nevertheless, I am still here – I am used to being the bullseye for the AGW “contrarians” of the world. Have a look, for example, at a past website called “climateclash.com” where I battled every wingnut in the country, it seemed, on the subject of climate change. If you don’t want a professional scientist who can hand it back in kind on your threads, I can understand that. I was also kicked out of climatechange.com for that difficiency and in that case, did not mind at all – climate class was a distinctly low class and rediculously rigged show trial. I have held a higher regard for WUWT, even though I am also often referred here in the same insulting terms by some of your participants without admonisher issued to them.
Words will never hurt me and I’ll also try harder to not use them in kind on some of your sensitive participants, as you request. I know that one should treat others as you would have them to treat you and not as they treat you. Will try harder to remember that.
Eric
To D Boehm,
Concerning your last long post on a different subject, would you please first finish the business we were on – before changing the subject. That is, where is a reference in support of your claim that natural emissions are about 750,000 gtons and not closer to 200 gtons as I thought.
Eric
ericgrimsrud says:
“Concerning your last long post on a different subject, would you please first finish the business we were on…”
No. I did what you wanted. I posted the link you asked for. Twice. But you have never responded to essentially the same post a few days ago that I just posted again. Now it’s your turn to answer a question: why has CO2 had no empirically measurable, testable effect on temperature since the LIA? If you believe it has, then post a verifiable chart showing unequivocally that ΔCO2 causes ΔT — like the chart I posted showing the true cause and effect: that CO2 lags T on all time scales.
Also, still waiting for you to admit you were wrong when you wrote:
“I learned that (Richard Courtney) has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science.”
What you ‘learned’ was that you were wrong. I posted peer reviewed proof. Man up and admit it. Then I will be happy to respond. Unlike alarmists, I can support my position, while you try to hide out and change the subject.
Then you owe eric1skeptic a response.
To D Boehm, So the following was how you posted the link to your source:
“D Böehm says:
October 6, 2012 at 5:26 pm
I posted the link. Click on it. The IPCC is the ‘authority’.”
Would someone on WUWT tell me what I am supposed to “click on” here. Please look back at teh actual post placed at 5:26 pm. Sorry I can’t figure out how to get to the reference that Mr Boehm promised to provide as related in our recent discussions above. Some help please from anyone ?
On the other hand, someone knows D Boehm better than I could clue me in on how this gentleman typically does business at WUWT. If, for example, he tends to run away from his commitments and previous statements, that would explain things. I don’t know the man or how he operates. I might be learning, however, and that knowledge will be useful in dealing with him (or not) in the future.
ericgrimsrud, HERE IS THE LINK. Sheesh! Third time.
Now, answer the question. And man up and admit you were wrong.
To all, I just read D Böehm’s latest and see that he has no intention of providing that source concerning his claim that natural emissions of CO2 are about 750,000 gtons / year. If he had one, of course, he would be glad to show it and thereby prove me wrong, wrong, wrong as he claimed above. So why do you support he is longer willing to reveil his source?
” October 6, 2012 at 7:36 pm
ericgrimsrud says:
“Concerning your last long post on a different subject, would you please first finish the business we were on…”
No. I did what you wanted. I posted the link you asked for. Twice.”
OK and again can someone show me how to find that post? He then chances things with:
“But you have never responded to essentially the same post a few days ago that I just posted again. Now it’s your turn to answer a question: why has CO2 had no empirically measurable, testable effect on temperature since the LIA? If you believe it has, then post a verifiable chart showing unequivocally that ΔCO2 causes ΔT — like the chart I posted showing the true cause and effect: that CO2 lags T on all time scales.”
Since I have never made such claims here at WUWT, Mr. Boehm must be confusing me with someone else. I have no response, of course, because I never made any statement of this sort.
Then he adds,
“Also, still waiting for you to admit you were wrong when you wrote:
“I learned that (Richard Courtney) has no demonstratable background in science, in general, and certainly no record of contribution to climate science.” What you ‘learned’ was that you were wrong. I posted peer reviewed proof. Man up and admit it. Then I will be happy to respond. ”
OK I’ll admit that my search for Mr. Courtney’s research accomplishments failed to review the paper Mr. Boehm referred to, While I therefore appologise that omission, I had also repeatedly ask Mr. Courtney to help me find his resume and record of accomplishments in science and climate change. He refuse to so I was left to myself to dig thing out. Apparently I did not try quite hard enough and for that I applogize. By the way if anyone is interested in finding the resumes of other scientists, one can usually get to the compete resumes with a simple Google search . I don’t know why it was so much more difficult in the case of Mr. Courtney.
There I have “Manned up” so now Mr. Boehm will be “happy to respond” (provides he does not add additional conditions before he “Mans up”)
So I am looking forward to that response and this time please provide a real link on which I will be able to “click”.
(Reply: The link has been posted several times. Your duplicitous responses are noted. — mod.)
Dear Eric G., I thought your apology for addressing me as pushbunny instead of bushbunny, being down under was priceless!. Thanks I will remember this and I do accept you apology, although I wasn’t asking for one. This poster is a skillful propagandist for the alternative theory. I’ve seen it happen in political agendas. I remember one person who told me while handing out leaflets for the Greens party, ‘I have a Ph.D in Science U Know!’ I replied then you have heard of the RWP and Mini Ice Age and the Medieval Warm Period. He replied, “These have not been proven yet?” What!!!!. And so it goes on, and on, and you feel like banging your head on a brick wall. Be warned that is their objective. Probably being paid too, where as we are not! Change the subject Eric G. It’s boring.
Hallelujah,
Mr. Boehm just sent me a link that worked. So what does it say?
It says that in the 90’s the natural emission of CO2 were 770,000 million tons. That is 770 billion tons or 770 gtons. Changing this from weight of CO2 to weight of carbon (x 12/46) we get about 200 gtons of carbon.
You will recall that I had claimed that natural emission of carbon were about 200 gtons and Mr. Boehm had claimed that is was 750,000 gtons. What say you Mr. Boehm? Perhaps there is yet another information source you were thinking of – this one says the same as all of mine.
Some trolls and also legitimate posters especially during the American elections, and Australian elections, are paid to combat negative opinions on their chosen candidate and positive ones on their other sides nominee or even invent some.
So the more he posts the more he gets paid, that is why he repeats himself. He is trying to promote debate making negative accusations etc., for purely financial reasons and not genuine scientific ones. If he gets $10 a post, just think how much he has earned so far.
grimsmud,
OK, troll, answer my question. And man up, and admit that you were WRONG about Richard Courtney.
Eric1sceptic,
Thanks for reading so much of my book and making extensive comments. I will go through all of them as time allows.
Since you seem to be interested in the basic science, I would also be interested in your feedback on my short course. It is still in rough form and I plan to refine it a bit soon. Any detailed suggestions you might have at this time would be appreciated.
One detailed point for discussion now – I have never used the term, CAGW and am not sure what it should stand for. First, given the unknowns and uncertainies of climate we don’t know so much about exactly what will occur and when as we do know that something will and already is occurring. My goal is to do what I can to prevent AGW from becoming CAGW – and I don’t even know if that is possible. Some very good scientists think that CAGW and worse is ahead and that the only thing we have going for us at the moment is the thermal inertia of the Earth. The degree to which AGW will occur is, indeed, the big question and concerning it the most uncertain variable and the only one Man has any control over is how much more of our fossil fuels will be burn.
Just between you me and the fence post I think you’re a bats**t crazy left wing nutter. But in your defense that is what I get from your posts, not from you personally. For all I know you are not bats**t crazy off line. By your own admission you are a left wing nutter, though.
While one might expect Mr. Boehm to be thinking about how to respond to his now apparently false claim concerning the natural emissions of CO2, instead he writes:
“D Böehm says: October 6, 2012 at 9:27 pm
grimsmud,
OK, troll, answer my question. And man up, and admit that you were WRONG about Richard Courtney.”
First note how he refers to me and note also how he refured to me in our previous argument concerning the natural emissions of CO2. (by the way what is a troll?). Mr. Boehm does not seem to be a very nice person. He told me repeatedly in our argument about natural source that I was “wrong, wrong, wrong, as usual” and then says nothing when we find you that he was the one that was wrong by a factor of about 1,000! While do not expect to receive an apology from a man of ilk, he again asks me again here admit that I was wrong about RichardCourtney.
No problem when one is wrong one should admit it. And again I now admit that I was wrong in saying that I did not think RC had any evidence of a scientific background. Turns out he does have his name on a paper dealing with climate change and I apologized for my omission of this detail. I simply did not know about that paper. Again, I had repeatedly asked RC to point me to his full resume but never did get or find one via a Google search.
In spite of this forgettable interaction with Mr Boehm, one always comes away with something learned. In this case, I have been encouraged to think that my own limited understanding of natural versus man-caused CO2 emissions are actually pretty good and about three orders of magnitude better than those of another “scientific expert” who holds forth at WUWT much more frequently than I.
From ericgrimsrud on October 6, 2012 at 9:09 pm:
Consult a good Periodic Table. Use 12 for Carbon, 16 for Oxygen.
Carbon Di-oxide
12 + 2(16)
= 12 + 32
=44
Use 12/44 (or 3/11) for the ratio, not 12/46. Yields 210 Giga-Tonnes (GT) Carbon from 770 GT CO₂, not 200 GT C.
Ericgrimsrud
You comment that DBoehm did not provide a link to back up his claims of co2. With respect he did, for example the word ‘wrong’ here upthread contained the link
“Wrong, as usual. Grimsrud misunderstands even the most basic facts. Human emissions are only around 3% of the total of about three quarters of a million gtons. And that ratio is the same number whether you’re measuring CO2 or ‘carbon’.
Forgive me for saying this but you appear to be a somewhat abrasive character on line, (although no doubt delightful in real life) This is possibly why you get a certain amount of on line abuse. For example, I am known for being polite but my very reasonable questions to you about the ozone layer was lobbed back with a heavy topspin of unpleasant sarcasm. Perhaps if you were more even handed other commenters would tone down their responses.
So that I know where we are with you historically, and can discuss matters from a mutually agreed platform, would you agree that studies show that the temperatures have been rising since the start of the instrumental record 350 years ago? I wrote about it most recently here;
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/14/little-ice-age-thermometers-historic-variations-in-temperatures-part-3-best-confirms-extended-period-of-warming/
I noted that CET was a reasonable proxy for ‘global’ temperatures in my much longer article here;
http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/
The sharp drop in CET over the last decade is noted by the Met office here;
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/
Separately I have conducted personal research at such places as the Met Office Archives in Exeter and The Scott Polar Institute in Cambridge whereby I can look at original documents. This is augmented by patiently sifting through other sources such as the library of our Norman Cathedral here in Exeter. This all demonstrates the reality of the MWP, a subsequent decline and a slow rise in temperatures again in recent decades to levels that are not unique.
It appears evident that such measurements as GISS from 1880 merely noted the continuation of the warming trend and didn’t identify the start of it and the long slow thaw precedes large scale emissions of co2. Can we agree on that and then you can tell me why the past has no relevance to the future. Thank you
Tonyb
ericgrimsrud says:
October 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm
“And again I now admit that I was wrong in saying that I did not think RC had any evidence of a scientific background. Turns out he does have his name on a paper dealing with climate change and I apologized for my omission of this detail. I simply did not know about that paper. ”
You followed the AGW’ers ordinary tactics and attacked the man, instead of discussing science. And got caught. And admits it. Very good.
Will you please change your ordinary AGW tactics from now on? Please don’t embasass us Norwegians any further.
ericgrimsrud says:
October 6, 2012 at 10:20 pm
“And again I now admit that I was wrong in saying that I did not think RC had any evidence of a scientific background. Turns out he does have his name on a paper dealing with climate change and I apologized for my omission of this detail. I simply did not know about that paper. ”
So the only people who you will “allow” to discuss climate issues, analyze problems with theories and exaggeration and wild speculation (by the IPCC or any other body) about “climate change” are so-called “scientists” who have a published paper in your approved list of journals with your approved editors and pal-reviewers?
I know and daily work with heat transfer, fluid flow, thermodynamics, CAD and finite element analysis and modeling, materials engineering, nuclear physics and plasma circulations and neutron physics and nuclear reactor power rates, thermal and electric generation, magnetic fields and and gamma fluxes, heat absorption (by radiation, convection, and conduction) and thermal insulation design and support. Plus structural engineering, electrical engineering, mechanical engineering, and welding and materials engineering applied to electric controls and pipe design, fabrication, testing, and repair. People rely on my experience and decisions for their plant operations, plant safety, and plant reliability.
But you do not consider “me” qualified to read a paper or press release from your NSIRDC/NOAA/NASA-GISS self-funding press agents, and calculate the reflectivity of light from ice and rough water at various latitudes, and then subtract the energy lost from evaporation?
That’s algebra. Geography. And your NASA and sea ice “scientists” are dead wrong.
One has to read French climatologist Marcel Leroux to undertand that there is simply no “Hadley Cell” or “Polar Cell”, but only a global circulation system involving polar Mobile Highs originating from the poles and traveling towards the equator. Failing to understand that leads to non-sense studies.
ericgrimsrud says:
October 5, 2012 at 1:58 pm
“Then in the 70′s and 80′s a distinct and severe decrease was noted to occur in the springtime. It was only then in about 1985 that high elevation aircraft began to fly though the region and determine where exactly the ozone loss was occurring. So it was the simpler ground level measurments from the 50′s to the present that suggest that the present condition constitutes a change from the past. ”
James Lovelock;
“I have seen this happen before, of course. We should have been warned by the CFC/ozone affair because the corruption of science in that was so bad that something like 80% of the measurements being made during that time were either faked, or incompetently done.”
From here;
http://tomnelson.blogspot.no/2010/03/james-lovelock-on-value-of-sceptics-and.html
Do’t think you should put too much into the measurements back then…..
ericgrimsrud
“Nevertheless, because it is an interesting thought, please do point me to literature that shows how ozone holes can occur via mechanisms other than that presently operative in our Antarctic.”
Eric your disingenuousness is palpable. I offered such an explanatikon: that the O2 is paramagnetic and attracted to a magnet and ozone is diamagnetic and repelled from a magnetic field (like the poles). You gave a quickly looked up Wiki statement about unpaired electrons to demonstrate to me that you knew what paramagnetism was and then offered:
“I don’t get the part about a diamagnetic substance being “pushed away” by a magnetic field.”
You thought it would be too weak. To complete your freshly acquired grade school education about magnetism, you should know that a magnetic field causes a diamagnetic substance to set up an opposite field, thereby being repulsed. Aluminum, for example can be levitated above a mag field:
“The repulsion force produced on the diamagnetic aluminum by the electromagnetic field pole was strong enough to be felt by hand (as it levitated above the mag- added by G Pearse).”
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=diamagnetics%20demonstration&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA
I should add that strong magnetic storms from the sun probably also shift O3 around. Now if I have judged you correctly from your previous response, you will dance around this explanation, show off what will again be clearly more newly acquired simplistic knowledge of magnetics. Man, you have been an expert in the ozone hole for 40 years and have been teaching innocent students chemistry and this diamagnetic phenomenon is something you learned from me today and brushed it off in the manner of an uneducable mind set in concrete. Trust me, the fact that O3 is diamagnetic has an effect, but I know it won’t have an effect on you.