Guest essay by Steve Goreham
Originally published in The Washington Times
On Sunday, Death Valley temperatures reached 129oF, a new June record high for the United States, according to the National Weather Service. Temperatures at McCarran International Airport in Las Vegas reached 117oF, tying the previous record set in 1942 and 2005. National Geographic, NBC News, and other media ran stories attributing the Southwest heat wave to human-caused global warming. But history shows that today’s temperatures are nothing extraordinary.
The United States high temperature record was set in 1913, measured in Death Valley on July 10th. Twenty-three of the 50 US state high temperature records date back to the decade of the 1930s. Seventy percent of state high records were set prior to 1970.
The alarm about climate change is all about one degree. According to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), global surface temperatures have increased about 1.3oF (0.7oC) since 1880. Proponents of the theory of man-made warming claim that this is evidence that man-made greenhouse gases are raising global temperatures.
One degree over more than 130 years isn’t very much. In contrast, Chicago temperatures vary from about -5oF to 95oF, about 100 degrees, each year.
When compared to this 100-degree annual swing, the rise in global temperatures since the 1800s is trivial, captured by a thin line on a graph.
Nevertheless, NOAA repeatedly raises concern about global temperatures. The NOAA website proclaims that “May 2013 global temperatures were the third highest on record.” This sounds alarming unless one understands that “on record” refers to the thermometer record, which only dates back to about 1880.
Climate changes over hundreds and thousands of years. Data from ice cores show several periods during the last 10,000 years that were warmer than today, including the Roman Climate Optimum at the height of the Roman Empire and the Medieval Warm Period, when the Vikings settled southwest Greenland. The warm and cool eras since the last ice age were due to natural climate cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions. The “on record” period that NOAA references is only a tiny part of the climatic picture.
Global average temperature is difficult to measure. The data sets of NOAA are an artificial estimate at best. They start with a patchwork collection of thousands of thermometer stations that inadequately cover the globe. Station coverage of the oceans and of the far northern and southern regions is inconsistent and poor. To cover areas without thermometers, averaging estimates are made from surrounding stations to try to fill in the holes.
In addition to coverage problems, gauge measurements often contain large errors. Man-made structures such as buildings and parking lots absorb sunlight, artificially increasing local temperatures. Cars, air conditioners, and other equipment generate heat when operating, creating what is called an Urban Heat Island effect.
The accuracy of the US temperature record is questionable. Meteorologist Anthony Watts, creator of the science website WattsUpWithThat, led a team of volunteers that audited more than 1,000 US temperature gauge stations from 2007 to 2011. Over 70 percent of the sites were found to be located near artificial heating surfaces such as buildings or parking lots, rated as poor or very poor by the site rating system of the National Climatic Data Center, a NOAA organization. These stations were subject to temperature errors as large as 3.6oF (2oC).
Simple problems can throw off gauge readings. Temperature stations are louvered enclosures that are painted white to reflect sunlight and minimize solar heating. As the station weathers and the paint ages, gauge stations read artificially high temperatures. A study published last month found that after only five years of aging, temperature stations will record a temperature error of 2.9oF (1.6oC) too high. This is greater than the one degree rise in the last 130 years that NOAA is alarmed about.
In addition to temperature measurement error, NOAA makes “adjustments” to the raw temperature data. According to a 2008 paper, after raw thermometer data is received, a computer algorithm “homogenizes” the data, adjusting for time-of-observation, station moves, thermometer types, and other factors to arrive at the official temperature data set.
This sounds good until one looks at the adjustment that NOAA has added. For temperature data from 1900 to 1960, very little adjustment is added. But after 1960, NOAA adds an upward adjustment to the thermometer data that rises to 0.5oF (0.3oC) by the year 2000. This gives a whole new meaning to the phrase “man-made global warming.”
Heat waves are real just as climate change is real. But a heat record in Las Vegas or one degree of temperature rise since the Civil War is not evidence that humans should be overly alarmed when other factors have been shown to be contributors of the same or greater magnitude than the posited temperature rise from greenhouse gas emissions.
Steve Goreham is Executive Director of the Climate Science Coalition of America and author of the new book The Mad, Mad, Mad World of Climatism: Mankind and Climate Change Mania.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Davidmhoffer
you said,
davidmhoffer says:
July 3, 2013 at 11:20 pm
average insolation at earth orbit ~ 1342 w/m2
accounting for day/night divide by 2 average is 671
accounting for curvature of earth divide by 2 is 335.5
acounting for albedo, multiple by 0.7 is 234.9 w/m2
Gives an effective black body temperature of 253.7 degrees K
————–
david, you are way way way out of your league here:
your simple, divide by 2 figures are incorrect.
The corret equation is found here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090408183916AASBK1D
I found the values you need to use by looking in one of my textbooks.
solar constant = 1,368 Watts per squared meter
Stefan-Boltzmann constant = 5.67*10^-8 Watts per squared meter Kelvin to the fourth
average global albedo = 0.3
Let’s plug in the numbers.
T = ((1,368 W/m² / (4 * 5.67*10^-8 W/m²K^4)) * (1 – 0.3))^(1/4)
≈ 255°K
Since you refused to do it, let ME do it for you
VENUS
average insolation at venus 2,578W/m^2
Albedo is .75
Therefore:
T = ((2,578 W/m² / (4 * 5.67*10^-8 W/m²K^4)) * (1 – 0.75))^(1/4)
=230 C
But Venus is 460C
so why is venus so much warmer than its blackbody???
the same reason earth is slightly warmer than its blackbody!
the greenhouse effect!
And finally,
you show that the calculation of blackbody radiation shows the temperature that the IPCC uses and then decide that the 3.7 W/m^2 still only raises temperature by .6 even though you show that your calculation is incorrect there.
jai mitchell,
You’re in way over your head. The greenhouse effect does not explain the temperature of Venus.
Great, everybody, let’s all play ‘scientist” and next time you are really, really sick, I’ll play “doctor”!.
Re: Assertions about storm frequency…this just in ” March 2013,
How many extreme storm surges like that from Hurricane Katrina, which hit the U.S. coast in 2005, will there be as a result of global warming? New research from the Niels Bohr Institute show that there will be a tenfold increase in frequency if the climate becomes two degrees Celcius warmer. The results are published in the scientific journal, Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, PNAS.”
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2013/03/19/1741861/five-katrinas-a-decade-warming-projected-to-boost-extreme-storm-surges-ten-fold/
O, and BTW: we are on track for 4 deg C increase within a a decades time frame. Shall we dither a bit more? Take issue with this or that issue? It is like discussing brands of tourniquets in front of a man with a severed jugular.
j mitchell;
your simple, divide by 2 figures are incorrect.
The corret equation is found here:
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090408183916AASBK1D
I found the values you need to use by looking in one of my textbooks.
solar constant = 1,368 Watts per squared meter
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. That is the exact same equation! Dividing by 2 twice is exactly the same as dividing by 4 which is what the equation you linked to does. P varying with T^4 is exactly the same as T varying with P ^1/4. The formula you linked to is IDENTICAL to the math I provided. The only difference is that the solar constant I used is slightly different. Use yours if you want, the effect of adding 3.7 w/m2 will be nearly the same.
What you’ve demonstrated is that you are so inept that when looking at two identical equations with their terms arranged differently, your math skills are insufficient to understand that they are in fact the same. You should be completely embarrassed at how over your head you’ve just demonstrated yourself to be.
jai mitchell,
davidhoffer is right. You need to get up to speed.
So does jfreed27, who baselessly opines:
“O, and BTW: we are on track for 4 deg C increase within a a decades time frame. Shall we dither a bit more?”
O & BTW: since the planet has stopped warming for at least 16 years now, where did you pull that ridiculous prediction out of? How can we be “on track” for something that is clearly not happening at all? Care to make a small wager on your “4ºC within a decade” belief?
[Oh. ‘thinkprogress’. Nevermind.]
dbstealey says:
July 5, 2013 at 8:22 pm
jai mitchell,
davidhoffer is right. You need to get up to speed.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Perhaps I was too harsh on him? Perhaps he need not be embarrassed, but whatever education system graduated him from grade school should be? That math isn’t even calculus, it is just plain algebra. Not even difficult algebra. Don’t they teach algebra in high school anymore?
Davidmhoffer
The difference is that you tried to infer the measured incoming radiation by using average temperature, neglecting the greenhouse effect of the earth’s temperature and tried to use this to determine what the doubling of CO2 would bring to temperature increases from a strictly blackbody analysis. You used 288K when the right equation produces 255K. You then applied the difference in warming as a ratio to the higher number as an attempt to “proove” that the IPCC was somehow incorrect and you had figured it all out. That was the whole point of your post. Which, apparently, you now agree is completely wrong. That the correct analysis using the correct equation produces 1.2K of warming for blackbody increase of 4 Watts/meter^2.
not the .6K that you previously made up in your own conspiracy-theory laden mind.
Then DBStealy tried to show that there is a reasonable theory that disproves the entirety of interplanatary study, including millions of dollars of satellite missions and direct observations of Venus, somehow disproving the overwhelming scientific evidence and producing a quack theory that says there is no greenhouse warming on venus.
when the reality is quite different (as is most things on this site).
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/abs/10.1175/1520-0469(1972)029%3C1531%3AIRHACI%3E2.0.CO%3B2
“We especially consider the region between 90 and 130 km, where the equilibrium temperature is largely controlled through infrared absorption and emission by vibrational-rotational bands of CO2. . .The time scale for radiative damping in the cooling-to-space approximation varies from 30 earth days at 65 km to 1/20 of an earth day at 120 km.. .. .The calculated thickness between the 100-mb level and the level of the ionospheric peak differs by less than 1 km from that observed during the Mariner 5 radio occultation experiment”
————–
You know, I don’t mind people making stuff up. if it wasn’t so outrageously foolish, like saying that tornados can’t destroy a house if you leave the doors and windows open, cause I read it on Watts up with that, so we don’t need to go down into the storm cellar.
This is very serious business and your kooky pet theories and conspiracy theories equate you with the flat earth society.
For example,
the valueof 4 in the denominator isn’t because of a “2 times for being a sphere” and “2 times for day and night” it comes from the equation of the surface area of a sphere (4pi^2). . .again, you are just making stuff up.
for a clear definition of the terms and derivations go here, if you can read it and understand it, which I doubt. . .
http://www.mathaware.org/mam/09/essays/Radiative_balance.pdf
For a no‐feedback case where we perturb CO2 and leave other variables constant (Held and Soden 2000),
15
This becomes,
16
Where comes from the slope of Stefan‐Boltzmann. A doubling of CO2 with no feedbacks raises the Earth’s temperature by about 1 °C. This equation can be further extended with feedbacksas the temperature and OLR change with water vapor, clouds, etc.
jai mitchell says:
With “no-feedback”?? That is called a fudge factor, and as we see it is backed up by mitchell’s confirmation bias.
And as a matter of fact, water vapor has been declining, directly contrary to the alarmist predictions. Also, OLR has been acting contrary to alarmist predictions, too. [Charts provided upon request.]
I further note that jai mitchell ignores the fact that despite the steady rise in CO2, global temperatures have not responded as predicted by the climate alarmist cult.
And jfreed27 says:
“How many extreme storm surges like that from Hurricane Katrina, which hit the U.S. coast in 2005, will there be as a result of global warming? New research from the Niels Bohr Institute show that there will be a tenfold increase…&blah, blah, etc.”
Katrina hit at exactly the right place to ensure maximum damage. But as meteorologist Dr Ryan Maue shows, hurricane activity has been declining over the past 3+ decades.
jfreed27 and jai mitchell suffer from the same ‘say anything’ cherry-picking mentality, where confirmation bias rules their belief system. But the fact is that global warming has stopped, and not just recently. Looking at the big picture, we see that exactly none of the alarmist predictions have come to pass. They have all been wrong. That is why they lack credibility: the planet has never done what climate alarmists consistently predicted would happen.
Perhaps Jai Mitchell can become the first recipient of the new Peter H. Gleick “Genius” Award for distinction as a useful idiot.
He’s been used to mop the floor so many times already and he still can’t (won’t) learn anything.
j mitchell;
You used 288K when the right equation produces 255K.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You just really don’t get it, do you? The effective black body temperature of earth is, using your solar constant, 255K. The surface temperature of earth is 288K, 33 degrees higher due to the greenhouse effect. The greenhouse effect changes the effective blackbody temperature of earth by zero. Doubling CO2 increases the blackbody temperature of earth by zero. It adds 3.7 w/m2 to earth SURFACE which is 288K and which gives an increase in SURFACE temperatures of about 0.68 degrees, NOT 1.0! You triumphantly rubbed my nose in what you say the correct equation should be, I invite you to use THAT equation and do the calculation yourself using your own equation. At 288K average surface temperature, what will an additional 3.7 w/m2 cause as an increase in temperature at the surface? Show your work.
One more try to edumacate a troglodyte:
IF you add 3.7 w/m2 to the average insolation of earth, the average effective black body temperature of earth would rise by 1 degree.
IF you add 3.7 w/m2 to the average greenhouse effect on earth, the SURFACE temperature of earth would rise by 0.68 degrees.
CO2 does NOT raise the effective black body temperature of earth, but it DOES raise the surface temperature of earth.
The IPCC calculation is correct. It just has nothing to do with the the surface temperature of the earth. And they tell you that in their own documentation:
Surface forcing has quite different properties than RF (radiative forcing) and should not be used to compare forcing agents (see Section 2.8.1).
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
jai:
Wow… just… wow.
I mean, wow.
You don’t even understand the math of “your side”, the anti-science Bad-Science alarmist side. Even their most incorrect grant seekers wouldn’t make the ridiculous and completely incorrect and irrelevant claims you’ve made on this thread alone.
And yet, you’re still name calling your intellectual superiors.
Apparently this is the kind of entertainment only some people appreciate. I would say more but I was taught not to make fun of the mentally handicapped.
CodeTech;
You don’t even understand the math of “your side”
>>>>>>>>>>
That’s probably the most frustrating thing about the debate. In order to have a meaningful discussion with the average warmist, you first have to explain THEIR side of the argument to THEM.
jesse fell says:
July 4, 2013 at 10:38 am:
” If I have been “manipulated” by anyone, it’s been by Joseph Fourier, John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius, G.S. Callendar, Charles Keeling, ”
You admit you have aligned yourself with people on one side of a debate, and then choose to defend their “opinions”. It is NOT possible to engage you, any more than I could go to a Raiders game and try to convince them to love the Patriots.
You’re are not worth listening to, or hearing from because you are a self described ideologue with no ability to seek truth.
jm;
for a clear definition of the terms and derivations go here, if you can read it and understand it, which I doubt. . .
http://www.mathaware.org/mam/09/essays/Radiative_balance.pdf
>>>>>>>>>>>>
LOL. Oh I understand it. I’ve read it several times. If YOU understood it you would recognize that I’ve been trying to explain the exact same concepts you. You’ve clearly demonstrated the your limited algebra skills, you managed to post an equation which you claimed trumped mine and turned out to be the exact same equation. If you cannot recognize that simple mathematical truth, there’s no point explaining to you that this document says pretty much the same thing and that the problem lies with what you think it says rather than what it actually says.
Go away and study the physics. When you can correctly apply SB Law and the Ideal Gas Law properly outside of the climate debate, you can try that paper again and perhaps come back and bring some value to the discussion.
davidhoffer,
you most certainly do not understand the physics involved in calculating the warming associated with increasing the radiative forcing due to green house gasses!
Your calculations are sophomoric at best and outright deceptions at worst. Just another example of the incredible volumes of disinformation going on here (like Watts saying that if there was no sun then we would have no atmospheric pressure since temperature would go to near zero, using the ideal gas law as ‘proof’. when the reality is that atmospheric pressure would stay the same but the volume of air would go to near zero.)
you say things like “divide by 2 because of night and day”
and then when I show you the ACTUAL equation you say, “I knew that, I’ve been trying to tell you!”
and then you make up another lie saying that the difference in tropospheric radiative forcing temperature is going to be about 1C but your simplistic blackbody calc shows that it is really only going to be .63C
THEN you say that the IPCC even says that we shouldn’t infer tropospheric radiative forcing when calculating surface temepratures, as though they are agreeing with you. (when they are obviously not–since they state that a doubling of CO2 without feedbacks would yeild approximately 1C of warming not your calculated .63C.
In the end your armchair calculations are completely bogus, just like your conspiracy theories.
The actual calculation can be found here:
http://www.met.tamu.edu/class/atmo629/Summer_2007/Week%204/Water%20Vapor%20Feedback.pdf
see page 13
the value of this is determined by the work published in a REAL PEER REVIEWED SCIENTIFIC JOURNAL
http://www.gfdl.noaa.gov/bibliography/related_files/annrev00.pdf
see page 447.
I quote,
“The increase in opacity due to a doubling of CO2 causes Ze to rise by 150
meters. This results in a reduction in the effective temperature of the emission
across the tropopause by (6.5K/km) = (150 m) = 1 K, which converts to 4W/m2
using the Stefan-Boltzmann law.”
on the same page it states:
“The surface temperature is then simply surface temperaure = Emission (at mid tropopause) temperature + (lapse rate * change in emission height) , From this simple perspective, it is the changes in Ze, as well as in the absorbed solar flux and possibly in lapse rate, that we need to predict when we perturb the climate. As infrared absorbers increase in concentration, Ze increases, and Ts increases proportionally if lapse rate remains unchanged.”
————————-
so,
I guess you are right in a way. . .your calculation produced .63 of surface warming, and that was different from the values that are understood to be produced by the increase in CO2. Because you used a fake, made up, inappropriate, boarderline dunderkaph, simplistic ratio calculation using blackbody radiation of a sphere (even though you apparently don’t understand the terms).
you completely failed to use albedo in your demonstrative calculation and the actual reality of your calculation, the one you were trying to disprove was so completely different than the one you were showing that it can now only be assumed that you either know more than you are letting on and intentionally putting out fake arguments for (meanness? profit??) or really are just completely wrong and absolutely certain that you are right.
Jai. Regardless of how clever you think you are, and the rightness of your concensus science of AGW. The world refuses to warm and the increasing CO2 does not seem to be warming the world. Oddly and in spite of your beliefs the world is cooling, that must be very painful to a person with your ingrained belief system.
Perhaps it is time to think outside the square and ponder the roles of other imponderables that may include the sun, the cycles, and epicycles, for we are but babes in the woods about our knowledge of the earth. Open your mind to all possibilities, you have a very narrow focus on stuff that is truely irrelevant.
wayne,
is this the warming that you believe the world is refusing to do?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1999/mean:13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/mean:13/plot/gistemp/from:1999/mean:13/plot/rss/from:1999/mean:13/plot/uah/from:1999/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1999/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1999/trend/plot/rss/from:1999/trend
Anyone can cherry-pick the WFT database and produce an erroneous chart. But it directly conflicts with reality. Who should we believe? The planet? Or jai mitchell, eco-alarmist? Because they cannot both be right.
The fact is that as CO2 continues to rise, global temperatures continue to fall.
Really, even the NY Times, The Economist, and Phil Jones all agree that global warming has stopped. But jai mitchell is so far out in left field he cannot understand the concept.
Global warming has stopped, and not just recently. Deal with reality, or folks will conclude that you’re a complete wacko.