Feel free to discuss topics within the bound of regular discussions here at WUWT.
Regular programming will resume this weekend.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Feel free to discuss topics within the bound of regular discussions here at WUWT.
Regular programming will resume this weekend.
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Happy Thanksgiving.
The thread is frayed due to global warming. Don’t be a thread denier.
Off topic.
“Thread Denier” is a measure of fabric weight and strength.
[But, what is the calibrated measure of a “Thread Denier”? 0- 1.000? 10 to 1000? “A” to “F”? What is a “good” Thread Denier” and what is a “Bad” “Thread Denier”? Since resistance and stiffness and coarseness (and skepticism) are a “good thing” under some circumstances (work clothes and fan belts and backpacks) and a “bad thing” under other circumstances (lingerie, underwear, pajama’s) when a “Thread denier” and good thing, and when is it a bad thing?
a piece of string walks into a bar..the bartender says “I can’t serve you…youre a string”
the string [replies]…”no, Im a frayed knot”
He’s just spinning a old yarn, so don’t get roped in.
Don’t be ‘fraid of global warming.
Groan…… 🙂
From the picture it appears to be hemp. Looks like easy funding tying global warming to weaker rope.
It’s actually not string, it’s hawser and cable laid rope.
That is also the weaker dope.
Thread carefully.
The thread is magnified so much it looks like a rope. Kind of like the global temperature anomaly which is zoomed in so much it looks like a problem.
A colleague just emailed this item from HockeySchtick:
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/11/new-paper-finds-strong-evidence-sun-has.html
New paper finds strong evidence the Sun has controlled climate over the past 11,000 years, not CO2
A paper published today in Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics finds a “strong and stable correlation” between the millennial variations in sunspots and the temperature in Antarctica over the past 11,000 years. In stark contrast, the authors find no strong or stable correlation between temperature and CO2 over that same period.
The authors correlated reconstructed CO2 levels, sunspots, and temperatures from ice-core data from Vostok Antarctica and find
“We find that the variations of SSN [sunspot number] and T [temperature] have some common periodicities, such as the 208 year (yr), 521 yr, and ~1000 yr cycles. The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities. However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component. The millennial variation of SSN leads that of T by 30–40 years, and the anti-phase relation between them keeps stable nearly over the whole 11,000 years of the past. As a contrast, the correlations between CO2 and T are neither strong nor stable.”
Thus, the well known ~1000 year climate cycle responsible for the Holocene Climate Optimum 6000 to 4000 years ago, the Egyptian warm period ~4000 years ago, the Minoan warm period ~3000 years ago, the Roman warm period ~2000 years ago, the Medieval warm period ~1000 years ago, and the current warm period at present all roughly fall in this same 1000 year sequence of increased solar activity associated with warm periods.
We’re due for a prolonged period of cold. http://youtu.be/miIEAOAOgyI
And this guy (John L. Casey) says that we’re approaching a solar minimum (like the Dalton minimum) which will lead into a little (or big) ice age, Further, he says that there will be an increase in earthquakes.This stuff looks pretty convincing – perhaps Lief could comment?
Saying that we are due is a rather meaningless thing to say, unless you qualify it with a time frame. I.E. near future, a few hundred years, etc. The sun is a big driver of climate, but not so much with respect to sun spot cycles. The sun drives climate more through cyclic changes in Earth’s orbit, tilt, and precession.
When the earth warms over time, as is happening now, plants thrive. More abundance of plants on earth increase CO2. Also oceans give up CO2 when warmed by the sun and a warmer atmosphere.
hehehehe
That is a really good video above.
There is a part missing, however. Just how small these changes are in the net solar radiation received in the different parts of the Milankovitch cycles. There was a description of how small the changes are due to differing orbital circularity. But the same issue applies to all of the 3 (or 4) varying components of the Milankovitch cycles. They are all extremely small changes. Think of it like 200 kms. Pick a community 200 kms north of you and that is how much change occurs in solar radiation the cycles vary when all of them are combined together. Its really not enough to do anything.
Except when you live at 75N. Now 200 kms is the make or break factor in whether the snow melts out completely in the summer or not. Say your location is Eureka on Ellesmere Island. Now 200 kms difference in solar radiation in the summer means that your snow which normally melts out in early June doesn’t really get there until late August when the winter snows start to come back. If you live in Yellowknife at 62N, your snow still melts out completely in the summer regardless of where the cycle is. The sweet spot for the ice ages is 75N. Your snow on the ground or the sea ice in the bay either melts out completely in the summer or it doesn’t depending on Milankovitch. The ice ages start at 75N.
CO2 lags behind by 800 years or more. If you have 800 years of snow accumulation at 75N you have a growing glacier starting to move South and the ice-albedo feedback becomes a self-fulfilling loop that guarantees the ice will keep moving south. CO2 has no part in the ice ages at all.
I think it does have a part, in fact it is an obvious part. As ice grows, there is less and less plant life. Also there will be less vibrant plant life in unfrozen cooler areas near the ice. An ice age would have an affect on the amount of CO2 overall on planet.
Thanks for the link. Excellent presentation. Also the proposed outcome is testable.
That is an amazing co-incidence.
I have noticed that when the sun is closer, it is warmer.
And that’s not all:- Without fail, it is always hotter in the daytime than at night, where I live.
But maybe Australia is different?
Australia is different.
Earth will be at perihelion on Sat, 03 Jan 2015 at 22:37 PST
We of the upright part of Earth will be freezing our butts off.
OZ folk, being upside down and maybe inside out will be warmer.
All this is very odd and seems not related to Sun closeness.
As this requires more thought – I’ll open another beer.
Cheers.
Yup. Aphelion is summer in the northern hemisphere.
Sunrise, Sunset
Tmax, Tmin . . .
“Without fail, it is always hotter in the daytime than at night, where I live.”
Don’t know where you live, but that’s not always the case. I live about 80 miles north of Seattle. Last night it was in the 50s, today it will drop into the low 40s. It all depends on how the air masses move around. And, it’s supposed to be sunnier and colder this weekend.
xyzzy, explain the earthquakes, from someone who lives a mere 80km from the the edge of the Pacific plate.
Wait until Willis gets his hands on it
“The correlations between SSN and T are strong for some intermittent periodicities.”
Translation: The wiggles match!!
“However, the wavelet analysis demonstrates that the relative phase relations between them usually do not hold stable except for the millennium-cycle component.”
Translation: Except when they don’t.
I was going to make this a new post but since we are talking about wiggles.
The difference between RSS and RSS(land only) is small and hence, noisy but there seems to be a correlation. Just a coincidence that the wiggles come close or maybe even an effect on the measurement?
http://s5.postimg.org/v90b66cpz/RSS_TSI.jpg
very little information about how the statistical significance of the correlations was determined, only stating ‘Monte-Carlo’ methods against a red-noise background…there is no significance testing applied to that plot of the cross-correlation between the millennial components of SSN and T plotted. Considering the data are smoothed, and thus will display high levels of autocorrelation, it is entirely possible that the supposed correlations have arisen purely by chance and not from an underlying dynamical link
very little information about how the statistical significance of the correlations was determined, only stating ‘Monte-Carlo’ methods against a red-noise background…there is no significance testing applied to that plot of the cross-correlation between the millennial components of SSN and T plotted. Considering the data are smoothed, and thus will display high levels of autocorrelation, it is entirely possible that the supposed correlations have arisen purely by chance and not from an underlying dynamical link
I always liked Monte Carlo in principle. Someone had designed a game back around Y2k, and wanted me to analyze the distribution. Rather than doing it the IPCC way, I simply dealt out 200 hands and tabbed the results. Dead on and done in less than half the time, and “real” results.
The modeling guys don’t get that when you do these things from the bottom to to rather than top down, the slightest little inadvertent twitch plays statistical “crack-the-whip” with you results. It only works when you know all the factors. But when you don’t, only a top -down approach has a chance of making the grade.
Like I say, if you want to design an East-Front game, start with Heersgruppen and Glavcoms and work your way down. If you try to do it starting with Advance Squad Leader rules and a supercomputer, you are sunk before you start.
What are the mechanisms by which the sun affects climate? It is not the changes in total irradiance.
TSI varies by 0.1% so it isn’t doing it directly. It might have indirect effects that we don’t understand yet. Then there is the UV portion of TSI which varies so wildly that you doubt it is doing it because the climate is way more stable than that. So unless the oceans act as a huge buffer (which is possible).
Then you have all the other components of TSI and which ones are cancelling or reenforcing each other’s effects.
In short we’ve got a long way to go before we understand how the various components of TSI affect climate directly and once we’ve got that then we need to adjust for all the indirect. We’ll be at this for a while yet.
The UV varies widely, but is so low in magnitude that any effect on climate has to be indirect. For one example, as incoming UV varies, the depth of the ionosphere varies by nearly an order of magnitude. Is this sufficient to alter the black body temperature of the sky? Or increase the optical depth of the atmosphere? The ionosphere very tenuous, but I don’t think we really know all there is to know about its interaction with terrestrial radiation at these depths and temperatures.
Hugh, from what I have learned here as a layman, (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) is that the magnetic plasma in solar wind and CMEs prevent cosmic radiation from aiding cloud formation, which appears to drive surface temperatures in both ways depending on the types and altitudes of clouds. When the 10.7 cm flux is high (usually corresponding with a high sunspot count), clouds are not as easily formed. This is important data that is missing from the models as I understand it.
(Again, this is what I have “come away with” and I may need a reality check)
Also, my sources.
http://www.globalwarming-sowhat.com/warm–cool-/cosmic-rays–clouds-0500.pdf
http://rspa.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/464/2098/2575.full
Simply by being there and shining. Take away the sun and we all go into the long goodnight.
Still behind the paywall. Maybe someone will set it loose.
So how do you count sunspots in ice layers ? Do their images get frozen in time? Sounds like a proxy guess to me.
Beryllium-10 isotope concentrations
It doesn’t matter what controls the climate – what is important is who controls climate policy. It’s a knotty problem.
Gee, that’s surprising!
Not.
What is surprising is that actual climate science could get published in this benighted age of climate anti-science.
Australia’s equivalent of the BBC, the ABC, is up in arms about an efficiency cut for their whole organisation is if they should be exempt from the general public service cuts. The ABC is full of religious cult warmists. When the protests started towards the cuts, the protesters were the Greens, the Socialist Alliance and other assorted radicals and activists. Not one conservative nor sceptic was present.
No wonder they keep pumping out warming scares. Some of their finer efforts are that sceptics should be jailed or locked in mental hospitals or that this is the warmest decade since( The Little Ice Age not included) records are kept. The warmist Bureau of Meteorology conveniently cuts off warmer periods, so the do loop of warming prophesy and action reinforces itself.
I’ve always maintained the ABC should be spun free as a self funding cooperative, so that ABC can be supported by those who love them, rather than relying on unwilling taxpayers.
Everyone is moaning about the ABC cuts here, they keep saying the cut is AU$250million. It’s not. It’s AU$250m over 5 years, or AU$50m p/a. Out of an annual budget of AU$1.2BILLION! It is no way enough IMO, but it is a start.
Just the same for the unloved and untrusted BBC. Ex Labour minister Purnell – appointed to job by mate with no competitive recruitment process – claiming no further cuts to salaries can be made so unless more money comes from taxpayers a station might have to be closed. Plenty of management to be got rid off first.
Our much beloved Canadian Broadcorping Castration is the same, being the home base for Warmunists like David Suzuki. The AGW cult is firmly entrenched and the moderators and editors severely restrict any comments or presenters who have heretical views.
“Fred from Canuckistan” about the CBC. Yes but some of the better journalists still sneak through some interesting skeptic views on the old “Hot Type”, GeorgeS and Murphy’s rant about climategate is still a classic.
Yep, and here in Canada we have the CBC. Same ideology, same $1B+ budget. And they don’t respond to FOIA requests claiming that answering questions like the salary of the executives would put them at a “competitive disadvantage”.
Does anyone have an update on the Open Atmospheric Society?
CO2 – temperature disparity
On 16 September 2012, the Arctic sea ice extent set a record minimum, since satellite
recording began in 1979, of 3.41 million sq. kms. [1]. Two years later, on 22 September
2014, the Antarctic sea ice extent set a record maximum of 20.11 million sq. kms. [2].
These events corroborate the trends in the satellite lower tropospheric temperature for
the Polar regions, latitudes 60 degrees to 85 degrees, available at Dr Roy Spencer’s web site
[3]. The data extends from December 1978 until October 2014, a period of 36 years. It shows
the North Polar region having had a rate of rise in average monthly temperature of 0.044096
deg C pa. while the South Polar regions had a rate of fall in temperature of 0.00014 deg C pa.
In contrast, data from the station closest to the North Pole at Alert, NW Canada, [4]
provides average monthly atmospheric CO2 measurements with a trend of + 1.673 ppm pa for
the period July 1975 to Dec, 2013. Data from the NOAA station at the South Pole [5] gave
an almost identical trend of +1.672 ppm pa for the recording period December 1978 to 2013.
The North Pole satellite temperature trend equates to a rise in temperature of 1.54336
deg C in 35 years while the Alert trend line equates to a rise in CO2 of 58.57 ppm or 17.39%.
The South Pole satellite temperature trend equates to a drop in temperature of 0.0049 deg C
in 35 year period while the NOAA data trend line equates to a rise in CO2 of 58.52 ppm or
17.47%. Trend line calculations are quoted here because of the obvious difference in
seasonal variation between the North and South Poles due to the large differences in land area
and vegetation cover which generates those variations.
Here we have clear evidence that not only does increasing atmospheric CO2
concentration not cause warming of the Earth’s surface, as exhibited by the South Polar
region, but the surface temperature is independent of a change in CO2. The IPCC claim of
increasing atmospheric CO2 concentration causing global warming is patently false.
Sources:
[1] http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2012/09/arctic-sea-ice-extent-settles-at-record-seasonal-minimum/
[2] http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/2014/10/2014-melt-season-in-review/
[3] http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc_lt_5.6.txt
[4] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/cgi-bin/wdcgg/catalogue.cgi select files for Alert
[5] http://ds.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/wdcgg/pub/data/current/co2/monthly/spo789s00.noaa.as.fl.co2.nl.mo.dat
Bevan Dockery, B.Sc.(Hons), Grad. Dip. Computing, retired geophysicist.
formerly: Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists,
Member of the Australian Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Society of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the European Association of Exploration Geophysicists,
Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy.
Bevan,
That explains why you have it all wrong.
You have to have degrees in Political Science and/or Basket Weaving to be an authority on this topic.
Would that make you a Political Basket Case?
I’ve got a range of degrees to my name. I’must be an expert on every thing.
Kelvin
There’s a degree of truth to all of this.
I have a Masters in Occupy Wall Street (aka US History) from an Ivy League University.
It’s a start.
A Ivy League University that didn’t teach grammar.
🙂
REPLY: The power the moderator is unlimited. (Until it isn’t.) Our best power is the power of edit. ~ Evan
Sorry but Kelvins are kelvin, not degrees.
You have the Polar figures above for the relative rates of change of CO2 concentration and Satellite lower tropospheric temperature. Now look at the Tropics.
The NOAA/ESRL station in the central Pacific, Latitude 0 deg, Longitude -155 deg, is shown on the web site for the World Data Centre for Greenhouse Gases with values for the monthly mean CO2 between September 1987 and January 2012. The rate of change for the CO2 concentration in that time frame was 1.7176 ppm per year. The satellite lower tropospheric temperature for the Tropics: Ocean in that time had a rate of increase of 0.005992 deg C per year.
That is, the CO2 concentration increased at a greater rate, 2.7%, than either the South Pole or Alert, the North Pole proxy, yet the satellite temperature increased 40 times faster than at the South Polar region but was only 14% of the rate at the North Polar region.
Surely these figures totally discredit the IPCC pronouncements. Furthermore there remain many hundreds of data listings on the WDCGG web site that could be analysed.
Agreed, however have you noticed that lately the alarmists are pointing out the inconsistency in the North/South Pole Temp in relation to CO2 suggests the need for more funding for “their” research because climate change in geographical pockets could be much worse than global temperature changes. God help us. I don’t know how they continue to get published in Peer-reviewed journals when their new hypotheses are stem from flawed assumptions, or should I say: what they would call, concensus.
http://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/van-allen-probes-spot-impenetrable-barrier-in-space/#.VHfkh8lWhFc
Nasa reporting on a paper regarding a “sharp edged” barrier to high speed electrons found within the Van Allen Belt. The paper was based on data collected by the Van Allen Probe mission. Pretty cool.
That would put the barrier very close to the outer edge of the ionosphere, at times. We don’t know a lot. The science isn’t settled.
It seems that John Kerry was way ahead of us on this one. The Kerry model, made public in Jakarta, revealed the existence of such a barrier in his unique climate model. Noting, “The science is certain,” he continued,
” This is simple. Kids at the earliest age can understand this. Try and picture a very thin layer of gases – a quarter-inch, half an inch, somewhere in that vicinity – that’s how thick it is. It’s in our atmosphere. It’s way up there at the edge of our atmosphere.”
http://watts up with that.com/2014/02/20/a-must-read-why-secretary-of-state-john-kerry-is-flat-wrong-on-climate-change/
Perhaps NASA will dub it, “The Kerry layer.”
Excellent essay by Patrick Moore …
http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/patrick-moore-we-need-more-carbon-dioxide-not-less/
Reprinted from one of the few MSM outlets in Australia that are not alarmist driven.
Tallbloke continues to have one of the best climate sites on the internet.
Patrick Moore has excellent talking points: Optimum CO2 level is 1500 ppm, much more than current 400 ppm.
The whole debate is not about climate change. It is about money and politics. What should we do, if we were really worried about changing climate? What are the most effective actions? I would select nuclear power and capturing CO2 from big Chinese coal power plants. Quite the contrary to Obama.
Thanks for that Truthseeker and Tallbloke – excellent article from Patrick Moore. So much sense in so few words. Pure gems of common sense and great analytical insight at the same time (such as the four-reason breakdown/analysis of why climate change has become such a huge political force).
According to the latest scientific models, Happy Thanksgiving. We’ll need additional funding to show a link between a Happy Thanksgiving and increased CO2. ;-))
Yesterday, I announced that I had used a pseudonym to gain access to the blog HotWhopper, so that I could confront Sou (Miriam O’Brien) on her home field. See the post that follows. It includes links to an archived version of the post at HotWhopper.
http://moreonmiriamobrien.wordpress.com/2014/11/27/my-temporary-pseudonym-wuwt-fan-4-6-years-a-little-deception-went-a-long-way/
I’m considering writing a post about the experience.
I think the money quote is this one …
Links to denier sites redacted. See the comment policy. Sou
Says it all really.
“Links to denier sites redacted. See the comment policy. Sou”
Yes, that does say it all. Unfortunately she ain’t the only one who is afraid their readers will follow links to sites that disagree with “the party line”.
We should organize a spam party some day. Everyone login to Sou’s site and post your favorite skeptic link. They will all be different because we will all have different ones and if we get the source not just WUWT it would be impossible to block.
You are obsessed with her and kind of crazy.
Like a fox!
Otters like foxes ;-?
……. have you ever been to FurAffinity? 😛
Bob, I hope you do write up this episode and publish it. I know I would enjoy reading it
Would that William Connelly be that same one who was altering anything climate related on Wiki.
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/
I don’t get why you bothered
Bob, you really should try to let it, it is definitely not worth it and it is sad that you waste our energy on someone like this.
As I’m enjoying my morning fresh cup of grinds, please bear with me, as I’m not sure if my eyes deceive me. Just to confirm,as I take another sip; you spawned a faux username for use in the commentary of another blog, so you could boast about it on this blog, and further, to boast about how you are thinking of boasting about it again with a follow up boast about it?
How maniacal and deranged are you compadre? Is it possible that you actually( if I had an italics icon, I would make it rain italics all over the adverb actually) are under the impression that any learned soul cares about the whims of an uncredentialed hobbyist such as yourself?
Hmmm, but italics are possible.
I wonder what you would call someone who bites heads off of kittens? You keep going off like that at the drop of a hat and there are not many names left to throw at people.
That is so funny.
Good that you know what adverbs are though.
It’s very unpleasant for me to observe you doing this. This is the opposite of using the scientific method. Nobody expects you to be able to objectively see anything that another person attacking you is seeing or to not be bothered by it but responding in this manner is unprofessional.
It bothers me when people pretend to be somebody else or change their name at any forum for whatever reason. If they were banned or blocked from access at that forum by the moderator or person in charge, regardless of the reason, legit or not, then you should abide by that forums rules.
Sneaking in to confront the person that banned you is providing even more reason for them to justify banning you in the first place and will only provide additional negative fodder for the groups which come to that forum to share similar views and not have invasions from trolls.
“so that I could confront Sou (Miriam O’Brien) on her home field”
Bob,
You were being a troll.
Bob Tisdale,
ahhh man, not a wise move with the ‘wuwt-fan-4-6 years’ undercover stuff
John
What am I missing here? Hotwhopper and that mean old bat seem insignificant. Why waste the effort?
Amazing that Mosher and others never explain the futility of trying to reduce co2 emissions. As explained here from the joint 2014 Royal Society and National Academy of Science report.
They explain that we could stop all human co2 emissions today and we would not see any change in temp or co2 levels for thousands of years. Of course Flannery admitted the same thing to Andrew Bolt after he pressured him on the same question.
So why aren’t the public told about these admissions? IOW the mitigation of their so called CAGW is the greatest con and fraud in history.
https://royalsociety.org/policy/projects/climate-evidence-causes/question-20/
Mosher and others never explain the futility of trying to reduce co2 emissions.
I don’t think Mosh is taking that approach. He thinks the current record is accurate (I don’t) but even though he does, he is still a skeptic regarding the projections and that is where the IPCC/CMIP3&5train goes badly off the track.
We should maybe spend less time picking on the Mosh and more time on the critical issue of feedbacks. He can be gruff, but that’s just his way. He has steered me into areas I would not have gone, and has chipped away at my own confirmation bias. I therefore regard him as quite valuable.
So Evan to you believe that the RS and NAS point 20 is correct or not? Certainly ice cores sometimes show long lags for co2 following temp changes. But are those core records correct?
The lag for co2 was about 6,000 years when the Eemian dropped into the last interglacial according to ice cores. But is that correct, I’m just asking?
Sorry 2nd last line should read “dropped into the last glacial” GRRRR.
So Evan to you believe that the RS and NAS point 20 is correct or not? Certainly ice cores sometimes show long lags for co2 following temp changes. But are those core records correct?
This is what I think. (Until Next Tuesday, probably.) I think oceanic outgassing during the interglacials is ~100 ppm, bringing CO2 to ~270 – 280 ppm. in our current “sawed-off” specimin. Now, the interglacial swing is ~10C+, so that dwarfs the CO2 effect. The primary positive feedback in the MillieCycles is albedo, and that is a major (possibly THE major) effect. CO2 comes after the warming begins (as a result of warming) and produces a knock-on effect of ~1C and slows the cooling a bit when the next ice age begins.
This is coincides well with Arrhenius — without the positive feedbacks appended by the IPCC. But that is only lukewarming. In a way, the IPCC (AR5) and I have a meeting of the minds: Their low end is my high end.
Yeah but just think about, if we give stop all CO2 emissions today, after the regional and global famines, economic dispruptions leading to World wars, collapse of modern civilization and so on, we’ll be good as gold in 3-4 thousand years.
Alx why stop at 3 to 4 thousand years , why not 6,000 or more ? If it took the lag in co2 ( at the end of the Eemian) 6,000 years to start to drop from say 280ppm, then how much longer would it take to drop from 400ppm and even return to 280ppm and then 180ppm?
I thank Evan for his response but I’d hoped he and others might have given their views on the ice core accuracy etc. Of course if Murray Salby is correct then all bets are off.
Solar-Climate Link Since Mid-20th Century
By Girma Orssengo, PhD
28-Nov-2013
In this essay, I demonstrate the 11-year solar cycle signal in the HadCRUT4 dataset for the global mean temperature since mid-20th century shown in Figure 1, confirming the result of Camp and Tung ( 2007), which was done for the NCEP dataset.
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalTemperatureSunCorrelation.png
Figure 1. Correlation between sunspot number (sidc-ssn) and global mean temperature (hadcrut4gl) since mid-20th century. Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/mean:48/offset:0.08/from:1954/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1954/compress:12/scale:0.001
The most important point to note when trying to extract the 11-year solar cycle signal from the global mean temperature data is that they describe different quantities. The solar cycle is an instantaneous energy input into the earth but the global mean temperature represents an accumulated energy in the earth stored in its land and oceans. As a result, to find the solar signal in the global mean temperature data, its secular trend (accumulated energy) and its multidecadal oscillation (due to redistribution of heat within the ocean) must be removed. If these data are not removed, they give spurious divergence between global mean temperature and sunspot numbers after the 1970s.
The secular trend and the multidecadal oscillation in the annual global mean surface temperature data can be represented by the 25-year moving average as shown in Figure 2. The 25-year moving average curve has a coefficient of determination of 80% with the annual global mean surface temperature, which means it explains 80% of the variation.
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalTemperaturePattern.png
Figure 2. The climate signal (secular trend and multidecadal oscillation) can be represented by the 25-year (300 months) moving average of the annual global mean surface temperature. Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:300/plot/hadcrut4gl/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:300/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:300/offset:-0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.00001/offset:1.5
The data left after removing the 25-year moving average of the global mean temperature is given by the “isolate” function in WoodForTrees and it is in this data that the 11-year solar cycle signal is expected to be found. Figure 3 shows the global mean temperature data after removing its secular trend and multidecadal oscillation. Figure 3 also shows an interannual variability of ± 0.2 deg C in the annual global mean surface temperature since 1860, which indicates that ranking them based on variations less than 0.2 deg C is statistically meaningless. Figure 3 also shows that this variability was greater in the late 1870s than in the late 20th century.
To obtain the solar cycle signal, in addition to the secular trend and the muldtidecadal oscillation that must be removed from the global mean temperature using “isolate:300”, we need also remove the short term oscillation of ENSO variability, which has an average period of about 4 years. The ENSO should be removed because it is due to the distribution of heat within the earth system. This can be done by using the 4-year (48 months, “mean:48”) moving average of the data shown in Figure 3 to obtain the sought solar cycle signal in the global mean temperature shown in Figure 1.
Note that in the years with strong volcanic activity in the early 1990s in Figure 1, the global mean temperature decrease leads the decrease in solar activity. Note also that part of the increase in global mean temperature in each solar cycle shown in Figure 1 warms the oceans and the accumulated heat gives the globe its secular mean temperature trend.
How the increase in sunspot numbers indicates increase in solar energy has been described in Lean et al (1995):
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalTemperatureResidual.png
Figure 3. The global mean surface temperature data after removing its secular trend and its multidecadal oscillation. It is in this data that the 11-year solar cycle signal is expected to be found. Source: http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/isolate:300/compress:12/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.000001/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.000001/offset:0.2/plot/hadcrut4gl/scale:0.000001/offset:-0.2
Figure 1 shows the sun-climate link since mid-20th century that the IPCC claims the warming was anthropogenic. However, as this figure shows, the global mean temperature changes in PHASE with the 11-year solar cycle. In addition, the magnitudes of the global mean temperatures are approximately proportional to the sunspot numbers as indicated by the simultaneous peaks in the two variables. For example, both the peak global mean surface temperature & solar activity for solar cycle 20 in the 1970s were less than their corresponding values for cycle 19 in the 1960s. The probability of finding the correlation shown in Figure 1 by chance between the two datasets for the full five solar cycles 19 to 23, from 1954 to 2008, is about 0.1%.
As global mean surface temperature changes whenever solar activity changes, Figure 1 shows solar variability explains all of the 20th century warming. Note that this warming of the earth’s surface by about 0.12 deg C in each 11-year solar cycle is roughly cumulative (roughly because heat is lost from the surface to the colder water and land underneath and is used to warm the arctic), so instead of giving the cumulative 1.1 deg C in the nine solar cycles of the twenty century, it gives the observed secular global surface warming of only 0.6 deg C.
A convincing evidence for anthropogenic global warming would have been to see in Figure 1 a divergence between the global mean surface temperature and solar activity. However, this hasn’t not been the case. As a result, we may conclude that the cause of the observed global warming since mid-20th century was solar, not anthropogenic.
References:
Camp and Tung, 2007, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS. http://depts.washington.edu/amath/old_website/research/articles/Tung/journals/GRL-solar-07.pdf
Lean et al, 1995, GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS. http://www.geo.umass.edu/faculty/bradley/lean1995.pdf
Or it could be that what affects the Sun also affects Earth’s temperature. A change in the field which the Solar system occupies.
AWESOME!
Keeling et al (1995):
http://orssengo.com/GlobalWarming/Keelingetal1995.png
http://cio.eldoc.ub.rug.nl/FILES/root/1995/NatureKeeling/1995NatureKeeling.pdf
The Letter to Nature of Keeling ea. is about the year by year and decadal variation in the CO2 rate of change, not about the cause of the increase itself, which is clearly human according to him.
The 2-3 years variation is dominated by vegetation (mainly in the tropics) as result of El Niño and Pinatubo because of temperature and drought changes which influence the growth and decay of tropical forests and debris. That can be seen in the opposite fluctuations of the CO2 and δ13C rates of change, here up to 2012:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
The longer term rate of change seems to have periods of standstill and periods of increase with no clear connection to temperature, but the average didn’t change much over the past 100 years: still between 50-55% of the human emissions:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/dco2_em4.jpg
What?
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/derivative/scale:4/offset:-0.3/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1958
Robert, by adding an arbitrary bias and factor one can match any slope on earth with another slope, which doesn’t prove any causation.
the short term (2-3 years) variability in the CO2 rate of change is largely caused by the short term variability in temperature rate of change:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/klim_img/temp_dco2_d13C_mlo.jpg
That is the effect of temperature on the (tropical) forests as the opposite changes of CO2 and δ13C rate of change show, including the lag of CO2 changes after T changes, which remains for the derivatives.
But vegetation is a net sink of CO2 over longer term, thus not the cause of the CO2 increase over time or the slope in the CO2 derivative (which is zero to slightly negative for vegetation uptake).
Thus variability and slope are caused by different processes, where only the first is certainly temperature related.
Moreover, look at the non-biased graph:
temperatures were slightly decreasing 1960-1975 while the CO2 rate of change increased. In the period 1976-2000 temperature increased rapidly, but the CO2 rate of change didn’t and after 2000 both trends are flat…
I’m not pointing out the slope. The one year mean has been offset and scaled to be better able to see how well the derivative of the CO2 concentration follows the temperature. Both are 12 month means. I call BS that you didn’t see the peaks at 1998, mid 90s late 80s and early 70s.
“by adding an arbitrary bias and factor one can match any slope on earth with another slope”
No you can not. http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1958/mean:12/derivative/plot/esrl-co2/mean:12/scale:0.0003/offset:-0.1
Go make them look the same by adjusting the mean, offset and scale.
Robert, we both agree that the short term (2-3 years) response of the CO2 rate of change and the temperature rate of change are directly connected: CO2 (and opposite δ13C) follows the movements of temperature with a 90 deg. lag. That includes the 1992 Pinatubo and the 1998 El Niño responses.
We differ in opinion about the connection between the longer term (decadal) changes in temperature. Despite falling temperatures in the period (1945-)1960-1975, the rate of change of CO2 increased. In the period 1976-2000 temperature increased but the CO2 rate of change was about flat.
Because you added an offset and a factor in your WFT plot, you added a slope to the plot which masks the difference in real (partial) slopes between temperature and CO2 rate of change…
Go make them look the same by adjusting the mean, offset and scale.
That is exactly where it goes wrong. You can match the slopes or you can match the amplitudes, but as that are independent processes, only with some luck you can match both at the same time. Have a look at the slopes of your original plot including the trend lines..
The slopes don’t completely match, but the amplitudes are more or less the same.
But if you change the offset and factor to match the slopes, then the amplitudes don’t match anymore.
Which is the result of trying to match two independent processes (one which causes the variability, the other causing the slope) with one common factor…
I have a subject to present for discussion.
It seems to obvious to mention, but in geological time frames, fossils fuels are a renewable energy source. No CO2 comes in from space, and none escapes to space so we have in effect a closed system.
A glance at history will show that since the end of the very active volcanic period we have been gradually losing ground in the Co2 theater. Is the END going to happen with the steady, slow decline in CO2? At some point plant life will struggle and die
Can we survive this event? Can we release the stored solar energy quickly enough to forestall this event?
I personally do no believe co2’s effect on temperature is worth consideration unless it’s ppm’s decrease below our present dangerously low levels, but I am very concerned that we are not capable of keeping CO2 from sinking below this critical level of sustainable life.
What, if any, are your thoughts?
Without intervention I would expect it to balance out at a low level, with autotrophs dying back to a level where CO2 did not decline anymore
🙂 I think you are on to something.
I’m thinking it is time to wake up my wife and head off to the greenhouse…… wait, what was your question again?
If we need to, we’ll make more! We are an adaptable lot, us unfurry apes.
Just cook limestone (plenty of that) & make as much CO2 as earth needs. Cement would be a useful by-product.
I think you’re right. As the earth gradually cools, tectonic plate action will decline, there will be a decline volcanic eruptions recycling gases into the atmosphere, and complex life will gradually die off.
http://www.phys.lsu.edu/faculty/cjohnson/climate.html
“This is the complete carbon cycle: rainwater removes CO2 from the atmosphere and puts it in the crust, and volcanic action releases CO2 from the crust and puts it back in the atmosphere.
What happens on Venus? Venus has no water! Early in its history Venus may have had water, but it is too close to the Sun to retain it. When water molecules rise high in an atmosphere, ultraviolet radiation split the water molecules into its component gases, oxygen and hydrogen, and the lighter hydrogen molecules escape into space. While Earth’s lower atmosphere is about one percent water vapor (although it seems much higher in the humid Louisiana summers), the upper atmosphere, where ultraviolet radiation can penetrate, is very dry: a cold trap, a combination of pressure and temperature, prevents water vapor from rising high in the earth’s atmosphere. Venus has a cold trap, too, but because Venus is closer to the Sun its cold trap is much higher in the atmosphere and any Venusian water molecules rise high enough to be broken apart by ultraviolet radiation.
Therefore the carbon cycle is incomplete on Venus: without water, CO2 cannot be removed from the atmosphere. Venus does have volcanoes, however. Radar mappings of Venus by interplanetary probes indicate volcano-like mountains, and there is other evidence for volcanoes as well. The atmosphere of Venus is full of sulfur dioxide and sulfur particulates. Sulfur and sulfur dioxide is highly reactive and cannot remain long in an atmosphere; therefore something (volcanoes) must be regularly replenishing the sulfur. This theory is bolstered by data from interplanetary probes, which have detected large fluctuations in the sulfur content of the Venusian atmosphere, as well as radio signals reminiscent of lightning–and lightning is often found in volcanic plumes.
And Mars? The carbon cycle is also broken on Mars, but opposite to Venus. Mars has no active volcanoes to replenish the CO2 in its atmosphere. We know Mars once had running water—we can still see billion-year-old river beds where water once ran—and the water may still be there, locked up in the ice caps and in permafrost beneath the surface. And it seems likely that Mars has CO2 still locked up in its crust, deposited there billions of years ago by the action of water. If you could release that CO2 you could warm up Mars again. Indeed this is a major premise of science fiction stories about terraforming Mars; an excellent example is Kim Stanley Robinson’s Mars trilogy.”
During the Permian there was about 30 million years of low CO2 and our current 20 million is similar. In between there was 250 million years with CO2 around 1000 PPM. It has gotten worse since Panama and South America joined 2.5 million years ago. The colder and longer (around 1 million years ago it went from 40k to 100k) ice ages take more CO2 out keeping us dangerously low.
One option is to geo-engineer by opening up Panama and letting the oceans mix again (not my favorite) and the other is we simply produce more CO2 either from terrestrial resources or from external ones to keep us above that 150 PPM extinction level.
It seems that there was a quite stable equilibrium between temperature and CO2 in the past few million years (800,000 years in ice cores, longer but less accurate in foramins): about 8 ppmv/K where during glacials the levels were very low: around 180 ppmv and around 300 ppmv during interglacials. This equilibrium probably comes from the (deep) oceans, as there is little change in the δ13C ratio over the glacial-interglacial transitions.
That most plants survived the 180 ppmv maybe because near ground over land, CO2 levels in average are ~40 ppmv higher than in the bulk of the atmosphere, the latter is what is measured in the ice cores.
You also have a much reduced demand for CO2 by the considerable reduction in plant cover with the ice, dry air and cooer weather south of the ice.
I wonder if government leaders, corporate executives and leading Hollywood actors will end up hoarding huge underground tanks of CO2 for their personal use. Kind of like they hoarded gasoline during the gas crisis.
anyone care to comment on the viability of this?
27 Nov: Science Alert: BEC CREW: New superconductor-powered wind turbines could hit Australian shores in five years
Australian scientists are developing wind turbines that are one-third the price and 1,000 times more efficient than anything currently on the market to install along the country’s windy and abundant coast.
Developed by a team at the Institute for Superconducting and Electronic Materials at the University of Wollongong in New South Wales, the wind turbines are a significant improvement on current technology…
“In our design there is no gear box, which right away reduces the size and weight by 40 percent,” said lead researcher and materials scientist Shahriar Hossain. “We are developing a magnesium diboride superconducting coil to replace the gear box. This will capture the wind energy and convert it into electricity without any power loss, and will reduce manufacturing and maintenance costs by two thirds.”…
The team estimates that their superconductor wind turbines will cost just $3-5 million each to build, because by next year, the magnesium diboride coil will cost just $1 per metre to manufacture…
VIDEO: Here’s Hossain talking about their research…
http://www.sciencealert.com/new-superconductor-powered-wind-turbines-could-hit-australian-shores-in-five-years
Great idea! Hope it works! The question is: Will it be developed and sold on its own merits? Will the firm developing this new wind turbine be able to produce it economically and will it be sold to the wind industry at a profit? And last but not least: Is this a subsidy free venture? Or is this just a new scheme designed to milk the public purse?
There are probably dozens of other questions that need to be asked. I have just scratched the surface.
They may be referring to funding.
#B^)
1000 times more efficient? So instead of just getting. say, 60% efficiency, they can get 60,000%? My BS meter just wrapped the needle around the post. I’ve never seen it do that before except for 0bama.
I agree. Maybe they meant 10%, getting them up to about 49%. Maximal achievable extraction of wind power is 59% according to Betz’s Law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betz%27s_law
Sounds like the old TV commercial “SAVE UP TO 100% OR MORE!” Or, more recently Obama’s comment that he would campaign in all 57 states. I would shop anywhere that would let me save more than 100%. I would get the product free and then receive an additional bit of cash in my pocket. Now that sounds like a deal. Imagine if we could save up to 1000 times or 100,000 %.
Yo ditto
They may be referring to funding.
Hmm, note the statements ” We are developing a” “because by next year the magnesium diboride coil will cost just $1 per meter to manufacture” And of course the web site says “Could hit australian shores in five year. Hmmm five year lag? almost ready for production. Hmm wonder if these folks own shares in mag mining.
michael
The sub title of the article does indeed say 1000 times more efficient, but this claim appears nowhere in the text itself. The only allusion made to efficiency is the claim that the superconducting coils offer no electrical resistance compared to conventional coils that loose about 10% of the power due to resistance. The main benefit appears to be the cost, which is claimed to come down from $15m to $3m per turbine.
Er… magnesium diboride becomes a superconductor at a temperture of 39 K (-234 C). So, while there won’t be any need for a gearbox in these superconductor wind turbines, there will be a need for a cryocooler to keep the necessary parts at superconducting temperatures. Will that be economically and technically practical? (Note: the Hubble Space Telescope has a cryocooler for some of its instruments, and obviously that has to work reliably for many years without maintenance).
Okay got it. -234C to get it to work. Another university engineering department shooting for a grant to work on this? Using “green” as a lockpick to the funding treasure chest? So they need a cooling system to get the coil to hold a current. Or perhaps they just need a new beer cooler.
Researching the applications and limits for a superconductor like this one falls within the legitimate sphere of activities of a university engineering department. They may find something useful and the little handle- turners may learn something.
michael
MgB2 loses superconductivity above 39K (-234C) so some form of efficient cooling will be required . The article does not make it clear how this will be supplied .
The cryogenic cooling will be powered by the STOR system co-located with the turbine. Which turns out to be a very large diesel generator. If there is any power left over, it can run the high-power lights keeping the solar systems running at night. Until the general public run out of money, that is.
Still need the right sort of wind.
Notice what they DON’T say. Phrasing something a “X times more efficient” has no obvious meaning –
they make NO claims about the windmills output and the fact that the wind turbine itself costs “X percent” less doesn’t tell how much the windmill will cost to errect. Most of the cost of a windmill, as I recall, is the structure and the process of errecting the turbine, not the cost of the turbine. This statment has all of the earmarks of a misleading advertisement – it doesn’t actually provide any information that would make me enthusiastic. And the fact that no cost/output claims are made makes me even more skeptical.Of course, the biggest problem with windmills is their unreliability, which all this does nothing to mitigate.
Perhaps the “1000 times more efficient” is a dollars to output power measurement? That would make more sense as the current generation of windmills is pretty shabby (IMHO).
Now how do we store the energy in a cheap long term way? I’ve seen pumped hydro and the railcars moved up a hill but both are geographically limited. Some breakthrough in ultracaps/batteries would be nice right about now.
Thanks for the link. Interesting reading.
The original NASA energy diagram showed only net energy flows, without implying that radiation from the atmosphere transferred thermal energy to the surface, which it doesn’t wherever the surface is warmer. Because they kept the non-radiative figures constant when they then added back radiation (and an extra radiative flux out of the surface as well) the thermal energy transfers by conduction and evaporation were reduced in percentage terms.
Never-the-less, going back to the net energy diagrams we had …
(a) radiation always transferring thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere, day and night – correct.
(b) evaporation always transferring thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere, day and night – correct.
(c) conduction and rising air always transferring thermal energy from the surface to the atmosphere, day and night – incorrect.
(d) the Sun transferring thermal energy of about 163W/m^2 into the surface by day – correct.
Now the problem is that, even if the surface got warmed as much as a true blackbody, that solar flux would only produce a mean temperature of about -35C.
So there’s a lot of missing thermal energy that must be going into the surface in order for there to be energy balance and the observed temperatures. This is even more obvious on Venus.
Any particular location on the equator of Earth (or Venus) usually warms by day and cools by night. So we can assume that the warming is due to energy from the Sun, but it is not all by radiation. So we must have some conduction the other way (into the surface) during the day. The big question is: “How do we reconcile thermal energy transfers from colder regions in the troposphere (that have absorbed incident solar radiation) into a warmer surface with the laws of physics?” That is what I have explained, along with only one other author who independently came to the same understanding and explanation that I did.
You need firstly to understand that the Second Law of Thermodynamics tells us a state of thermodynamic equilibrium will (tend to) evolve. That state has maximum entropy and no unbalanced energy potentials. This leads us to conclude that the mean sum of molecular kinetic energy and gravitational potential energy is homogeneous. Thus we have a temperature gradient when we have thermodynamic equilibrium.
Now I stress that it is a state of equilibrium. So if there is a change due to new absorption of thermal energy, then there will be a propensity to restore thermodynamic equilibrium with its associated temperature gradient. This restoring process may well involve conduction and diffusion at the molecular level which is actually transferring thermal energy up the sloping thermal plane to warmer regions and – wait for it – into the warmer surface from the cooler atmosphere. Radiation can’t do this – only non radiative processes can because they involve molecules which are affected by gravity.
So there you have it. The temperature gradient in effect “props up” the surface temperature – not back radiation. Hence the greenhouse radiative forcing conjecture is false.
Venus doesn’t warm by day and cool by night, there is no diurnal temperature change between poles and the equator, or day and night.
Venus very high temperature comes gravity/thermal/atmospheric mass, (adiabatic lapse rate)
The Venus surface does warm and cool by about ±5 degrees for any particular point on the equator. The variation is between 732K and 737K. How could such a point possibly not cool a little during 4 months of darkness? Yes you are right in one sense about the energy flow into the surface from the cooler troposphere having something to do with gravity, rather than radiation from the cooler troposphere. Now you need to think about precisely how the required thermal energy actually gets into the hotter surface (by non-radiative processes) from the less-hot troposphere. In fact the Sun’s radiation can only raise the temperature in higher regions of the atmosphere that are at temperatures below about 400K, so the thermal energy has to make its way down from there over the course of 4 months of sunlight.
Probe Venera Venera 7 and 8 confirmed the previous pressure measurements on the surface to give a pressure equal to 90 atm. The first of them landed on the dark hemisphere, where the stated temperature at ground + 474 ° C. The second one landed on a daily hemisphere also measured temperature at 470 ° C. These results indicate a rapid circulation.
Venus has a very weak magnetic field. Braid her magnetosphere is about 10 times thinner than Earth’s. This fact allows the particles of the solar wind mixing of the upper layers of the atmosphere.
At one rotation around its own axis Venus needs a 243 Earth days.
Your Doug cotton aren’t you?
Earlier this week I decided to go to my local blood-donation center and give a pint (I have A- so the vampires call me on a regular basis). While the nice lady was taking my temperature and other metrics, she asked what I like to do. I responded that I frequent the WUWT site to review climate-blog chatter. She responded, “That’s interesting, what is that site again?” obviously being courteous to a donor.
I then asked her a question I ask a lot of people, “What is your estimate of the amount of CO2 in the Air?” I might give them a range like, “5%, 10%, 20%, 40%?” to ponder, she answered – “it must be around 40%”. It’s surprising how little people generally know that the real answer is .04% (simple round-off here) and I hold up my hand with 4 fingers extended and my thumb folded over (for the “point-zero” part). People are usually stunned at this metaphorical answer. I then politely ask, “How can .04% completely overwhelm the other 99.96% of the Atmosphere?” I can then see the wheels in their mind starting to churn, ‘mission accomplished’ I silently say to myself.
If the person is more curious, I then ask, “How can the mass of the .04% (CO2) also overwhelm the entire Atmosphere and the top 2 meters of the entire Earth’s surface (the surface does “breath”, trees, grass and bushes depend on it)?” Sometimes they respond, “That would be impossible.” …. Ummm… Yup…
For all of you out there who are looking for a “good way” to help your fellow-man, give some blood, someone else may continue to live-on after they recover from their personal struggles. They will “Give Thanks” to you in their prayers.
“How can .04% completely overwhelm the other 99.96% of the Atmosphere?” I can then see the wheels in their mind starting to churn, ‘mission accomplished’ I silently say to myself.
You’ve incorrectly explained the physics to someone who knows even less than you do. Sorry to burst your bubble, but you do the skeptic side no favours by getting it wrong. I suggest some reading:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/20/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-a-physical-analogy/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/28/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-atmospheric-windows/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/03/10/visualizing-the-greenhouse-effect-emission-spectra/
I disagree with you. It has more do to with the heat content (SH) of the atmosphere which has little to do with GHGs. PPM of atmospneric content is going to do very little. Talk to me when the atmospheric weight doubles and the constituents of the atmosphere change by 10 %.
Alex November 28, 2014 at 4:23 am
I disagree with you. It has more do to with the heat content (SH) of the atmosphere which has little to do with GHGs.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Either you didn’t read the articles, or you didn’t understand them. But if you want to learn something, will refer you to an actual experiment:
http://www.john-daly.com/artifact.htm
If you will bother to read the results of the experiment by Heinz Hug, you’ll see that the effects of a change in GHG concentration is directly measurable. You’ll probably get all excited about Hugs conclusion that the effects are over stated though. At the top of the article is a link to a zip file of criticisms of Hugs experiment. Read them. Then go back and read the articles by Ira Glickstein, one of the most qualified writers to ever grace this site. The argument doesn’t reduce to heat content, it has nearly nothing to do with heat content at all. It is about energy flux which is NOT HEAT CONTENT.
It is great that you are making the effort to inform people. However, the suggestion that 0.04% can’t do anything is incorrect. I think people would be astounded to learn how much higher CO2 levels were in the past. Maybe a revelation that during the time of the dinosaurs it was around 2,000 ppm compared to 400 ppm today would get people thinking.
“… Maybe a revelation that during the time of the dinosaurs it was around 2,000 ppm compared to 400 ppm today would get people thinking.”
Since we have been reliably told by the authoritative IPCC that CO2 levels much above 600 ppm will burn the earth to a crisp, I can only conclude that all life ended on earth when CO2 levels were at 2,000 ppm. Now we know what happened to the dinosaurs. (the unicorns went at the same time I hear)
Well, wasn’t the earth much warmer 100 million years ago?
I always love to ask “what is the most powerful greenhouse gas in the atmosphere?” and the reply is almost alway “CO2”. When I tell them that it is water vapor they give me quizzical looks and say “really?”. I assure them it is and then tell them that it accounts for between 65% and 95% of the greenhouse effect. The usual response is “that’s a very large range” which is true but to try and get the number nailed down is rather hard. I’ve had emails with various scientists over the years who admit it is a huge variable that they really don’t know.
Follow up with Dr Easterbrook’s prediction of 3 decades of cooling while CO2 rises and you will have piqued the interest of the other person to learn more. Job done!
But it kind of does. We’d be blocks of ice if it weren’t for that very small amount of CO2. There is a sharp effect with the first 100 ppm. We are hitting diminishing returns, so we now have only ~1.1C forcing per CO2 doubling. That’s a lot less, but nothing it ain’t.
But without positive feedback to triple it, is only lukewarming. And net feedback is simply not in evidence in the data.
In a similar vein (sorry about that) I like to ask people how much the temperature has risen over the last 150 years – say since the US Civil War. Then, how about the last 15 or 20 years?
No one comes close, but I sense a huge reluctance to get into any issue that could challenge one’s belief system. Much better just to turn on FOX, or whatever, and get your daily dose of what you want to think. Well, not think, believe.
The politico idiots here in Vermont are gearing up for another round of blast the ridgelines and install a gazillion whirligigs to “save the planet” from CO2. I’ve found here that constructing the base of a single turbine can produce in excess of 250 tons of CO2. Hey, I’ll use their weapon, although I feel like Machiavelli.
Been lurking. I’m not actually a cow – the Facebook thing, where I logged in from, is a present I gave my sister when a banker tried to bribe her with a Christmas gift of the real Bubba Cow in Yola, Nigeria. Had that guy living in our yard for a while until we could convince the university herdsman (how many universities have one of those?) to lead him over to campus.
Thank God I found this weblog.
Jim
And google unashamedly keeps pushing the AGW agenda. How can this be stopped?
https://www.google.com/search?hl=en&gl=us&tbm=nws&authuser=0&q=global+warming&oq=global+warming&gs_l=news-cc.12..43j0l5j0i5l2j43i53.4331.11225.0.13280.14.10.0.4.0.1.993.2904.3j1j3j1j1j0j1.10.0…0.0…1ac.1.4XcrlrWxkk8
In this case Google just seems to be doing what they do best – the MSM has picked up on the study reviewed here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/11/18/study-beaufort-sea-polar-bears-largely-recovered-from-a-2004-2006-decline/
The (ugly) link you give (at the moment) leads with the Washington Post. Not a surprise.
Just keep hitting the comments sections on all these alarmist sites.
No one said Changing hearts and minds was easy
Why, nothing can be done to stop them. And, I would argue that, other than trying to convince them to believe otherwise, there is nothing that should be done to stop them. They get to say what they want to say, we get to say what we want to say. That’s the deal. That’s the social contract.
We don’t turn our conversations into public law that is harmful to the citizens of the United States and other nations based on religious beliefs instead of real world data. We aren’t calling for the deaths and unlawful detention of the opposing side. The idea that there is a social contract in effect under these circumstances is a joke.
Ernest, earlier this month we had an election. The Dems lost half of the Senate seats (15-16?) they had up for grabs. The Republicans picked up those seats. Normally the return rate for the US Senate is 97%. 7 or 8 soon to be ex-US Senators show we do indeed have a social contract, and it is working as planned. the founding Fathers rigged it so change would be slow, so we wouldn’t act rashly or the heat of the moment.
We will be having another vote in two years. If we the people are still annoyed guess the rest. It works just takes time.
michael
The idea that there is a social contract in effect under these circumstances is a joke.
Oh, but this is when it counts the most.
Who gets to decide what is “social good” or not? Today we silence them? Tomorrow, they silence us. Better to let freedom ring.
You are correct evanmjones,. We should follow , Voltaire ” I disagree with what you say,but will defend to the death your right to say it.” People over time will do the right thing, We generally do.
We generally do.
Used to take centuries. We’ve speeded things up a bit. (We also have less patience, though.) I never liked Voltaire much, but he had that one dead on.
Please see a strong increase in temperature in the stratosphere over the polar circle, correlated with a decrease in the magnetic solar activity.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_MEAN_OND_NH_2014.gif
https://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2014/11/25/met-office-woolly-forecast-for-christmas-2014/
A Science teacher was giving a lesson on the circulation of the blood. Trying to make the matter clearer, he said, “Now, boys, if I stood on my head, the blood, as you know, would run into it, and I would turn red in the face.” “Yes, sir,” the boys said. “Then why is it that while I am standing upright in the ordinary position, the blood doesn’t run into my feet?” A little fellow shouted, “Cause yer feet ain’t empty”
Of course. I knew there was something there.
But what do you shout to people trying to boil coffee on CO2?
“Cause yer head has been modeled that way”?!?
spare a thought for passengers in Siberia.
http://iceagenow.info/2014/11/planes-tires-frozen-ground-passengers-push-free-video/
thanx for the various comments re the “superconductor-powered wind turbines”.
i also thought the “1,000 times more efficient” claim was unsupported in the article.
this one has attracted quite a bit of MSM coverage. any comments?
26 Nov: Nature World News: Jenna Iacurci: Blu-Ray Discs the Answer to Better Solar Panels?
Whether it’s an old Jackie Chan movie or a hilarious episode of “Family Guy,” Blu-ray discs are all one in the same, with all of them possibly holding the answer to better solar panels, according to a new study…
“We found a random pattern or texture does work better than no pattern, but a Blu-ray disc pattern is best of all,” lead study author Jiaxing Huang said in a press release.
“It’s as if electrical engineers and computer scientists developing the Blu-ray technology have been subconsciously doing our jobs, too,” he added.
The researchers used a Blu-ray of “Supercop,” starring Jackie Chan, to create a mold for a quasi-random surface texture that they placed on a solar cell. They found that this pattern boosted light absorption by 21.8 percent over the entire solar spectrum…
“The big surprise is that the pattern worked so well,” Huang told Live Science…
The findings were published in the journal Nature Communications.
http://www.natureworldnews.com/articles/10681/20141126/blu-ray-discs-the-answer-to-better-solar-panels.htm
Global Warming Catastrophe!
From the BBC:
This is just weather, of course, not “global warming”, but it shows that even if the doomsayers are right about rising temperatures (which is far from proved) the effects are as likely to be benign or even beneficial as catastrophic.
There has been a big rise in the number of birds in my garden this year after the mild wet winter we had in the UK.
you obviously don’t have neighbouring cats.
tonyb
Lomborg made this point back in 2008. Yes, there will be more deaths from heat waves, but there will be ~three times as many lives saved by milder winters.
It is more like a factor 10:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC27480/
Stipulating the poor way these things are calculated, you are probably right.
Thanks for the link.
Warming up the place has always been mostly beneficial. Our current warming has a long way to go to equal the other warming periods of this interglacial. The biggest problem has been the rapid growth in population, but the world seems to be handling it as our lives continue to improve. Anyway, everything being equal, there will be a large decline in population by 2100 if the temperatures remain as moderate as they have been over the last 150 years. For data to support this decline, see UN, World Bank, and CIA fertility rate charts. They all show similar statistics. Birth rates in Europe are so low that European Culture will be gone fairly quickly.
I certainly hope You Know Who weighs in on this paper. It looks interesting and well worth further discussion. I would bet 2 dishes of my Turkey Pot Pie that the MSM will never pick it up regardless of its merits.