Unthreaded #16

Continuation of Unthreaded #15

381 Comments

  1. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jul 22, 2007 at 5:22 PM | Permalink

    Well, my last comment on Unthreaded 15 didn’t show the graphic I linked to … John A., is that part of the WordPress kerfuffel? Are we out of LaTex as well?

    Many thanks,

    w.

  2. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jul 22, 2007 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

    David Archibald, in 432 of Unthreaded #15 you say:

    Re #416, we are still two years off solar minimum. So far, Solar Cycle 23 is 11.1 years long. Solar Cycle 4, which preceded the Dalton Minimum, was 13.6 years long.

    What makes you think that we still have a further two years to solar minimum?

    First?

  3. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jul 22, 2007 at 5:55 PM | Permalink

    David Archibald, in 432 of Unthreaded #15 you say:

    Re #416, we are still two years off solar minimum. So far, Solar Cycle 23 is 11.1 years long. Solar Cycle 4, which preceded the Dalton Minimum, was 13.6 years long.

    What makes you think that we still have a further two years to solar minimum?

    First? Why is this flagged as spam?

  4. Posted Jul 22, 2007 at 6:21 PM | Permalink

    There must be a problem here!!!!!!!!!

  5. Posted Jul 22, 2007 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    # 440

    Steve Milesworthy,

    I apologize, my behavior obeyed to a bitter defamation and I lost my head. I already found my head and I think it’s on its place, so don’t worry about. :)

    Regarding the last paragraph in your message, CO2 physics is not a matter of faith, Steve. It is a matter of… physics. CO2 cannot store heat above k = 0.01675 at the current conditions. If T increases, the density of CO2 would decrease by the decrease of its d and Pp (more heat, more diffusion because there are instabilities between molecular chemistry and quanta. The heat transfer by the earth’s atmosphere is an open system). With the last conditions, k will diminish to 0.0144. CO2 is not a collector of energy, but a conveyor of heat that relocates heat to more microstates as soon as it absorbs it. H2O-l is a sink of heat because of its high Cp.

  6. David Archibald
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 5:13 AM | Permalink

    Milesworth, where are you? Because something amusing has happened. You took exception to my pointing out that Lockwood lied in his recent paper. But, lo and behold, Lockwood has outed himself as a messianic warmer in a letter to the Telegraph newspaper:

    “I am one of the authors of the Royal Society global warming paper that you say is simple and fundamentally flawed (Comment, July 15). Simple? The idea was to present a straightforward demonstration, without recourse to complex climate models. Flawed? None of the three academic referees the paper was subjected to found any flaws.

    Climate change is by far the greatest threat to everyone’s standard of living. Unlike political parties, companies, media stars, works of art, consumer products and even social trends and national economies, a scientific reality is immune to spin.

    (Prof) Mike Lockwood, Southampton University ”

    This is the link: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?menuId=6127&menuItemId=-1&view=MENUCONTENTFIRST&grid=A1&targetRule=0

    In a little hissy fit, he has discredited himself, his paper and the peer review process. He thinks he is the font of revealed truth, when he is a deluded fool.

  7. Simon
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 7:13 AM | Permalink

    Gordon Brown, the new Prime Minister of the UK, pressed by the media during his monthly news conference about the flooding in England, blamed it on “global climate change”. No wonder politicians love AGW.

  8. stan palmer
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 7:34 AM | Permalink

    From a account of the Lockwood paper in the Daily Telegraph

    Prof. Lockwood is insistent that eliminating consideration of data because it diverged from model predictons is a very bad thing.

    “All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged afterwards. You can’t just ignore bits of data that you don’t like,” he said. “The key point of our paper is that since 1985 all the possible solar influences have been in the wrong direction to give warming,” said Prof Lockwood

  9. stan palmer
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 7:35 AM | Permalink

    From a account of the Lockwood paper in the Daily Telegraph

    Prof. Lockwood is insistent that eliminating consideration of data because it diverged from model predictons is a very bad thing.

    All the graphs they showed stopped in about 1980, and I knew why, because things diverged afterwards. You can’t just ignore bits of data that you don’t like,” he said. “The key point of our paper is that since 1985 all the possible solar influences have been in the wrong direction to give warming,” said Prof Lockwood

    The other part of this is that there has been no warming since 1998. I don’t know why this is inconsistent with some sort of lag on a possible solar influence. Has Lockwood addressed this issue anywhere?

  10. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 7:40 AM | Permalink

    Steve Milesworthy, I apologize.

    On the other hand, Solar Irradiance has been increasing according to the data obtained by Lean et al and published by NOAA in 2001. When I read the Lean’s article in 2005 it had a graph that I reproduced without modifications in one of my articles. However, when I was revising the references of all the articles in the Biocab website I found that the NOAA pages from where I’ve taken the number of X-class solar flares had disappeared. I found the same data in the NOAA site, so I plotted that graph again and added the polynomial trends. It has been published in Biocab.org along with the data released by NOAA. That was not my only problem because the same thing was made to the graphs on TT anomalies; however, here the things were worst because the link from biocab to NOAA reports worked well, but it was directing to the reader to a damaged series of data. The intention of the author of that page of NOAA was evidently to confuse the reader because it has not legends about the origin of the data, or the authors, etc. It was a scientist from Australia who made me know the fatal error in that page. Now the question is if the twisting of data is valid in science or if it is pseudoscience. All data referring to TSI, TT, etc. was “adjusted” and changed two months before the Lockwood & Frölish article was released to the press. Have you read about one of the preferred practice of pseudoscientists which consists of making the information public firstly through Media and after through “scientific” magazines? Lockwood paper was released firstly to the Media with the support of James Hansen; after it, the article was published by the RS. However, all of the “changes” and “adjustments” made to the data in NOAA site make obvious the intention of the Loockwoodian attempt of turning off the Sun.

  11. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 8:31 AM | Permalink

    FWIW I could not access the site for about two days. I got a time out error.

  12. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 8:32 AM | Permalink

    And now I’m being told I’m a possible spammer.

    I hate upgrades.

  13. tom
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 9:33 AM | Permalink

    In desperate attempts to shore up their crumbling doctrine of man-made climate change, Professor Lockwood and Henry Davenport (Letters, July 14) themselves cherry-pick data. Prof Lockwood’s “refutation” of the decisive role of solar activity in driving climate is as valid as claiming a particular year was not warm by simply looking at the winter half of data. The most significant and persistent cycle of variation in the world’s temperature follows the 22-year magnetic cycle of the sun’s activity. So what does he do? He “finds” that for an 11-year stretch around 1987 to 1998 world temperatures rose, while there was a fall in his preferred measures of solar activity. A 22-year cycle and an 11-year cycle will of necessity move in opposite directions half the time.

    The problem for global warmers is that there is no evidence that changing CO2 is a net driver for world climate. Feedback processes negate its potential warming effects. Their theory has no power to predict. It is faith, not science. I challenge them to issue a forecast to compete with our severe weather warnings – made months ago – for this month and August which are based on predictions of solar-particle and magnetic effects that there will be periods of major thunderstorms, hail and further flooding in Britain, most notably July 22-26, August 5-9 and August 18-23. These periods will be associated with new activity on the sun and tropical storms. We also forecast that British and world temperatures will continue to decline this year and in 2008. What do the global warmers forecast?

    Piers Corbyn
    Weather Action

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/st…133091,00.html

  14. MarkW
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 9:40 AM | Permalink

    Milesworthy,

    How typical. Lindzen’s misdirections are so difficult to pin down, that you can’t even begin to do it.

    Translation: I know he’s wrong, but I can’t figure out how.

  15. MarkW
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 9:42 AM | Permalink

    I’ve noticed that the Gulf of Mexico warms up by a good 20F every year from spring to fall.

    Yet we are told that it’s going to take many decades for the all of the warming from enhanced AGW to warm the oceans even a few tenths of a degree.

    What’s up with that?

  16. stan palmer
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    Climate change is by far the greatest threat to everyone’s standard of living. Unlike political parties, companies, media stars, works of art, consumer products and even social trends and national economies, a scientific reality is immune to spin.

    I wonder if Prof. Lockwood discussed this with any members of the philosophy department at his university. They would have been very itnerested in heraitng fro him what the defintive answer is on scientific reality. it is a question that has vexed philosophers for thousands of years. “Scientific reality is immune to spin”. I wonder how many nanosecods it would take for the philosphers to punch holes in that statement

  17. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 10:25 AM | Permalink

    Well, I fear I also have a message for Steve Milesworthy. Sorry about that, Steve. Just take your time.

    Re unthreaded 15 #439

    Hi Steve,

    You may dismiss Professor Lindzen as much as you like but the fact is that you’re not addressing the crucial high sensitivity versus observations issue. Let’s assume, for argument’s sake, that:

    a) Lindzen is wrong in his 75% figure (not by much, IMO) and somehow you are right in your 50% estimate.
    b) Theoretical sensitivity to 2xCO2 without + or – feedbacks should be ~1 C (Lindzen has acknowledged this and so have most skeptic scientists, as far as I know).
    c) There is some amount of masking in the current dT due to negative forcings (Lindzen does explicitly address this possibility in his Timbro essay).
    d) There is some still unrealized warming due to ocean thermal inertia (again, Lindzen does mention this in his essay).
    e) The “Iris effect” is flatly wrong.

    Still, everything what I said in #427 holds.

    - How do you jump from 0.7 C to 3 C?

    - And what are your thoughts on the aerosols problem I described?

    PS- Indeed, Lindzen has spent a long time stating his views. Already in the 90s he was making the very same point that real world warming didn’t match high sensitivity speculations, that the climate system was not particularly sensitive to trace gas CO2 and that negative feedbacks were likely at play.

  18. Sylvain
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 10:55 AM | Permalink

    There is a study, to be publish in Nature in a few days, that compares observed precipitations with computer model. I would like to know if anyone has the chance to read it, how reliable this study is since I’m very dubious to any claim that computer model can have any prediction capacity.

  19. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 11:24 AM | Permalink

    Yeager at Accuweather:

    ==========

    More Unusual Weather
    Monday, July 23, 2007

    I have talked recently about the unusual rain for the Pacific Northwest and parts of northern California so far this month, and even Southern California is attempting to join in, with some unusual July showers from Sunday night into Monday.

    Rain amounts have been extremely light, generally just a trace to a couple of hundredths of an inch of rain, and the source of the rain is not as unusual as the rain the moved through the Pacific Northwest and Northern California. While the amount of rain (and the southward extent of the rain) from storms arriving from the west at this time of year is unusual, it’s not as uncommon for moisture from the east or south to move into Southern California, which is the source of the showers.

    This type of moisture is more common a little later in the summer (August/September), but moisture can sometimes sneak westward into Southern California at this time of year. The combination of an upper-level high pressure system over the Rockies and a very weak upper-level storm system just to the west of Baja California is what produced flow from the east, which allowed this area of moisture to move westward into California.

    Some of the moisture will spread northward into Central and Northern California. Again, any rainfall in the lower elevations will be very light; however, locally heavy showers and thunderstorms could develop over the mountains through Tuesday.

    =========

    Simply put, this July has bobbled around between September-esque and October-esque weather for much of the West Coast. Mostly the latter (unlike last year, where it was straight up September-esque weather in July here). It will be interesting to witness what August brings. PDO shift anyone? Chinese aerosols anyone?

  20. tetris
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 11:44 AM | Permalink

    Re: 17
    Steve
    Yaeger’s comments about the precipitation in the Pacific NW certainly match observations on the ground. It would be interesting to see something similar regarding temperatures for the same area. Do you know of any such overview? As you know from my earlier comments, in coastal BC we have been well under the norm ever since Nov 2006 and still are.

  21. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 11:45 AM | Permalink

    Re unthreaded 15 #443

    Willis: I’m very glad to know that you share my concerns on aerosols. For some time I was worried to be the only one that seemed to care about this problem, honestly. Where was I going so utterly wrong? Then, to my relieve, I read some RC posts by F. Engelbeen and others…Still, as far as I’m aware, Hansen, Schmidt, Annan and the lot are totally unconcerned by this. I don’t get it.

    Would you mind reposting the GISS model link? Thanks.

  22. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    #5 Dave Archibald
    I think I took exception when you complained about his reference to CLIMAX data. I’d already had a more friendly discussion with Bill F about the CLOUD proposal’s use of CLIMAX data in Unthreaded 14. And in the plot in Svensmark 1997 the different sites are well correlated as Svensmark notes. But clearly those facts are unlikely to resolve your determination to libel Lockwood.

    #4 Nasif
    Very sorry Nasif, but we are never, ever going to agree on this so I won’t comment in case Steve McIntyre tells us off again.

    #15 Mikel
    For 2xCO2, models predict about 2-3C warming. Take 0.7C (warming for 50% of 2xCO2 forcing) add 0.5C “inbuilt” warming gives you 1.2. Double for a continued increase to 2xCO2 gives you 2.4C. So consistent. I’d hardly claim such a simple approach is valid, but I have a paper in front of me that does a more comprehensive analysis to come to a similar answer. I note they compare average GHG forcing over the last 40 years of the 19th vs the last 40 years of the 20th century and come to a value of 1.38W, well under 50%.

    “An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity” Gregory et al JClim 2002.

    #11 Tom
    What is Piers going on about British temperatures “continuing” to decline. In the UK 2006 was warmest since before 1780 by about 0.2C and the running mean on 2007 is still another 0.3C above 2006 despite the soggy July. Sadly for Piers, his flood forecast was a bit late, and all is quiet on the sun. It is now 4 days in a row with zero sunspots.

  23. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 12:11 PM | Permalink

    Mikel, you say:

    Re unthreaded 15 #443

    Willis: I’m very glad to know that you share my concerns on aerosols. For some time I was worried to be the only one that seemed to care about this problem, honestly. Where was I going so utterly wrong? Then, to my relieve, I read some RC posts by F. Engelbeen and others…Still, as far as I’m aware, Hansen, Schmidt, Annan and the lot are totally unconcerned by this. I don’t get it.

    Would you mind reposting the GISS model link? Thanks.

    Let me repost the entire unthreaded 15 #443, since the links didn’t work and posting images seems to be broken. I had said:

    —————————————–

    I have the same problem with aerosols you have, Mikel. The annotated GISS computer model estimate of the results of tropospheric aerosol forcing is posted at

    http://homepage.mac.com/williseschenbach/.Pictures/GISS_tropospheric_aerosols.jpg

    The GISS result shows the greatest cooling effect in Europe (30-60°N, 30E-60W, blue rectangle in link). The greatest warming effect, on the other hand, is in North Africa (0-30°N, 30E-60W, red rectangle in link).

    Europe shows cooling of zero up to -7 W/m2 forcing, while North Africa shows warming of zero up to +7 W/m2.

    We would expect this huge difference in forcing (up to three times a doubling of CO2) to be reflected in the temperature records of the two areas, with Europe warming less than North Africa. But HadCRUT3 records show no such thing, the warming in both areas (1880-2000) is 0.05°/decade.

    Other areas reveal the same thing. GISS says the area in China (30-40N, 120-130E, green rectangle in link) had a cooling from tropospheric aerosols of -6 to -7 W/m2, way more cooling than North Africa or Europe as a whole – but it warmed more than either one, 0.08°/decade.

    In other words, it’s just computer games with no relationship to reality. The claims of aerosol cooling/warming are not supported by the data.

    w.

    PS – the GISS result is from http://data.giss.nasa.gov/efficacy/Fa.2.04.html

  24. Hans
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 12:24 PM | Permalink

    You might wish to visit (Canada’s Second ‘National’ conservative-leaning newspaper) National Post’s series on Climate Change. There are hilarious bits along with serious information.

    Please see “Climate change: The Deniers” at http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8

    or at: http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/index.html

    A sample of Canada’s Nanny-Governments hitting their stride:

    “A few watts short of an idea – Ontario move to outlaw light bulb short-sighted” by
    Terence Corcoran, National Post
    Published: Thursday, April 19, 2007:

    “After years of failure in giving light bulbs away, the Ontario Liberals have come up with another dim bulb idea. If free won’t work, then maybe a gun will. By 2012, the province said yesterday, Ontario will “ban” the sale of inefficient household light bulbs and force the replacement of all 87 million existing bulbs in every home with new energy efficient models.”

  25. Hans
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 12:30 PM | Permalink

    Sorry — haste makes waste — that 2nd link should have been:

    http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/environment/story.html?id=4432a41c-7c52-4b74-934e-f0dac3b2bcb8

  26. John Lang
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    So Willis, the aerosol adjustment is just one huge fudge factor (or let’s say the biggest fudge factor imaginable).

    Is there another way to verify these figures are the actual adjustments used?

  27. Sprentov
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 2:10 PM | Permalink

    Re: 17
    Abstract
    Human influence on climate has been detected in surface air temperature, sea level pressure, free atmospheric temperature, tropopause height and ocean heat content. Human-induced changes have not, however, previously been detected in precipitation at the global scale, partly because changes in precipitation in different regions cancel each other out and thereby reduce the strength of the global average signal. Models suggest that anthropogenic forcing should have caused a small increase in global mean precipitation and a latitudinal redistribution of precipitation, increasing precipitation at high latitudes, decreasing precipitation at sub-tropical latitudes and possibly changing the distribution of precipitation within the tropics by shifting the position of the Intertropical Convergence Zone. Here we compare observed changes in land precipitation during the twentieth century averaged over latitudinal bands with changes simulated by fourteen climate models. We show that anthropogenic forcing has had a detectable influence on observed changes in average precipitation within latitudinal bands, and that these changes cannot be explained by internal climate variability or natural forcing. We estimate that anthropogenic forcing contributed significantly to observed increases in precipitation in the Northern Hemisphere mid-latitudes, drying in the Northern Hemisphere subtropics and tropics, and moistening in the Southern Hemisphere subtropics and deep tropics. The observed changes, which are larger than estimated from model simulations, may have already had significant effects on ecosystems, agriculture and human health in regions that are sensitive to changes in precipitation, such as the Sahel.

  28. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 2:32 PM | Permalink

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg

    Still totally erroneous. The anomalies don’t square with the extent figures.

  29. tetris
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 2:47 PM | Permalink

    Re:26
    The first sentence highlights the very premise of the paper. All these other things are [purportedly] caused by humans, now voila we have proof that we’re changing precipitation patterns as well. Why the period 1925 through 1999? Why not, say 1890-2005? Yet another case of chosing the boundaries so the data fits? And what to make of the actual greening of the Sahel over the past decade as observed from space?

  30. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 2:50 PM | Permalink

    John Lang, you ask:

    So Willis, the aerosol adjustment is just one huge fudge factor (or let’s say the biggest fudge factor imaginable).

    Is there another way to verify these figures are the actual adjustments used?

    Not sure what you mean. The GISS figure I linked to are the results of the GISS computer model, showing the effect of the aerosols which they have assumed to present. I don’t know what they based their assumptions on, but those are their results, not mine.

    w.

  31. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

    Steve Milesworthy,

    I see… Of course, you will never, ever agree on this. However, the bad science is there, and the flawed data are there:

    1- NOAA “warming”: ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat

    2- Satellite “normal”: http://www.atmos.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2

    3- Solar Irradiance reconstruction (increasing) by Judith Lean from NOAA: http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

    I don’t have the need to say lies.

  32. agn
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

    @17, 26:

    Last year, there was a drought in the UK and the climate scientists said this: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/b15b8358-32b2-11db-87ac-0000779e2340,dwp_uuid=fc2aebdc-32a6-11db-87ac-0000779e2340.html

    and this year, there is flooding and they say this:
    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2e9226cc-394e-11dc-ab48-0000779fd2ac.html

    Well, err… which is it?

  33. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    #27
    Looks pretty close to me. Can you post an annotated figure to show what you think it should look like.

  34. Andrey Levin
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    Re#18, Steve Sadlow:

    Yes, PDO, why not?

    So far South BC has only one week of summer weather, instead of full 1 month as it was usual for last 10 years. All water reservoirs are overflowing, instead of usual 50% capacity at this time of the year. River’s flow is so powerful, all my favorite fishing spots are overwhelmed with fast current, high level, and high water turbidity. Not to mention quite rare (second time on my 10 years memory) presence of black flies, leaving long-lasting holes in my hide after every trip to the mountains…

    From the interview of Richard Seagar, Earth observatory of Columbia University:

    “Using observations and climate models we found that, at the latitudes of Europe, the atmospheric heat transport exceeds that of the ocean by several fold. In winter it may even by an order of magnitude greater. Thus it is the atmosphere, not the ocean, that does the lion’s share of the work ameliorating winter climates in the extratropics. We also found that the seasonal absorption and release of heat by the ocean has a much larger impact on regional climates than does the movement of heat by ocean currents.

    Seasonal storage and release accounts for half the winter temperature difference across the North Atlantic Ocean. But the 500 pound gorilla in how regional climates are determined around the Atlantic turned out to be the Rocky Mountains. Because of the need to conserve angular momentum, as air flows from the west across the mountains it is forced to first turn south and then to turn north further downstream. As such the mountains force cold air south into eastern North America and warm air north into western Europe. This waviness in the flow is responsible for the other half of the temperature difference across the North Atlantic Ocean.”

    Possible connection of shifting PDO with floods in UK?

  35. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 3:37 PM | Permalink

    We got a bit off with the sizes of the squares, I’m really more interested in how many. Although some calculations would need to take size into account – number of stations average per km, ratio of water to land, contribution to total area etc. It was just an aside, that squares of a certain degree size would be smaller at the poles. But we’ll get into it.

    So, back to the question and other interesting details. There are 72 15×15 squares per quadrant (6×12 or 90dx180d) so there are 288 of that sized squares. How many are cooling, how many are warming, and then of those how many of each are mostly (80%?) water and how many are mostly (80%?) land. Or even better, 5×5 or 2×2.

    From what I understand, the water is calculated 2×2 and then converted somehow to 5×5 and the land is calculated 5×5. If there are 288 15×15 squares, that’s 9 5×5 per, or 2592 of them. For each 4 5×5, you can make 25 2×2, so that’s 16,200 2×2 degree squares. I’m sure if we’re measuring these things, and coming up with a global mean, somebody knows the numbers (x squares, y “water” and z “land”).

    But how big are they? If we’re talking about a specific 5×5 area, the size can be calculated. Other than that, all we can really get is a general idea of what that is by generalizing (much like Oh I Don’t Know, the global mean anomaly?)

    If we ignore the 2×2 for now (or forever), since there are 6 5×5 per 30 degrees, and 3 sets each direction, 36 total for 90 to -90, so there should be 72 the other, 180 to -180, which there also is. So there are 2592 5×5 areas. As to how big each is… Ballpark

    In the first 30 degrees there are 864 squares (total, 432*2) and each one is a median of about 520 sq km (556-517)
    In the next 30 degrees there are 864 squares and each one is a median of about 455 sq km (517-392)
    In the last 30 degrees there are 864 squares and each one is a median of about 235 sq km (392-73)

    Or yet another way “They range in size from 73 square kilometers to 556 square kilometers.”

    Or another way, the total of Earth’s surface area is 510 million square km, so each square is an average of 197 thousand square km

    If they used UTM and cut it up, there are 1200 squares 6×8 (excluding 80-90 south, 84-90 north, zones ABYZ, and 32X 34X 36X, not counting the shapes of 31V and 32V) and I’m not even going to try and figure that one out….

    Remember, always show your work! Ignoring confluence and a couple other things:

    Latitude 111 Km/degree

    And moving to the poles

    Longitude 0: 111 Km/degree
    Longitude 30: 96 Km/degree
    Longitude 60: 55 Km/degree
    Longitude 90: 2 Km/degree

    Of course, those are actually something like 0-1 29-30 59-60 and 89-90 but I rounded anyway.

    So the largest the 5×5 is is (111*5)*(111*5) or 310 thousand. The square root of that is 555 and so on.

    So to simplify it all, roughly:

    5×5 squares
    Equatr 556 square kilometers in area
    30 deg 516
    60 deg 392
    89 deg 73

    2×2 are 222, 206, 156 and 30.
    15×15 are 1667, 1551, 1177 and 221.

    degrees long
    (111.320 + 0.373sinⳃ†)cosφ km

  36. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 3:37 PM | Permalink

    Sadlov,

    What the heck happened to the Norcal Summer?.

  37. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 3:51 PM | Permalink

    Ooops, that’s 537 not 520.

    I prefer this:

    There are 2592 5×5 degree sized squares on earth, ranging in size from 73 to 556 square kilometers, with areas ranging from 5.5 to 310 thousand km. This clearly makes it difficult to compare squares to each other, especially given that the majority of them cover water.

    Since the earth is about 510 million km in area, that gives an average per square of about 450 square kilometers, or 200,000 km of area.

    There are [number] of weather stations in the [network] network, or an average of [average] per square, or an average of [average] per [size] The square with the most stations has[number] of stations, and the square with the least, [number]

    Of the stations, [percent] show a warming trend, [percent] of which are at least [percent] water and [percent] are at least [percent] land. The other [percent] show a cooling trend, [percent] of which are at least [percent] water and [percent] are at least [percent] land.

  38. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 3:58 PM | Permalink

    Re #22

    Thanks Willis. A most telling image!

    Re #21

    Steve, thanks for your quick answer. But perhaps it would have been better to follow my advice of taking your time to respond. You keep attributing all of the 20th century warming to GHGs, something that the IPCC explicitly avoids doing. A more reasonable approach from your side would be taking half of that warming and then you have 0.35 x 2 (since you compute 50% of 2xCO2) + 0.5 (“inbuilt” warming) = 1.2 C. This is below the canonical 1.5-4.5 (mean 3 C) figure. Where do you get the 2-3 figure from?

    Note that I’m conceding that:
    a) We know how much the earth has warmed in the past century (see the GHCN threads to assess how much of a concession this is).
    b) Your 50% figure is correct (it’s not, IPCC gives 69% for GHGs, no matter what the rest of the forcings did).
    c) There is an inbuilt 0.5 C warming for a transient warming as low as 0.35 C, which is totally unreasonable, especially when the latest measurements show no warming of the oceans.

    The one thing I do agree with you is that all of this is a ridiculously simple approach. But this is the alarmists’ and IPCC’s approach! It’s based on the assumption that we know what all the relevant forcings of the climate system are and we can even assign meaningful figures to each of them for the present and for the past times… Btw, have we already figured out what triggers closer events such as ENSO, AMO, PDO,..?

    Do you have any opinion on sulphate aerosol forcing estimates versus observations?

  39. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 4:21 PM | Permalink

    Re 28

    Steve Sadlov: I think that another way of assessing how questionable the Cryosphere Today information is, is looking at their land snow cover. They’ve kept using the same image of the snow-covered northern Patagonian plains for several weeks, when in fact that snow melted a long time ago. Last winter there was no snow at all in the Pyrenees for several months and then, all of a sudden, a big chunk appeared on the eastern side that lasted until late spring. The bulk of the Pyrenees snow cover is always in the central region and the western/Atlantic side also receives more snow than the eastern/Mediterranean one.

    Those “satellite images” are re-processed beyond recognition. But still they can’t hide a massive SH ice cap with some parts penetrating well into the 50s region (eventually it didn’t snow in Santiago for the 3rd time this year but latest news from the crude SH 07 winter is up to 70 children dead in Peru due to extreme cold temperatures).

  40. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 4:32 PM | Permalink

    #32 agn
    In both articles the scientists say wetter winters and drier summers for the UK. A bit like this:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/CR_data/Monthly/EWP_seasonal1.gif

    (unless somebody would like to identify a mechanism for an urban precipitation redistribution island effect – perhaps water is evaporated from rain guages in summer due to UHI).

    The paper was unlucky to be published just now, and the FT journalist has spun it somewhat – you have to get to paragraph 6 before you find this out.

  41. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

    “We know how much the earth has warmed in the past century.” That’s not totally true. “We know how much the temperature has changed from ‘normal’, in an aggregation of the data from the sampling locations.” At best. That’s taking for granted:

    a) The base period itself is both accurate and indicative.
    b) The change in measurement devices over the last century have been accounted for correctly and have little or no margin of error.
    c) The measurement devices are accurate and calibrated and have remained so over the period.
    d) The methods by which land and sea readings are taken and combined are accurate and correct.

  42. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 4:56 PM | Permalink

    We don’t know what the earth did. We ‘know’ some combination of what the air temperature 5 feet up did and what the surface of the oceans did, at least in the places where we sampled them.

  43. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 5:25 PM | Permalink

    Do you have any opinion on sulphate aerosol forcing estimates versus observations?

    I don’t have an opinion, but there was an interesting article on tracking and analyzing Chinese aerosol emission plumes over the Pacific in the Wall Street Journal last week. I only have it in hard copy and it’s currently in the recycle bag, but I could probably find it if anyone’s interested in more detail. Basically, it’s such a mixed bag of dust, sulphates and black carbon that the net effect is not at all obvious. However, if the global temperature does stop rising or even decline, it looks like the warmers are cranking up to blame it on the Chinese and say that warming will be even faster when (and I’m not holding my breath here) the Chinese clean up their act.

  44. David Archibald
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 6:01 PM | Permalink

    Re 2#, for timing of solar minimum, see slide 17 of this Powerpoint presentation:

    http://www.warwickhughes.com/agri/The_Past_and_Future_of_Climate_May_2007_Lavoisier_Presentation_June_21_2007.ppt

  45. aurbo
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 6:12 PM | Permalink

    Re #40,

    The influence of urban areas on convective activity is well known and has been studied for many years. A series of papers by Stan Chagnon, et al, from the Illinois Weather Survey has described these influences quite well. One might look at a 1971 paper detailing this which can be found here. Look for others in the bibliography.

  46. aurbo
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 6:30 PM | Permalink

    Attributions of any unusual weather event to global warming have to stand the test of the “magic word”: ‘Since’.

    For example in the case of the current extreme flooding in the UK, it is the worst since 1947. In other words, such occurences are not unique or unprecedented.

    Once in a while you will see an extreme event characterized as the greatest of its kind ever (sometimes mischaracterized as “all-time”). ‘Ever’ does trump ‘since’, but caution is advised. One must then check the POR (Period of Record) to see if the word ‘ever’ has any real significance.

    This illustrates the tyranny of anecdotal data.

  47. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 6:52 PM | Permalink

    “now voila we have proof that we’re changing precipitation patterns as well.”

    For the past several years the BBC has been running stories about how horribly dry things are going to become due to AGW. One would think from reading all of these stories that we would turn the world into one huge desert. Now suddenly it is raining more than usual in the UK and that is blamed on AGW as well. So as someone else pointed out in some links to stories from the FT, “which is it”?

    I believe the goal at this point is to simply keep the population fearful of “climate change” period, be it warming or cooling or dry or wet, and convince them that current political leaders are responsible for it, and promise to correct the situation if only we would elect them (alternative political leaders) to office. I wouldn’t even put it past partisans to manipulate the temperature record in order to get their desired result.

    Nothing much good comes from the mingling of science with politics. (except for maybe a few moon landings)

  48. Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 7:39 PM | Permalink

    # 47

    Crosspatch,

    And that’s not all; I remember a biologist in a TV broadcast saying that trees attracted rains. ;)

  49. jae
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    Mr. Milesworthy: Re: my comments on the previous Unthreaded, please be advised that your references do not support your assertions. I want to see results from a GCM that show an 8-9-year “flat spot” in the scary rising temperature curve that will make my backyard ocean front property. It doesn’t even work with the RIGGED “Global Average Temperature” data.

  50. T J Olson
    Posted Jul 24, 2007 at 10:54 PM | Permalink

    The Lockwood and Frohlich paper has provoked a rather rapid critique Shining More Light on the Solar Factor- A Critical Review of the Lockwood and Frolich Paper by two solar scientists, Richard Willson and Nicola Scafetta

    I hope the many parties interested int his subject here will avail themselves of this response, and point out the stronger and weaker bits for us kibitzers! Thanks.

  51. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 3:39 AM | Permalink

    #49 Jae
    I’m sure I could find such a match within the spaghetti, but to hunt for it would be a somewhat Svensmarkish way to prove a point.

    But your reading of the past 9 year’s temperatures is a little simplified as they have not been “flat”. 1998 temperatures were high. 1999 & 2000 comparable to the rest of the 1990′s. This was followed by a steadier trend at a significantly warmer level. But this steady global anomaly hides a lot of different local trends.

  52. Alan Woods
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 5:54 AM | Permalink

    #51.

    When you say steadier trend I assume you mean no trend. Which “different local trends” do you say are being hidden by the “steady global anomaly”? Those tricksy negative local trends, they’re hiding the positive local trends from us!

  53. Jeff B
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 6:13 AM | Permalink

    I’m a “layperson” who is a constant reader of CA and find this website facinating in the level of intellectual discussion on such an important issue concerning our climate. I know that this is “off topic” but I would really appreciate if someone could explain how this could happen given the perceived direction our climate has been taking over the past 50 to 100 years.
    http://p38assn.org/glacier-girl-recovery.htm

  54. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 6:30 AM | Permalink

    #38 Mikel
    The point which we are both agreeing on is that you cannot use such a simple argument to prove or disprove the sensitivity of the climate to CO2. I have already mentioned solar warming and aerosol cooling as being influences in #417

    Sorry the 2-3 figure was water vapour-related changes alone, excluding surface albedo changes – this is based on Soden & Held, JClim 2005.

    But your 69% GHG forcing change that you first stated in #414 is wrong as I noted in #417 and in more detail in #22: the paper cited in the latter notes a comparison of GHG forcings for 1957-1994 vs 1861-1900 is 1.38W (between 1.24W and 1.51W for 2-sigma) – about 40%.

  55. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 6:45 AM | Permalink

    #52 Alan
    Jae and I have a difference of opinion with regards to the last 9 years temperatures, that’s all. He says its flat, I say it looks a bit up and down, but its really up, since 1998 was an exceptional year.

    With regards to “regional” effects, I was just noting that the world isn’t simple and, for example, in the last few years we have a warming northern hemisphere and a cooling southern hemisphere (albeit in the “noise”).

    Jae would like to see an exact match between models and reality, but it’s not likely to happen ever.

  56. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 7:38 AM | Permalink

    I think the term “forcing” is poor for describing the natural heat transfer. The term is applicable to machines or devices that force the heat transfer; for example, fans, frigorific, percolators, radiators, etc. The heat transfer in nature is not forced by any engine. I think the term was introduced to give the impression of “anthropogenic” unnatural heat transfer. I mean that the term was introduced to make the people think that climate change, global warming, etc. are “atypical” phenomena. Have you seen the large fan that forces the heat transfer from a cold system to a warm system? The list of preferred terms used by the new religion of “climate change” is long and confusing: forcing, atypical, unusual, abnormal, anthropogenic, positive feedback, negative feedback, layers, adiabatic, pumping, artificial, heat interchanger, higher than, worst of, unlikely, very likely, almost (for example “the Earth is almost a completely closed system”), etc.

  57. John Lang
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 8:05 AM | Permalink

    Just noting that the trendline for the past 10 years (July 1997 to June 2007) of the RSS lower troposhere temperature is …

    … 0.001C per decade

    I’d call that flat.

  58. Pete
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 8:09 AM | Permalink

    #57 So you think nothing odd happened in 1998?

  59. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 8:14 AM | Permalink

    #56 Nasif
    Yes, a meeting was held prior to the first IPCC report to discuss the language to use. James Hansen was all for using the terms “CO2 heat ray intensity”, “anthropogenic self-destruction by heat death”, and instead of emissions scenarios, he proposed “doomsday scenarios”.

    Unfortunately, he was outvoted.

  60. Edward
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 8:15 AM | Permalink

    How can anybody talk about temperatures in the last “X” years if one can’t rely on individual station data and make wild adjustments willy nilly. It is all noise and adjustments are made to suit. The only reliable temperature dataset would be one that contained only well maintained rural sites that have a known history. This data shows the US is cooler now than in the 1930s and follows the solar cycles. The Bogus data is being used as a weapon against Solar affects on climate.

  61. Jaye
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    #57 So you think nothing odd happened in 1998?

    Just what did happen in 98? Any GCM’s predict it? Are there any GHG theories that would predict that sort of anomaly and would maybe give of a clue as to when the next big spike or dip will occur?….Thought not.

  62. Earle Williams
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 8:39 AM | Permalink

    Re #59

    Steve Milesworthy,

    I assume you are attempting humor here, but given the similarity between this post and so many of your previous ones it becomes difficult to discern where your creativity and making up of stuff leaves off and your dependence upon fact reason begins. If you have an underlying thesis you would be well-served to state it and stick to it. As it is your posts are all over the board such that they resemble the spaghetti you disparage in #51.

    Arguing for the sake of arguing, and then do the soft-shoe shuffle in #51, don’t present much of a coherent message.

  63. David Smith
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 8:54 AM | Permalink

    The temperature record of the last 15 years can be tricky to interpret. Here are significant natural events which may be hard to untangle from any solar factor:

    1991 Mt. Pinatubo eruption, substantial global cooling
    1997 and 1999-2000 Significant La Ninas with global cooling
    1998 Major El Nino with substantial global warming
    1992 Atlantic switch to a state which brought large amounts of warm water to the subpolar regions, heating the Arctic ( see this link )

  64. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 9:20 AM | Permalink

    #49
    In the first AR4 A2 model I’ve examined there is a maximum 15 year gap between annual temperature records, much longer than the current gap, and several long flat or even declining periods, especially in the first half of the output.

  65. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 10:01 AM | Permalink

    re 56.

    I like Hansens phrase ” slippery slope to hell”
    BEST of all is “anomaly” whic implies that what you see is out of the ordinary

  66. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 10:09 AM | Permalink

    In the first AR4 A2 model I’ve examined there is a maximum 15 year gap between annual temperature records, much longer than the current gap, and several long flat or even declining periods, especially in the first half of the output.

    Was there any explanation of this gap given in the report or do you have one handy to give us? Could that gap be something that the modelers judge to be a defect? Did the modelers input any aerosol effects?

  67. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    Re #54

    Obviously, I’m not going to get Steve Milesworthy to address the specific flaws of his arguments and figures that I keep pointing out and he won’t say a word about the aerosols paradox. But at least he has agreed that the IPCC approach of explaining all current and past climate changes through a sum of known and quantifiable ‘forcings’ is too simplistic. Let’s leave it at that then.

  68. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    Yes, a meeting was held prior to the first IPCC report to discuss the language to use. James Hansen was all for using the terms “CO2 heat ray intensity”, “anthropogenic self-destruction by heat death”, and instead of emissions scenarios, he proposed “doomsday scenarios”.

    Unfortunately, he was outvoted.

    Jim Hansen is a very polished politician (when he is doing his political thing as apart from his scientific thing) and knows full well the phraseology that will impact the public. He knows full well the difference between marketing AGW mitigation and overselling it.

    Steve Milesworthy, if you are privy to these inputs on IPCC voting perhaps you can reveal how the terms of uncertainty and likelihood were determined by the AR4 authors.

  69. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    Re: #68

    Ken, I think Steve Milesworthy forgot to use the sarcasm tag in #59, or at least that’s how I read it.

  70. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    DEATH GAS OF PAIN AND AGONY(tm)

    #43 – The amount of effort the Chinese are putting into industrialization has caused effects they’ve seen and are not happy with, especially with the Olympics on the way. http://china.seekingalpha.com/ has quite a few articles on environmental issues from a financial focus, see also http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=13709 for the Bradsher & Barboza article.

    #47 – I blame the rain on climate change! :)
    Seriously, if it’s getting warmer, what better mechanism for the system to cool itself down? Just another reason I’m not terribly worried about this supposed temperature increase.

    #59 – lol

  71. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

    #66 Kenneth
    The models are run using the scenarios prescribed by the IPCC, which steadily pump specified levels of CO2, SO2 etc. into the models. If you watch an animation of a model output: eg:

    http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/hadleycentre/models/temperature_anim.html

    you will see it has weather and climate oscillations and is thus prone to the variability as is the earth. A lot of effort goes into looking at whether the variability of a model is similar to the variability of the earth, though they don’t claim to have captured it all.

    #67 Mikel
    Till you stop saying that the GHG forcings have increased 69% in the 20th Century (rather than since 1750 as the IPCC say) we aren’t going to get anywhere. I’ll take Earle’s advice and avoid tackling your aerosols bait.

  72. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    # 54

    Steve Milesworthy,

    Are there not arguments to prove or disprove the sensitivity of the climate to CO2? Of course there are many “arguments” which we scientists name empirical evidence to disprove the sensitivity of the climate to CO2; the point is that we are not allowed to say it. For example on this book, all the messages denoting Th-D are erased. Science is not a matter of “arguments” or “consensus”, but of observational and/or empirical verification. It’s not a religion or a TV political debate, Steve.

  73. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 12:29 PM | Permalink

    Re: 44.

    OK, I can see what you are referring to. Given that SC24 seems similar to the earlier ones, we should expect somewhere around 60 months from the first spotless day before the minimum occurs. That suggests some time in 2009.

    We shall see, however, I suspect that some people will soon be wishing that CO2 really did cause global warming.

  74. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 12:53 PM | Permalink

    I wish I would have remembered the GHCN page lists the number of squares already, and I wish that I could get my math correct before I post….

    #37, Each square is an average of about 197 thousand square kilometers, which would be an area of 38 billion kilometers.

  75. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 1:00 PM | Permalink

    RE: #34 – Yeager, again:

    ===================

    Another Unusual July Storm?
    Wednesday, July 25, 2007

    We’ve talked on a couple of occasions this month about the unusual nature of storms that have resulted in more rain than normal from western Washington southward to parts of Northern California. It appears as if there will be a weaker version of this type of storm over the weekend.

    A storm system moving inland from the Pacific will bring a few showers to western Washington from Saturday into Saturday night, and the rain will not extend as far south as even western Oregon, let alone Northern California. And the rain with this storm system will be fairly light, with most locations likely to receive less than 0.10 inches.

    Regardless of the amount of rain that falls with this weak storm, rain amounts for July will be significantly higher than normal in western Washington. Seattle has already received 182% of normal rainfall for July, with 1.44 inches. The above-normal rainfall has not extended inland to interior parts of Washington; eastern areas have had less rain than normal, which is not surprising. The rain shadow that limits winter rain in this region kept rain from the unusual storms from the west to a minimum, and the typical moisture source (from the south) has been largely limited.

    The greatest deviations from normal will be found in Northern California, where rain in July is extremely rare, and one storm brought a surprising amount of rain. Redding, where normal rainfall is only 0.04 inches, has had 1.15 inch, which calculates to 230 times normal. One reader near Redding reported over two inches of rain, and another reader reported an intense thunderstorm that he believes dumped multiple inches of rain.

    The storm over the weekend will certainly not replicate these events, but that will not change the remarkable nature of the rain that fell earlier in the month.

    ====================

    For the W. Coast of N. America, north of say, 37.5 N, we’ll soon be saying, “2007, year without a summer.”

  76. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    # 74

    Yes, Sam. Coldness is not good for life. According to my calculi, in 2009 the atmospheric CO2 could be about 400 ppmv; subsequently, the idea of CO2 as the perverted instigator of GW would crumble.

  77. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 1:06 PM | Permalink

    Oops! It was not # 74 but # 73 and it was not Sam, but Richard Sharpe.

  78. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    RE: #47 – At the present moment, some 85% of the USA’s land mass is either currently experiencing rain, or has it forecast for the next 12 hours. While it is normal for the 55% east of the Rockies to experience a pronounced summer precip max, and an additional 25% in the southwest quadrant to get a respectable summer amount from convection, this scenario I’ve described has gone on day, after day for several weeks. While not as extreme as the UK, we are still, by and large, as a nation, having a soggy, disappointing summer. A far cry from last year’s “oh, the horror of this global warming caused heat wave, this is but a portent of things to come.” Hmmmmmm ……

  79. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 1:13 PM | Permalink

    78.

    norcal seems like a fall pattern already. WTF?

  80. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 1:48 PM | Permalink

    RE: #78 – Indeed.

    On a different (but then again, maybe not so different) topic, while the masses obsess on “Killer AGW” and its apparently nightmarish scenarios for 10 and 100 years from now, there is something exceedingly disturbing going on now:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004AGUFM.A22B..05W

    Not 100 years from now. Not 10 years from now. NOW!

  81. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 2:01 PM | Permalink

    Ken, I think Steve Milesworthy forgot to use the sarcasm tag in #59, or at least that’s how I read it.

    No tag needed by Milesworthy or Fritsch. My reply was sarcasm back at you, but I did want to note that my observations of Hansen is that when he is being a politician, he is as smooth as they come.

  82. jae
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    56, Nasif: you forgot “unprecedented in a milllllion years.”

  83. Jaye
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 2:13 PM | Permalink

    RE: 78

    I live in north Alabama. We have had a very strange spring/summer. First we started with the latest frost in the last 50 years, then spring/early summer turned into the driest 90ish day period since records were kept (we usually get close to 60 inches of rain a year) and now in the last 3 weeks we have gotten rain almost everyday totaling over 6 inches since around July 1. Our average highs are in the low to mid 90′s and the other day we had a cloudy day with only spotty rain with the temps in some spots not getting over 76 degrees. A very weird 3-4 months from where I sit.

  84. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 2:19 PM | Permalink

    A lot of effort goes into looking at whether the variability of a model is similar to the variability of the earth, though they don’t claim to have captured it all.

    The visual simulation unfortunately for all that effort has the year change several times per one revolution of the earth.

    I would never consider “that’s what popped out of a computer run” as a satisfactory answer to what might cause a 15 year hiatus in global warming under a scenario that pumps measured amounts of GHGs and some sulfates into the atmosphere. We do tend to want to explain a 30 to 40 year trend in rising global temperatures so why not do the same for a 15 year plateau.

    Now that I am curious I’ll look for myself and report back.

  85. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 2:46 PM | Permalink

    Yeah, I’d not looked at the GHCN pages for so long, I forgot they were there! I do still remember having to put a missing set of parenthesis into read_gridded.f around the -5 to get it to compile, gee that was a while ago.

    Back to the climate network and temps and squares.

    I’m not sure if the 10% of the Earth that is covered by glaciers is counted as land (I would guess it is) or water, it’s hard to tell because although about 70% of the Earth is water, glaciers are 2-3 percent of water-wise vs 10% land-wise. So I’m just going to basically ignore them. Help on that appreciated.

    We have about 1800ish of the 5×5 grids covered by ocean (11,250 SST 2×2 gridded)

    Of the remaining 30%ish, 800ish grids covering about 150 million km2, GHCN lists 7820 mean temp stations (5206 with at least 20 years of data and homogeneity-adjusted) for GHCN-Monthly*.

    That means, using an average 5×5 as 197K sq km2, there is about an average of about 1 ground station per 388 kilometers of area, 19.7 km2.

    However, homogenized stations are only every 30.3 km2, or 1 per 920 kilometers of area, or larger, due to the minimum age discrepency between homogenized (20) and anomaly calculation (25) stations and different time periods*.

    I’d imagine with some squares at 74 sq km2, and others 556 sq km2 (And the smallest ones on ice and a great number of the larger over water) this makes a more refined number pretty much impossible to calculate. Especially given that of the others, many have more than 10 in a ~200Ksqkm2 area. Also, if I take the 5206 number, if 1221 of them in the US are being used for anomalies, our measurements account for 25% of the network. That seems like far too many.

    So we have a spotty, random network, with an average of 1 station per 1000 kilometer area, that favors urban areas and is 1/4 in the US, giving us our anomalies. For 30% of the equation. How many show warming or cooling and how many stations is actually in each grid, that’s another question.

    * We don’t really know the number (or which are adjusted or not?):

    Anomalies were calculated on a monthly basis for all adjusted stations having at least 25 years of data in the 1961-1990 base period. Station anomalies were then averaged within each 5 X 5 degree grid box to obtain the gridded anomalies. For those grid boxes without adjusted data, anomalies were calculated from the raw station data using the same technique.

  86. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

    Re: #63

    1992 Atlantic switch to a state which brought large amounts of warm water to the subpolar regions, heating the Arctic

    I see evidence that this is reversing. The UAH NoPol data looks like it has been flat to down for the last year or so. My bet is that certainly within two years and probably in as little as one year Arctic temperatures will be undeniably declining. See Figure 2 here and my EWMA chart of UAH NoPol lower troposphere anomaly (through March, but the trend continues in more recent data) here.

  87. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 3:18 PM | Permalink

    Till you stop saying that the GHG forcings have increased 69% in the 20th Century

    Amusing though it may be to have a believer to argue with, I think it is not fair to have Steve challenged by so many people at the same time. He’s getting confused.

  88. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 3:26 PM | Permalink

    # 83

    Jaye,

    We have also a different, but not “atypical” summer, if we can call it summer. The temperatures have dropped by 10 °C below the median. We don’t consider this unusual, atypical or unprecedented. In 1983 there was an icing up in May, that summer we had rains for 6 of 10 days. As it has happened before, we could say that the climate here is getting back to normal. Nevertheless, this could deceive us, because it could be a stage of a cooling of the NH. It would be great that the European governments released the archives of the church that refers to the events happened during the medieval age to know what is the behavior of the climate before glaciations so we prepare ourselves like a species. I don’t mean that it will be catastrophic or apocalyptical, but it would be better if all the people knew how to confront those natural phenomena, especially the people from poor countries, although it could be that those people from poor countries are better prepared (even without knowing it) than us.

  89. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 3:41 PM | Permalink

    Dear Friends, our server got a problem with bioscience from some days ago, if you wish to drop a message to me, please write to science. Thank you.

    Jaye A note about this fresh summer:

    http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17710

    Of course, it is not “anomalous”; it’s quite normal when the Solar Activity is low and more cosmic nucleons are entering the atmophere.

  90. Anthony Watts
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    FYI – Surfacestations.org has just hit the 200 station Mark with Keene, NH submitted by Kristen Byrnes.

    They are online at the website now. A number of them are in New England, Utah, Minnesota, and Iowa. The geographic distribution is filling in well.

  91. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 4:29 PM | Permalink

    #49

    In the first AR4 A2 model I’ve examined there is a maximum 15 year gap between annual temperature records, much longer than the current gap, and several long flat or even declining periods, especially in the first half of the output.

    RichardT, when I went back to the AR4 report chapter 10:

    http://ipcc-wg1.ucar.edu/wg1/Report/AR4WG1_Pub_Ch10.pdf

    I found in Figure 10.5 that a global model gave a 15 year period for scenario A2 from around 2015 to 2030 that started and ended at nearly the same temperature, but when you put all the ensembles together one sees an ever increasing temperature rise from 2000 to 2100 with no level spots for any length of time discernible. How is one supposed to read these results? Use the average values, as the report recommends, and then revert to individual results (out of 24 possible) to make a specific point? I do not know the rules of this game.

    The A2 scenario as depicted in Figure 10.26 shows almost linearly increasing atmospheric concentrations of GHG and an approximately linear increase in the concentration of SO2 emissions up to 2030 and then a nearly linear decrease until 2070 followed by a level concentration to 2100.

  92. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 4:36 PM | Permalink

    #91 Kenneth
    Quick answer. The average of the results may give the likely future climate. The variability may give you an indication of the likely variability of our earth’s climate as we approach that future climate, though the fact that some are smooth and some are not suggests that not all models model variability very well yet.

  93. jae
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 4:55 PM | Permalink

    Ahem, Steve Milesworthy and RichardT. My interpretation of the references you gave are summarized well by #91. I just don’t see how anyone can place much faith in “parameterized” GCMs. They are alluring to many people, because they appear so hi-tech, so complicated, so mysterious. And most importantly, there is no other real way to demonstrate AGW. Certainly the temperature records have not been cooperating for the past 8-9 years. The models have a LONG way to go.

  94. John A
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 4:57 PM | Permalink

    Nasif,
    It looks as though from Oklahoma through Texas and well into Mexico, July is anomalously cold as well.

  95. jae
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 4:59 PM | Permalink

    …average of the results may give the likely future climate.

    Is “may likely” an IPCC term? Does it have a probability level of 50%?

  96. David Smith
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    Far off topic (my apology): if you’ve wondered whether gas cylinders can really truly fly, check out this 10-minute video from today’s fire in Dallas (US).

    The cylinders contained acetylene, which is a highly energetic chemical.

  97. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 5:27 PM | Permalink

    As I said at great lengths elsewhere, we have 1 homogenized land station an average of every 1000 km or so making up 30% of the readings, and those readings are telling us the thermal characteristics of the surface “5 feet” below the thermometer and how the air mixes with those characteristics, to the limits of the device’s accuracy and calibration.

    We’re tracking the anomalies of the underlying surface behavior. It doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to know there’s more asphault and cultured grass (and better thermometers) in 2007 than there were in 1880. And more people, buildings and animals.

  98. David Smith
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 5:58 PM | Permalink

    Nevada in the news for its temperature rise ( link .

  99. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 6:41 PM | Permalink

    # 94

    John A,

    Yes, it does. It covers a large part of Mexico and goes North of US up to Canada, although in the last it is wider than in US and Mexico. I’d like to see the image of Africa, Asia and Europe. I got an image of Australia. Notice the gray area over Kansas and Oklahoma? There were clouds covering the area throughout the recording period that impeded to MODIS to get the measurements; however I can interpolate and it could be similar to the variation of temperature on the nearby areas.

  100. crosspatch
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 7:40 PM | Permalink

    That map is for only includes the first 3 days of July. I don’t think we can say anything about the month to date from that graphic.

  101. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 8:59 PM | Permalink

    # 99

    Crosspatch,

    However, up to date things have not changed too much. For example, at 25⸠48ⲠNorth Lat./100⸠19′ W Long, for the 25 days of July, the anomalies, have been as follows:

    July 1st, 2007 -6.4 K July 14th, 2007 -2.4 K
    July 2nd, 2007 -4.8 K July 15th, 2007 -6.7 K
    July 3rd, 2007 -7.1 K July 16th, 2007 -6.1 K
    July 4th, 2007 -1.3 K July 17th, 2007 -6.0 K
    July 5th, 2007 -5.1 K July 18th, 2007 1.7 K
    July 6th, 2007 -5.5 K July 19th, 2007 -3.2 K
    July 7th, 2007 -6.5 K July 20th, 2007 -3.6 K
    July 8th, 2007 -5.8 K July 21st, 2007 -0.4 K
    July 9th, 2007 -7.7 K July 22nd, 2007 -11 K
    July 10th, 2007 -3.9 K July 23rd, 2007 -4.5 K
    July 11th, 2007 -4.8 K July 24th, 2007 -5.2 K
    July 12th, 2007 -4.4 K July 25th, 2007 -6.1 K
    July 13th, 2007 -5.1 K

  102. Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 9:02 PM | Permalink

    Amendment:

    July 3rd, 2007 -12 K

  103. mccall
    Posted Jul 25, 2007 at 11:27 PM | Permalink

    Couldn’t find a completed Reno or LV survey on surfacestations… but I’m suspicious after words such quotes as

    “The scientific evidence of global warming is incontrovertible, and Nevada is feeling the heat more intensely than most of the rest of the U.S,” said Stephen M. Rowland, Professor of Geology at University of Nevada, Las Vegas.

    “Only a tiny bit of this increase in temperature can be attributed to increased urbanization the so-called urban heat-island effect,” Rowland continued. “Global warming is here, and we better get serious about confronting it.”

    from http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070725/ap_on_sc/warmer_nevada_1

  104. Philip B
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 4:09 AM | Permalink

    Re #53 glacier girl

    I don’t see what there is to explain. Irrespective of whether the climate is warming or cooling, almost all the area of existing glaciers/icefields (of substantial size) will accumulate ice and anything lying on the surface will get buried in the ice. Glaciers shrink because ice melts faster at the bottom than it accumulates at the top and not because ice stops accumulating.

    And re the world temperature anomaly image. It shows a cold anomaly around the Northwest Cape in Western Australia. Curiously, that area is the only part of Australia to show a substantial positive temperature anomaly in the surface record over the last couple of months.

    http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/silo/temp_maps.cgi

    Select month max temp anomaly.

  105. Jeff B
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 4:48 AM | Permalink

    Thanks for the reply Philip B!

  106. beng
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 8:51 AM | Permalink

    RE 83:

    Jaye, here in rural western MD I had 3 mornings in a row, July 21-23 w/overnight lows of 49F (9.5C). That’s got to be close to daily record lows around here, for the warmest (on average) week of the year.

    The sun is at a minimum, tho…

  107. JP
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    #98
    Interesting story. Too bad the reporters didn’t mention that Las Vegas’s weather averaged about 2 deg warmer in the 1940s.

    http://www.wrh.noaa.gov/vef/climate/figure8.php

  108. jae
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 10:02 AM | Permalink

    Hmmm, there certainly can’t be a lot of positive “water vapor feedback” in NV. If the AGW hypothesis is true, shouldn’t the temperature rise more in the humid areas than in arid areas?

  109. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 10:24 AM | Permalink

    From what I understand, rapid growth in otherwise desert areas such as Las Vegas and Phoenix, which results in a variety of changes including massive reservoirs, has had dramatic effects on the local weather in such places. I.e., the areas are actually creating their own weather (of a sorts) now.

    We used to see that on the coast of Florida, btw. Little micro-systems of clouds would form over the ocean near the coast, then move inland and rain (which is why Melbourne inland had 60″ of rain per year but 4 miles E on the coast had only 38″ per year).

    Mark

  110. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 11:30 AM | Permalink

    RE: #94 – I am getting nervous about the global food supply. Note to all – you would not be unwise to, ASAP, ensure you have in your possession at least a one month food supply. Having a one year supply would be better yet.

  111. John A
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 1:10 PM | Permalink

    The UK Met Office has decided that the best way to avoid future egg on its face with its forecasting is to predict all eventualities and justify itself after the fact.

    This is obviously the new climate forecasting paradigm. Nice work if you can get it.

  112. Chriscafe
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    My scientific training was as a theoretician and I have, until now, been looking in vain for a satisfying theoretical approach to AGW (or lack thereof).
    At last I have found something: http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf
    A paper entitled ‘Falsifcation Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics’ by Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner.

    We can all go home now, AGW is verifiable nonsense.

  113. KevinUK
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    #111 John A

    I see Stottie is up to his usual tricks. He’s got absolutely no evidence to back up his statements (other than the ropey predictions of his climate model) but that doesn’t stop him.

    “A distinctive pattern of global rainfall changing in the last 75 years is largely due to human influence”

    What complete and utter b*****ks.

    It looks like we’ve now had our ‘Katrina’ in the UK and the Stottie’s of this world will continue to milk it for everything its worth (at least ⡱20 to the Met Office at least by all accounts).

  114. KevinUK
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 2:52 PM | Permalink

    ⡱20 million

  115. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    RE: #114 – Imagine what Climate Audit or similar group could do with a 120 thousand quid start up fund! Let alone 120 million.

  116. Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 4:49 PM | Permalink

    #112
    If you think that a greenhouse has limited value as an analogy for the trapping of heat by radiatively active gases (nobody would disagree), then try this analogy from Gerlich and Tscheuschner

    The water pot on the stove. Without water filled in, the bottom of the pot will soon become glowing red. Water is an excellent absorber of infrared radiation. However, with water filled in, the bottom of the pot will be substantially colder.

    Could it be that the water boils, preventing the pan from getting hotter?
    This physics behind this paper has already been discussed elsewhere.

  117. Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 11:56 PM | Permalink

    I am not sure comments are getting through, nothing new here since 4 – 5 hours ago as far as I can see.

  118. Posted Jul 26, 2007 at 11:57 PM | Permalink

    mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm………

  119. aurbo
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 12:03 AM | Permalink

    I’m a little confused about the boiling pot analogy which is described several times in the referenced Paper.
    The bottom of the pot is cooled by the transfer of heat to the water mostly by conduction. In an open pot, as soon as the water reaches the boiling point, it changes to steam and rises, and is replaced by cooler, denser water. So the heat transferred to the water by conduction is carried up autoconvectively and out of the system in the form of steam. Eventually, all of the water boils off and the base of the pot can once again glow red. It is my impression that radiational tranfer of energy has little to do with this.

  120. aurbo
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 12:06 AM | Permalink

    Re #117:

    I couldn’t make contact with CA directly, so I googled the site and and was able to log in that way. I was getting all kinds of warning messages when I tried to go directly from my browser.

  121. Mark T
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 1:40 AM | Permalink

    This physics behind this paper has already been discussed elsewhere.

    I’d hardly call that a “discussion”… what, three paragraphs to sum up an entire 88 page paper and all he found was two or three problems? Even at that, most of the comments seem to think the blogger is wrong, not the other way around. Hmmm…

    Mark

  122. Mark T
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 1:43 AM | Permalink

    Could it be that the water boils, preventing the pan from getting hotter?

    Uh, that’s kinda what they’re saying, right? Water is absorbing the heat, which is then turning it to steam… uh, duh?

    Mark

  123. Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 2:26 AM | Permalink

    #122
    Yes, a perfect analogy for the way the “greenhouse effect” works.

    All their “analogy” demonstrates is that latent heat is a more effective than radiation for cooling a pot. Latent heat doesn’t feature highly in the earth’s energy balance, only radiation

  124. Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 6:39 AM | Permalink

    I think a better way to look at it is to say “convection is very important”.

    The GC Modelers admit convection is not well modeled. Perhaps it is like clouds “pick a number”.

    Convection may be more important than radiation until we lose a significant part of our atmosphere.

    Just as clouds may be more important than CO2.

    At least those are the competing explanations. Clouds vs CO2. Convection vs. radiation.

  125. jae
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 1:01 PM | Permalink

    123: RichardT, it looks like you have not fully read that paper, or you do not understand it. It makes complete shambles of GHG theory, both empirically and theoretically. There must be 10 good arguments there against the notion that Earth somehow behaves like a greenhouse. Convection and conduction are the important mechanisms, not radiation.

  126. jae
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 1:04 PM | Permalink

    Steve M: The reference linked at 112 is definitely worth a read. I doubt that you will find anything better for a summary of the thermodynamical considerations associated with GHG theories.

  127. David Smith
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 2:00 PM | Permalink

    Big chunks of ice falling from clear skies due to………..yep, global warming.

    Atmospheric megacryometeors could be a new type of fingerprint (geoindicator) of Climate Change. Global Warming might be making the tropopause colder, moister and more turbulent, creating conditions in which ice crystals could grow, forming, unusually and much more recurrently, large ice conglomerations.

    Link

  128. jae
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 2:03 PM | Permalink

    re: my 126: Sorry, SteveM, When I wrote this, I had not seen your post on the solar thread.

  129. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 2:06 PM | Permalink

    Folks, I do not wish to get involved in a discussion of this paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner. It would be far more worthwhile to discuss a good exposition of mainstream theory.

  130. jae
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 2:51 PM | Permalink

    It would be far more worthwhile to discuss a good exposition of mainstream theory.

    But, can you locate one? According to Gerlich and Tscheuschner, there are none that start with the basic physical realities.

  131. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    IF you’re doing audits and verifications, adversarial articles like G and T are not really relevant. One has to focus on mainstream articles. I do not accept the G and T assertion that an explanation is impossible. That’s why I’m interested in the best mainstream expositions, I’m not interested in characterizations by skeptics right now.

    Again, I would encourage readers to spend more time familiarizing themselves with mainstream articles than with skeptical articles. For example, John Daly was very skeptical of the HS, but his approach wasn’t conducive to diagnosing what was wrong with MBH. To do so, you have to wade through what Mann actually did – principal components, bristlecones etc. – and talking about how Mann’s articles were inconsistent with Hubert Lamb was interesting but not relevant to an assessment of the type that I do.

    I very seldom discuss “skeptical” articles on this site for that reason, although many readers bring them up. Mostly I try to analyze recognized mainstream articles. (I do not view analysis of surface stations as “skeptical” – the efforts of surfacestations.org are audit oriented: do the surface stations meet NOAA representations of being “high quality”.)

  132. jae
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    BTW, Gerlich and Tscheuschner cite a Dept. of Energy paper (ref. 91) that supposedly forms the basis for IPCC’s view on GHGs (although they also say that some climate scientists are now making assumptions that are not allowed by the DOE paper). Maybe that could serve as a kernel for a discussion of these issues.

  133. jae
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    add to 132: I have been trying to locate that DOE paper, and while it is referenced by zillions of people, I have not yet found it.

  134. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    The MAcCRacken reference is a good one. I ran across this about 3 years ago when I was trying to figure out where the 4 wm-2 forcing figure came from. IPCC uses this figure but none of the references derive this figure. It appears as though by magic. THere is a derivation of the figure, but it wasn’t easy to find. I located the derivation via the MacCracken reference which I stumbled on in the stacks at U of T library.

  135. Klaus Brakebusch
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 3:43 PM | Permalink

    #16, #19,

    When it comes to prescipitation,
    I took the data from “http://www.meteoschweiz.admin.ch/web/en/climate/climate_since_1864/homogeneous_data.html”
    they have not only the temperature, but too, prescipitation since 1864,
    for most of them, prescipitation is about or just east of a 20-25 years minumum.

    For Switzerland, at least, decreasing temperatures, increasing prescipitation should be expected
    over the next 15-20 years.

    I still have not enough datas for increase/retreat of glaciers of switzerland. Still searching.
    Because I wouldn’t be surprised, when they will follow the prescipitation pattern.

    Klaus Brakebusch

  136. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 3:52 PM | Permalink

    Bill Gray’s op-ed in the WSJ on 7/26 inspired me to do an up-to-date Exponentially Weighted Moving Average plot of the UAH lower troposphere NoPol global (land plus water) temperature anomalies. I have included a gaussian (Why gaussian? Seemed like a good idea at the time.) plot that I eyeball fitted to the data. Note that for the data before 1994, the trend is actually slightly negative, but it’s not statistically significant so I didn’t include it. I’m using an exponential weighting factor of 0.08 so the group delay is on the order of 6 months (probably somewhat less because more recent points are more heavily weighted). After looking at the plot, it may take more than two years to convince the masses that Arctic temperatures have peaked:

    For a longer instrumental temperature series that shows how much warmer it was from 1935 to 1945 here’s a plot from the Warwick Hughes site of Hadley data(I assume from the Jones citation):

    Finally, here is the relevant page from the Latif et. al. paper on Thermohaline Circulation (or MOC) linked in #86 above:

    The MOC in the 1930′s is much higher than currently, as would be expected if current Arctic warming is primarily due to increased MOC.

  137. Kenneth Fritsch
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    Re: #127

    Big chunks of ice falling from clear skies due to………..yep, global warming.

    Hyper-canes and now hyper-hail. If that cannot convince those hardheaded skeptics (and more importantly the general voting public) what next — hyper-bole?

  138. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

    #116 Richard

    Yes that paper has indeed been discussed elsewhere by someone who really does not have much of an idea about the natural direction of heat flow. I had originally though he merely misspoke but as it turns out he really does have a serious misconception about it. Now I’m wondering just how widespread such misconceptions are.

  139. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 6:15 PM | Permalink

    Steve, #131 Nail on the head.

    Do the surface stations meet NOAA representations of being “high quality”.

    I would rephrase that though, since we know they don’t all meet the standards:

    What percentage of the surface stations meet NOAA representations of being “high quality” and what percentage doesn’t.

  140. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 6:56 PM | Permalink

    RE 139.

    I bet 20-25% dont meet standards.

  141. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 7:16 PM | Permalink

    The percentage doesn’t matter. But I think you’re too high. Or too low.

    Wait, if we make enough guesses, we’ll get the correct answer. So I say….

    75-80% meet standards.

    Bueller?

  142. Bob Weber
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    ACORE president Michael T. Eckhart threatens EPA administrator Stephen L Johnson if Johnson doesn’t stop writinga against climate change. See http://www.washingtontimes.com/article/20070727/NATION02/107270089

    Bob

  143. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 8:50 PM | Permalink

    141. best movie ever.

  144. David Smith
    Posted Jul 27, 2007 at 9:25 PM | Permalink

    Steve Sadlov, the GFS model shows a cool front (actually just a wind shift line with slightly drier air) near Miami, Florida on August 1. That, if it happens, would be quite rare and can be added to the list of strange 2007 weather events.

    The global temperature anomaly over the last seven days is given here . One has to mentally shrink the distorted polar areas (India is 50% larger than Greenland but you’d never guess that by the map) to get a proper view. The global temperature is actually rather balanced at the moment, with roughly offsetting regions of anomalous coolness and warmth.

    Contrast that with the global temperature anomaly for the last 365 days ( link ). (Note that the scale is different from the first map.) The 365-day map shows few regions of anomalous coolness, with the warm areas greatly outweighing the cool.

    It’s an odd period for the globe.

  145. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 3:45 AM | Permalink

    Steve Milesworthy, thanks for your comment. You say:

    #52 Alan
    Jae and I have a difference of opinion with regards to the last 9 years temperatures, that’s all. He says its flat, I say it looks a bit up and down, but its really up, since 1998 was an exceptional year.

    Well, as y’all know, I’m an inveterate investigator of curious relationships. I kept hearing people saying “the temperature hasn’t risen since 1998″, to which the AGW supporters say “Yeah, but 1998 was an El Nià±o year, so it’s no surprise that it was so high, that’s why the temperatures look flat”.

    So I decided to see what the temperature data looks like with the El Nino trend removed. There are several measures of El Nino strength, including the ENSO (El Nià±o – Southern Oscillation) Index, the BEST (Bivariate Enso Timeseries) Index, the El Nià±o 3-4 Index, and the MEI (Multivariate Enso Index).

    Of these, the MEI has the best relationship with the HadCRUT3 temperature (r^2 = 0.24). Accordingly, I regressed the MEI on the temperature and removed the effect of the El Nià±o variations from the temperature record. Here are the results, showing the HadCRUT3 temperature record (blue), and the same record with the El Nià±o effect removed :

    A few things of interest:

    1) After removing the El Nià±o variations, temperatures since 1998 are flatter than they are when the variations are included.

    2) There appears to have been a change in the relationship between El Nià±o and temperature that coincides with the PDO change in 1976.

    3) Year to year variations since 1998, discounted for El Nià±o, have been smaller than the historical norm.

    All in all, I’d say that the idea that the temperatures are still rising since 1998 is doubtful … removing the El Nià±o variations flattens the data out rather than confirming a rise.

    w.

  146. KevinUK
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 5:35 AM | Permalink

    #116

    The reason the pot becomes red hot is because it can’t transfer enough heat away to the surrounding air through

    a) the surrounding ait through natural convection
    b) to the cooker/other objects in the room through radiation

    When its full of water, the water absorbs most of the heat it is receiving firstly through natural convection and subsequently turbulent convection (when large bubbles are formed and circulate within the pot as the gases dissolve within the water are released. Eventually the bulk o fthe water reaches boiling point and the bulk of the heat is lost through latent heat of change from water to steam (provided the pot isn’t sealed). This process continues until all the water is boiled away and we eventually end up with a red hot bottomed pot.

  147. Alan Woods
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 6:07 AM | Permalink

    Re #145

    Good work Willis. On the PDO, I’m curious as to what it actually is. I understand it relates to the poleward of 20N SST anomaly, and is detrended of the Global Warming trend. Also, it appears to correlate remarkably well with periods of global warming and cooling.
    If you detrended world temperature data of the global warming trend, I imagine you would get a similar graph to that you see for the PDO, as global warming has not been perfectly linear, rather it oscillates around the linear trend (ie positive ~1915-1945, negative ~1945-1978, positive ~1970-2000ish).
    So, is the PDO simply a manifestation of global warming (ie global warming causes the PDO oscillation), or does the PDO drive global warming?

  148. David Smith
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 7:48 AM | Permalink

    RE #147 Alan there is pretty good evidence that the PDO exisitng well before the 20′th Century. So, I’d say the PDO isn’t caused by AGW but rather it’s a natural oscillation which is mostly independent of AGW, at least so far.

    The cool-phase PDO pattern is illustrated in these extended SST forecasts . In the north Pacific note the warmth in the middle and the horseshoe of coolness surrounding that central warmth. You have to use some imagination because the pattern isn’t perfect, but it’s clearly there.

    The coolness along California and into the eastern subtropics is very important. That coolness increases the marine stratiform cloudiness and that large-scale increase in low cloud cover tends to cool the earth a bit. Also, the coolness reinforces trade winds which tends to increase the chances of cool La Ninas, again cooling the earth a bit.

    Re #145 Willis thank you for creating the chart. Very interesting.

    The other big global oscillator is in the Atlantic (AMO or AMM). The Atlantic switched to its warm phase beginning about 1992, putting lots of warm water into the subpolar regions as well as warming a broad stretch of the lower-latitude Atlantic.

    There are also large volcanos (El Chicon and Pinatubo) one of which masked a substantial El Nino and the other which dropped global temperatures for several years in the early 1990s.

    I have no idea how to remove those from the global trend but they’re there.

  149. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 3:40 PM | Permalink

    Re: #148

    The AMO should be peaking about now as well. We could well see temperatures returning to near the 1950 to 1975 level in the next decade or two. If this even begins to happen, watch the warmers abandon the global temperature metric and begin touting the heat content metric.

    Steve Sadlov,

    Recently I saw a couple of references to Spitzbergen being accessible by sea for over 200 days (considered a ‘climate improvement’ at the time) in the early part of the twentieth century compared to less than 100 in the 19 century. Spitzbergen has significant coal deposits that can only be transported by sea, btw. I tried looking for the current conditions, but didn’t have much luck. Do you know where I can find this information?

  150. SidViscous
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 4:01 PM | Permalink

    Interesting article in the local paper.

    http://www.unionleader.com/article.aspx?headline=New+Hampshire+experts+debate+how+global+warming+is+measured&articleId=be437b68-68a6-42f8-bf68-5c0ae76f5c26

  151. TonyN
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 4:50 PM | Permalink

    How to Set a Record, Met Office Style

    On 5th July, the UK Met office put out a press release, Record-breaking June rainfall figures. It says that records began in 1914 and that this June was the wettest on record.

    On 26th July, they put out another breathless press release, Record-breaking rainfall figures. This one says that the May to July 2007 period has been the wettest May to July since records began in 1766.

    It must be really nice to be able to pick whichever reference period you like to create a nice new record and know that none of your colleagues will say anything because its all about climate change. June certainly was a very wet month. In fact it was the 8th wettest June since 1766*. But why mention that when records, not science, is the name of the game?

    It is very sad to see a once revered national institution compromise its integrity like this.

    *(Philip Eden: Sun. Tel. 01/07/07, not available on line)

  152. Alan Woods
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 5:17 PM | Permalink

    Re #148

    David, I’m not referring to ‘A’GW, just GW. And I’m sure global T’s were oscillating before the start of the 20th C. So its interesting to speculate, between PDO and GW, which is the chicken and which is the egg.

  153. SidViscous
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 5:37 PM | Permalink

    “Surfacestations.org has just hit the 200 station Mark with Keene, NH submitted by Kristen Byrnes”

    Damn, I’d actually been there a month ago, but didn’t have time to upload anything. I’ll get my pics and notes up to substantiate her position.

  154. SidViscous
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

    Okay I spoke to soon.

    Why I always get Keen and Peterburough mixed up I’ll never now. Let my un futz myself and I’ll get Peterurough up.

  155. kim
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 5:48 PM | Permalink

    Is anybody discussing Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s falsification of the physics of the Greenhouse Theory?
    ================================================

  156. Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

    Re 145 Willis Eschenbach

    A fascinating graph, but, alas, it starts too late. You didn’t by any chance look to see what happened earlier? Even HADCRUT3 shows ‘global warming’ beginning around 1910 — if you take out the horrible and, IMHO, indefensible bucket correction. My real interest would be to see the period 1935 to 1950, which covers a phase where CO2 went down but temperatures continued to rise.

    JF

  157. SidViscous
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 8:19 PM | Permalink

    “My real interest would be to see the period 1935 to 1950, which covers a phase where CO2 went down but temperatures continued to rise.”

    Que? You’ve got that reversed don’t you. Temperature went down, but CO2 continued to rise during the time periood in question.

  158. Ron Cram
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 8:40 PM | Permalink

    re: 155

    kim, I do not know what you are referring to but I would like to read the research. Do you have a link?

  159. Ron Cram
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 8:42 PM | Permalink

    re: 155
    kim,

    I found it here. Maybe I can comment after I read it.

  160. Ron Cram
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 9:07 PM | Permalink

    re: 155
    kim,

    I found it here. The paper is 114 pages and does not appear to be peer reviewed – although the authors seem to have discussed their thoughts with others and have made some changes to the original paper dated July 7, 2007. Version 2.0 is dated July 24, 2007. Both of the authors appear to have written peer reviewed papers in years past but not a great many of them. I would love to see what Lubos Motl has to say about this paper.

  161. Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 9:20 PM | Permalink

    Re 157 SidViscous

    Maybe you are looking at the HADCru graphs. See Folland and Parker [1995] Figure 3

    Original Caption: Folland and Parker [1995] Figure 3. Annual anomalies from a 1951-80 average of uncorrected SST (solid) and corrected NMAT (dashed) for (a) northern (b) southern hemisphere, 1856-1992. Only collocated 5 deg. x 5 deg. SST and NMAT values were used.

    for what I believe to be a better true picture of temperature changes during that period. In 1939 there is a temperature blip which lasts more or less until 1945ish. It shows beautifully in the NH SST graphs.

    I have a vague memory of seeing some CO2 figures in tabular form, with levels dropping slightly from … sort of 310.5 to 310.3 (I’ve lost the reference, rats!)

    Searching for that found another graph for which I have lost the reference — atmospheric CO2 rising while anthropogenic C is falling markedly — I reckon it might yield some data if the corrections are removed, but it looks rather savagely smoothed at the moment. I’m still thinking about that one. If only I’d copied down where I got it from….

    JF

  162. Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 10:03 PM | Permalink

    # 160

    Ron Cram,

    Suppose that Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner have not more peer reviews than their professional thesis, and suppose that the paper has not peer reviewed. If their work matches with the scientific knowledge and the mathematical procedures and application of the physics is correct, in that case the paper is scientific and trustworthy. It is as a teacher who instructs his pupils in sciences without other peer review than his professional thesis.

    The myth of the peer reviews is just that, a myth used to exclude the works from other no AGWer scientists that have demonstrated that the global warming is natural. Perhaps the physics procedures lose their validity for that reason? Aren’t there thousands of scientists that can review their procedures and determine if the released information is wrong? In present days, we know how the censorship has invaded the academies to prevent the publication of any work demonstrating other causes of GW than anthropogenic GHG. Only few societies have not been politicized to that extreme and are giving room for honest papers. However, I challenge to any AGWist to demonstrate that the investigation of Gerhard Gerlich and Ralf D. Tscheuschner is incorrect from the Physics viewpoint. Perhaps someone wouldn’t like it merely because it says that there is not “global warming”?

    Sorry, Dr. Steve McIntyre, I know this is not what you are looking for; hoever, don’t you agree on my arguments?

  163. SidViscous
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 10:13 PM | Permalink

    “Maybe you are looking at the HADCru graphs”

    Maybne you could link to the graphs your looking at, because I have NEVER seena graph that showed falling CO2 in the mid 20th century, and most graphs show falling temperatures, although some process it and show flatlines.

    But again I have NEVER seen a graph like you mention. You’ll have to reference something.

    http://images.google.com/images?q=20th+century+temp&ndsp=20&svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&start=0&sa=N
    http://images.google.com/images?svnum=10&um=1&hl=en&q=20th+century+CO2

  164. Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 11:09 PM | Permalink

    Julian Flood is right. All the graphs plotted from Mauna Loa data show those seasonal declines of carbon dioxide. Nonetheless, it’s hard to find those graphs at this moment. I don’t know what happened to the Internet.

    There was a dramatic decline of atmospheric carbon dioxide between 1875 and 1958 that was interpreted like a gap in the proxies. However, the gap didn’t exist and the authors of the graph simply moved the data toward the coordinates where the data from Mauna Loa -which begun quite later than the measurements deduced from stomata, foraminifera, Ca isotopes, Fe stains, sedimentary rocks, shells, ice cores, etc. – could match with the last peak before the gap (83 years). The declining of CO2 disappeared; however, an explanation was never disclosed before the scientific community. It was something like saying… “Well, we have a large gap of 83 years. Just move the line to the right quadrant so the gap does not give the impression of discordance with our idea”. You know, if they had left the gap on their graphs, there wouldn’t be an explanation for the global warming between 1910 and 1940. I took the information to draw my graphs from Science Magazine and I didn’t close the gap, so you can see undamaged graphs, exactly like those graphs were published in their raw reality.

    BTW, I’m still waiting for RichardT to tell me why the Holocene Epoch is not comprehended by the Quaternary Period and why the last 10000 years are not into the Holocene Epoch.

  165. Alan Woods
    Posted Jul 28, 2007 at 11:14 PM | Permalink

    RE 161 and 163.

    The Law Dome data show an ever-so-slight drop in C02 in the late forties, but I doubt its statistically significant.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/icecore/antarctica/law/law_data.html

  166. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 2:28 AM | Permalink

    Re 165 Alan Woods wrote: Law Dome.

    Yes, that’s the one I saw.

    The graph I’m looking at is called Annual CO2 Emissions and Atmosphere Change. It’s a gif as saved and I can’t find it on search.

    .3 ppm fall is .6Gt of … some say carbon, some CO2, I am now confused…. During the period when the atmospheric Co2 fell by .6Gt, anthropogenic production went up by .4Gt. So, suddenly, the ecosystem of poor old Earth managed to consume an extra 1Gt even though we are told that the ppms were previously going up because the ecosystem was overloaded and could only consume half the increase. Can this be right? (and why half? Is this a law of nature? Produce 10 Gt and 5 goes into the atmosphere, produce 2 and only one does. Why?)

    I’d love to see clean (un-adjusted, unsmoothed) graphs from 1935 to 1950 covering atmospheric CO2, NH SSTs (verified by comparison with lighthouse data from west-facing lighthouses) anthropogenic CO2 production and delta C13. Is albedo too much to hope for as well? During the period of interest we conducted a major climate experiment, albeit inadvertently. I’m amazed no-one has looked at it more closely.

    I’m not holding my breath wrt a graph of volcanic eruptions and delta C13.

    JF

  167. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 2:29 AM | Permalink

    #164
    I think your referring to Jaworowski difficulties with understanding how the ice bubbles in a core can be younger than the surrounding ice matrix. Simply, the bubbles take some time to close completely and seal their contents.

    The Holocene is the last 11.5 ka. Only in uncalibrated radiocarbon years is it 10ka (or if you round to 1 significant figure).

    Anybody who agrees with Gerlich and Tscheuschner’s non-peer reviewed preprint needs to be able explain why lead melts on the surface of Venus.

  168. Steve Viddal
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 3:07 AM | Permalink

    Re #149

    Recent yearly reports from Store Norske Kullkompani (Norwegian Coal Company) i Spitzbergen refers to an ice free period of about 100 days, lasting from mid july, allowing load out of coal by ships.

  169. kim
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 5:26 AM | Permalink

    RichardT re: 116. It seems the physics behind the G&T study has been discussed, but has it been settled?
    ========================================

  170. kim
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 5:57 AM | Permalink

    Maybe N Johnson should study physics not asphalt?
    ===============================

  171. jae
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 7:26 AM | Permalink

    164, Nasif: I agree with you. I want to see someone try to tackle that paper! Maybe Realclimate.org will try?

  172. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 9:09 AM | Permalink

    # 167

    RichardT,

    From my article:

    “The Holocene Epoch includes the last 10.000 years of the Quaternary Period.”

    You say,

    “The Holocene is the last 11.5 ka. Only in uncalibrated radiocarbon years is it 10ka (or if you round to 1 significant figure).”

    Did you read the word “includes”? “Includes” means that the period of “the last 10000 years” is into the Holocene Epoch. If you think it is an error, I would suggest you to make Wallace Broecker to know your discovery because he mentioned it in his “peer review” published in Science Magazine (Vol. 291; issue No. 5508; pp. 1497-1999. 23 Feb. 2001).

  173. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 9:14 AM | Permalink

    # 171

    Jae,

    It seems that RC and AGWers only handle “beliefs”. They fear Physics and real world. ;)

  174. David Smith
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 10:03 AM | Permalink

    Another of the 2007 weather oddities is the relative lack of wind in the Arctic this summer.

    Winds have been running about 2m/s below normal, which may not sound like much, but that’s maybe 60% of normal. The windspeed anomaly chart for the last 30 days is here .

    This is probably related to the anomalous high pressure which has been present in the Arctic this summer.

    The effect seems to be less evaporative cooling and mixing of the open portions of the Arctic Ocean, which is making the ocean surface considerably warmer than normal. This shows up in the SST anomaly map . Conversely, the upper ocean (below the surface) is probably cooler than normal due to less heat mixed from the surface.

    What this means for ice extent is hard to figure. It could affect summertime fog and low cloud formation, ice movement/breakup, radiation of heat into space, precipitation and so forth. My guess is that slower wind results in a net cooling due to greater outgoing longwave radition from the surface due to higher temperature, but a case can also be made for a net warming.

    It’s another odd aspect of 2007.

  175. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 10:46 AM | Permalink

    # 167

    RichardT,

    Is anything odd on melting point of lead? It is 327.5 °C and the temperature of Venus’ surface is 484.85 °C. The high pressure of Venus atmosphere is another factor that influences on melting temperatures. The best explanation for the Warming on Venus is not the GHG, but the gravitational oscillations by the expansion-contraction of the planet. Besides, one day of Venus takes 243 Earth’s days. Imagine! Each hemisphere of Venus faces the heat from the Sun through 121.5 terrestrial days! What would be of Earth if its spin was like the rotational period of Venus? Probably Earth wouldn’t have oceans or water in its liquid phase. Besides, Venus has been warming up by the last 30 years; to be precise, the climate on Venus is changing at the same time than on Earth and other bodies of the solar system.

  176. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 11:06 AM | Permalink

    #172
    Contrary to what you state, Broecker’s article does not state that the Holocene is 10,000 years long. Only by naively assuming that figure 1 spanned the full Holocene could you make this interpretation. Is this the only article you’ve read on the Holocene?
    It is fairly common in popular articles to describe the Holocene as being 10ka long, rather than it’s true length of 11.5 ka, but I thought your pages were supposed to be scientific.
    Regardless, this was a minor issue on your page. The serious problem was your incorrect assertion that the early Holocene was globally 6°C warmer. There is no evidence for this, and plenty that contradicts it.

  177. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 11:42 AM | Permalink

    #175
    Nasif, you really ought to check at least some of your facts before posting.

    gravitational oscillations by the expansion-contraction of the planet

    We are discussing Venus, not Io. Gravitational heating on Venus is negligible.
    The diurnal temperature range on Venus is nearly zero, so the long days cannot account for the high temperature on Venus today.

    So I’m still seeking an explanation why the temperature on Venus is over 400°C without invoking the greenhouse effect.

  178. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 11:55 AM | Permalink

    NewScientist is trying the bring back the “hockey stick” and 26 other global warming myths.

    http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/climate-change/dn11646

  179. Mark T
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 12:16 PM | Permalink

    So I’m still seeking an explanation why the temperature on Venus is over 400°C without invoking the greenhouse effect.

    Actually, if you’re going to criticize someone you should do yourself a favor and read the paper as well. If you have, then you weren’t paying attention. The GT paper makes it very clear they’re referring to a trace gas situation, under relatively low pressure to boot, which is not what is going on with Venus. I.e. the conditions on Venus are so radically different than they are on the surface of the earth that drawing any analogies, or conclusions as a result, is fundamentally flawed and at best, a strawman.

    Mark

  180. Mark T
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 12:31 PM | Permalink

    richardT, you’re also apparently unaware that the atmosphere of Venus is 93 times thicker than the earth’s…

    Mark

  181. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 12:34 PM | Permalink

    re #177, richardT

    So I’m still seeking an explanation why the temperature on Venus is over 400°C without invoking the greenhouse effect.

    Getting more than twice as much energy in from the sun might be a factor …

  182. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 12:59 PM | Permalink

    #179
    So the second law of thermodynamics works differently on Venus then?

    From the abstract of the preprint

    The atmospheric greenhouse effect … describes a fictitious mechanism … According to the second law of thermodynamics such a planetary machine can never exist.

    There’s no get-out clause for denser atmospheres.

    #fFreddy the albedo is also much higher

  183. Willis Eschenbach
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 1:08 PM | Permalink

    Julian Flood, you say:

    Re 145 Willis Eschenbach

    A fascinating graph, but, alas, it starts too late. You didn’t by any chance look to see what happened earlier? Even HADCRUT3 shows global warming’ beginning around 1910 ‘€” if you take out the horrible and, IMHO, indefensible bucket correction. My real interest would be to see the period 1935 to 1950, which covers a phase where CO2 went down but temperatures continued to rise.

    JF

    I agree with your desire, and I almost always show my graphs as far back as there is data, because it is always helpful to get a historical context. But unfortunately, the MEI index is only available back to 1950, which perforce is thus the starting date of my graph.

    w.

  184. Mark T
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 2:04 PM | Permalink

    So the second law of thermodynamics works differently on Venus then?

    Uh, have you absolutely forgotten about the formula pV=nRT?
    Again, if you’re going to be critical, at least _pretend_ to understand the basics before attempting thermo.

    There’s no get-out clause for denser atmospheres.

    What? That’s not their point… read it why don’t you.

    Mark

  185. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 2:15 PM | Permalink

    # 177

    RichardT,

    I see you like to put things in the mouth of others… Again, where in my article I state that the Holocene period is 10000 years? Those are your words, not mine. I wrote in my article:

    “The Holocene Epoch includes the last 10.000 years of the Quaternary Period. The beginning of the Holocene was marked by the end of a glaciations of the Pleistocene and by the occurrence of multiple climatic changes that affected the distribution of the vegetation causing an extinction of many mammals that flourished during the Pleistocene; for example, the mammoth, deinotherius, the fleecy rhino (Coelodonta), etc. Some subspecies of humans disappeared before, during the Pleistocene, like Homo sapiens neanderthalensis (man of Neanderthal, but you can call with confidence Homo neanderthalensis because she has been recognized by the geneticists as a species different from ours).”

    You wrote:

    ““The Holocene is the last 11.5 ka. Only in uncalibrated radiocarbon years is it 10ka (or if you round to 1 significant figure).”

    You assumed that I wrote what you say, but I didn’t, You did it. Broecker plotted the Fe stains graphs and he only took the data from 10000 years ago to date (Broeker’s graph).

  186. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    Re #182, richardT

    … the albedo is also much higher

    Fair point. Presumably due to reflection from the total and permanent cloud cover of sulphuric acid and SO2.
    I wonder how good those clouds are at reflecting outbound radiation back to the surface ?

  187. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 2:34 PM | Permalink

    Nasif, you can write that the Holocene includes the last three seconds of the Quaternary for all I care, but why don’t you discuss the substantive error in your piece, that the early Holocene was 6°C warmer than modern globally?

  188. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 2:44 PM | Permalink

    # 182

    RichardT,

    Place your hand about 20 centimeters over the flame of a candle. Now rotate your hand very slowly, calculating to spend one hour in turning the palm of your hand in opposition to the heat source. Now spend another hour in rotating your hand to the original position. Was your hand burned? I hope not, because our experiment has not finished yet… Now place your hand at 10 centimeters over the flame. Repeat the rotating operation, but now spend 243 hours on rotating your hand. Please, tell me the results of the experiment.

    The laws of ThD are the same everywhere, Richard, what changes are the conditions; call them microstates.

  189. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 3:00 PM | Permalink

    # 187

    Richard…

    I hate to do this, but I have to drive you to the book Evolutionary Paleobiology by D. Jablonsky, D. H. Erwin and J. Lipps. As I wrote in my article, “The temperature was warm in general – with fluctuations up to 6 °C above the average standard of the last 150 years, with periods of extreme cooling, like the glacial period that happened 8000 years ago and, most recently, the Medieval Little Ice Age, which occurred from 1570 to 1830 AD.”

    You know, a fluctuation is not the same than an anomaly. Regarding anomalies, I wrote in my article that “The previous period to the Medieval Little Ice Age was marked by a global warming similar to those previous warm periods that happened through the whole planet. The fluctuation of the Medieval Warm Period was above 0.62 °C at a global level.” Broecker wrote in his article that “If this rise could be attributed entirely to air temperature, the required warming would be between 0.5° and 0.6°C.”, which is compatible with which I wrote.

  190. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 3:16 PM | Permalink

    #184
    Pray tell, preferably in simple words a simple ecologist can understand, exactly how the ideal gas equation allows Venus to be so hot, without a greenhouse effect?

    #188
    If you have proof that Venus has a large diurnal temperature range, please be so kind as to inform NASA that they have made a mistake.

  191. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 3:22 PM | Permalink

    #190
    Have you forgotten what you wrote on your own web site? Let me remind you

    … the anomalies in the temperature were 12 times higher than the higher deviation registered in our days (in the Holocene Epoch it was higher than 6 °C, while in present times it has been no higher than 0.52 °C).

  192. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 4:09 PM | Permalink

    # 190

    Richard…

    From NASA: Sidereal rotation period (hrs)= Venus: -5832.5 hrs. Earth: 23.9345 hrs. Ratio Venus/Earth: 243.686 days.

    Length of day (hrs)= Venus: 2802.0 Earth: 24.0000 Ratio Venus/Earth: 116.750 days.

    Solar irradiance (W/m2)= Venus: 2613.9. Earth: 1367.6. Ratio V/E: 1.911

    The diurnal temperature range on Venus is about 0 C, while on Earth is about 10 C to 20 C. The difference is because Earth has plants and oceans. Take the example of Titan with its dense atmosphere of the super-GHG methane and ethane. It shows a surface temperature mean of -178 °C. If distance and sidereal rotation has nothing to do, then Titan would be a scorched planet.

  193. Mark T
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 4:24 PM | Permalink

    #184
    Pray tell, preferably in simple words a simple ecologist can understand, exactly how the ideal gas equation allows Venus to be so hot, without a greenhouse effect?

    Uh, I already posted the equation… increase the pressure with constant volume and the temperature increases, got it? Pretty simple how that works.

    Nasif’s exposition notwithstanding…

    Mark

  194. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 4:27 PM | Permalink

    # 191

    Richard,

    At last, you’ve asked for it! I think I already know you.

    On talking about anomalies, read about the Holocene Optimum here, and from W. F. Ruddiman. 2001. Earth’s Climate: Past and Future. W. H. Freeman & Sons; NY.

  195. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 4:47 PM | Permalink

    # 193

    Mark T,

    You’re right. That’s precisely what happens on Titan. Titan has an atmospheric pressure at surface of 1500 mbar (1.5 times the Earth’s atmospheric pressure). If the pressure of Titan were 1000 mbar, its temperature would be about -267 °C. BTW, Titan is also experiencing global warming.

  196. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 4:48 PM | Permalink

    #193
    Just like magic. And there I was, thinking that the planet’s surface was warmed by the sunshine, when you write that it is pressure of the overlaying gas that makes it so hot.

  197. Mark T
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 4:50 PM | Permalink

    Nobody wants to believe the scientifically supportable easy answer… it doesn’t jive with their dogma. Instead, they concoct ever more complicated, and indefensible, hypotheses in order to justify their ends.

    Mark

  198. Mark T
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 4:52 PM | Permalink

    Just like magic. And there I was, thinking that the planet’s surface was warmed by the sunshine, when you write that it is pressure of the overlaying gas that makes it so hot.

    Strawman. Not what I or Nasif said. The pressure difference between Venus and the earth is the biggest difference. The earth does have water, which does hold heat rather well, which was also pointed out by the GT article and you’ve now gone full circle and tried to ignore. That was the point of their analogy that you apparently still don’t understand. I guess you and Boris took classes at the same school.

    Mark

  199. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 5:13 PM | Permalink

    Since the anomaly approach solves all of these issues about siting differences, what does the
    anomaly map look like for Venus? Is it “remarkably similiar” to earth’s anomaly map.?

  200. Mark T
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 5:23 PM | Permalink

    Depends upon whether Jones and Hansen have applied their now infamous “updates” to the raw data.

    Mark

  201. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 5:45 PM | Permalink

    I should work for NASA.

    It dawned on me. screw venus. Anomaly map from the moon! Hey no UHI! No pesky Anthony watts
    checking your sites. No fossile fuel burning. Borehole the moon!

    http://www.astrobio.net/news/article2354.html

  202. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 5:54 PM | Permalink

    Nasif and others, as I’ve mentioned before on numerous occasions, I try to focus this site on mainstream articles rather than “skeptical” articles, as that is more consistent with an audit/verification objective. I don’t have the time or energy right now to go through G and T or similar articles and I don’t wish this site to be perceived as relying on or endorsing this article. It would be far more fruitful to base discussion of these topics on mainstream literature. Be critical of it if you wish, but that’s where you need to start.

  203. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 6:03 PM | Permalink

    Steve,

    Suppose your personal auditor comes in and tells you that he takes the absolute value of your credits adds them to the absolute value of your debits and calls that your net worth. This will make it easier to get loans.

    When the lender’s auditor comes he disputes that method of calculating net worth.

    So the question is: did the lender’s auditor perform an auditing function or was your accountant correct since there were no arithmetic errors?

    An auditor’s job is not just checking the arithmetic.

  204. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 6:27 PM | Permalink

    Simon. Are you talking to me! ( cool if you are)

    True. The auditor doesnt just check math. Having sat before the infernal effin bastards
    I can tell you they check your eyes, your squirming, your averting gaze, the sweat
    on your forehead, and your repeated requests to visit the mens room….

  205. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    I have seen some stuff on the internet about Venus radiating away more energy at the top of its atmosphere than it receives. Is this info correct or bogus?

  206. John Lang
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 7:05 PM | Permalink

    Venus provides absolutely no comparison to Earth.

    The amount of CO2 in Venus’ atmosphere is 250,000 times as much as Earth.

    It also contains a dense Sulfur Dioxide layer which traps all the heat (greenhouse, convection, conduction, and heat transfer modes of theormodynamic transfer.)

  207. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 7:42 PM | Permalink

    #205 Richard

    At first blush that would be impossible you simply can’t get more out than you put in. Now having said that you might get such a result if you conflate reflection and radiation.

  208. kim
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 7:51 PM | Permalink

    At the risk of sounding impertinent, this article is mainstreaming rapidly. Maybe let it have its own thread with multiple disclaimers? Now I’ll be quiet.
    ========================================

  209. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 7:55 PM | Permalink

    At first blush that would be impossible you simply can’t get more out than you put in. Now having said that you might get such a result if you conflate reflection and radiation.

    Well, Jupiter seems to radiate away more energy than it receives from the Sun.

    I have seen a statement in the Cambridge Planetary Guide that simply asserts, without any supporting reference, that Venus does not radiate away more energy than it is receiving from the Sun.

    Any excess, of course, would have to be provided from processes within the planet. There are references around the internet to an old article (circa 1981) in New Scientist to the effect that the Pioneer space probes, or some such, showed that. I am trying to determine if the issue is settled or not. It is clear that some of the sites I stumbled across are by kooks, but it is not clear they all are. There are many references to active vulcanism on Venus and its surface being continually being remade, so things seem interesting with respect to Venus.

  210. SidViscous
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 7:56 PM | Permalink

    “Venus provides absolutely no comparison to Earth”

    Not to mention that Venus has no Magnetic field, allowing for a much larger amount of incident energy.

    Also while a compustion chamber is much different than an atmosphere quick look here http://www.engineersedge.com/power_transmission/compression_stroke.htm shows us that in a combustion chamber an increase to 85psi raises the temperature to 325F, while Venus is closer to 1300 psi.

  211. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 8:46 PM | Permalink

    #209 Richard

    Well, Jupiter seems to radiate away more energy than it receives from the Sun.

    Jupiter is a tad larger than Venus and it is still collapsing that is to say still in planet forming stage it’s still cooling and that heat has to go somewhere. That is one theory there are others so have fun checking them out. It really does not make much sense to compare planets where such diverse physical systems are operating.

  212. Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 11:45 PM | Permalink

    # 211

    Your observation about the futility of comparing planets with so diverse physicochemical characteristics is acceptable.

    If we keep in mind that the planetary formation leads to an increase of the mass of that object, we observe that the process releases heat.

    Jupiter is devoid of inner thermal sources and it is supported against gravitational collapse by repulsive electrodynamic forces.

    The mass of Jupiter is ca. 0.001 Earth’s mass. If the mass of Jupiter were growing, its Gravitational Energy Density (GED) would compete over the atomic electrostatic repulsion (AER). If GED prevailed over AER, then the main source of pressure would be the quantum pressure of electrons. The last would be the main source of heat on Jupiter.

    However, the AER is overcoming the GED and so it is that the main source of heat of Jupiter is the AER, although it is not the only source.

  213. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jul 29, 2007 at 11:55 PM | Permalink

    Just a couple of points. First on the ideal gas law, PV = nRT. If you compress a given mass of gas then it will heat, but note that that’s different than claiming that the pressure CAUSES the temperature in any given situation such as the case of Venus. If you substitute 100K for say, 500K, then the same gas will be either under less pressure or take up a smaller volume. But while measuring the pressure of CO2 in the Venusian atmosphere will tell you the temperature [insert various caveats], the reason that pressure exists or alternatively the reason for the temperature must come from some other source and insolation and GHG concentrations will be figured into that reason.

    OTOH, given that the CO2 concentration is 250,000 times that of earth this is still only 18 doublings. So, assuming the log-linear concentration vs temperature increase and assuming a doubling of CO2 produces a 1.5 deg K temperature increase (remember you can’t have a H20 positive feedback on Venus since the requisite H2O doesn’t exist there) then we’d expect a 27 deg K increase from GHG effect. Since Venus’s surface temperature minus Earth’s surface temperature is much larger than that, then most of the difference must come from other sources, primarily the increased insolation and the clouds which reflect back IR to the surface. BTW, how much of the thermal energy of the surface is emitted as IR on Venus? It’s certainly not going to be primarily long-wave IR. And there may be a fair amount of visible light in the mix, albeit almost all red light. Could someone work that out for us?

  214. SidViscous
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 1:17 AM | Permalink

    “then we’d expect a 27 deg K increase from GHG effect. ”

    Interestingly I back napkined it at about 22K elsewhere. More of a WAG actually, interesting the numbers are so close.

  215. Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 2:30 AM | Permalink

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/jul/30/sciencenews.climatechange

    I was under the impression that data from earlier periods could not be relied upon for comparison.

  216. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 4:22 AM | Permalink

    #213 Dave
    Agree with you about PV=nRT. The air in my garage is at 15psi, the air in the tyres of my car is 30psi, and in the tyres of my bike is 50psi, but they’re all at the same temperature. Mark T take note.

    With regard to CO2, Raypierre on realclimate had a comment on the logarithmic relation of CO2 stating that it changes at higher concentrations, leading to higher sensitivity:

    Actually, the logarithmic behavior of CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere only applies over a limited (but rather extensive) range of concentrations. At very low concentrations (say, around 1 ppm) bands are unsaturated and OLR becomes more sensitive to CO2 than in the logarithmic range. At sufficiently high concentrations (say, when you start to get around 10% or 20% of CO2 in the atmosphere) the absorption starts to be dominated by weak bands that have a different probability distribution than the bands that dominate in the present climate; this again starts to lead to an increase in sensitivity.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/04/lessons-from-venus/#comment-11355

  217. J. Marshall Lancaster
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 5:11 AM | Permalink

    Does the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere of Venus give us the solution for how much heat is produced by GHG ? It would seem perhaps there is a mathamatical solution showing heat to GHG when observing:

    The temp of the surface of Venus
    900 F . 461.85 C . 735 K

    The temp of the surface of Venus
    minus CO2 and atmospheric pressure.

    What is that mathamatical formula,when will we know. The Venus connection is the closest I know of to prove/disprove GHG theory. Please tell me I am wrong.

    I found this link to shed some light on the topic
    http://www.apl.ucl.ac.uk/lectures/3c37/3c37-9.html

  218. D. Patterson
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 6:15 AM | Permalink

    Re: #217

    Why do you want to use the environment of Venus to observe CO2 effects when you already have the past experience of the Earth to demonstrate the results from dramatic changes in the Earth’s atmospheric CO2 concentrations?

    The Arrhenius greenhouse equations require warming when CO2 concentrations increase and cooling when CO2 concentrations decrease. In reality, the Earth has experienced: (1) increased CO2 concentrations while the reported average global temperature increased; (2) increased CO2 concentrations while the reported average global temperature was relatively unchanging, and (3) increased CO2 concentrations while the reported average global temperature decreased; (4) decreased CO2 concentrations while the reported average global temperature decreased; (5) decreased CO2 concentrations while the reported average global temperature was relatively unchanging; (6) decreased CO2 concentrations while the reported average global temperature increased.

    How can the Arrhenius greenhouse law and its derivatives have any validity as a dominant climate forcing when it requires climate warming with increases of CO2 and cooling with decreases of CO2 while actual experience has demonstrated such warmings have failed to occur on numerous and prolonged occassions in Earth’s past?

  219. D. Patterson
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

    Re: Please disregard #218. WordPress was acting a bit squirrely and somehow managed to transmit the comment while it was still being edited.

  220. Geoff Sherrington
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 6:37 AM | Permalink

    There is a most significant paper from another thread that you all should read.

    http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Falsification_of_CO2.pdf

    Irrespective of the amount of CO2 on other planets, they surely have had long enough to equilibrate. They can only heat up more if exothermic reactions take place in them, or if the solar irradiance or cosmic events increase.

    I do not think I have yet seen a paper that considers the constancy or otherwise of the earth’s thermal gradient or its contribution to the present Earth temperature, including the sea floor, deep and shallow. Question: What makes a volcano appear at one place and not another, or everywhere? Answer, the interior earth is in thermal motion. Heat conduction to the surface then air conduction/convection will affect temperature sensors 1.5 m above ground. What is its magnitude? Why do we forever concentrate on temperature instead of heat dynamics?

  221. David Archibald
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 8:17 AM | Permalink

    It is more than a little bizarre to use the other planets to describe GHG warming on Earth. If the other planets did not exist, does that mean we could not determine GHG warming on Earth as a discrete system? It is more than bizarre, it is idiotic.

  222. Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

    # 215

    Aileni Noyle,

    And they take short periods unconnectedly. If they had considered the period 2006-2007, there would have been no trend. That “New” was published on almost all Newspapers.

    BTW, Al Gore is in Mexico and he will talk on his story of global warming by a small reward of 135000 US dlls. I have never received a penny by my conferences.

  223. Jan Pompe
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 9:19 AM | Permalink

    #212 Nasif

    I’m not quite sure I understand you might be a language problem. i have no doubt that early in the process of planetary formation accretion (increasing the mass) but once there is no more material about the collapsing continues and the density only increases. Since the system thereby goes to a lower energy state heat is given off. As I said this is just one theory there are a number about I have no idea which is right.

    I just wanted to point out that there is a reasonably high probability that what is happening with Jupiter is in no way comparable with that which is happening on Earth, Venus, Mars or Triton.

  224. Jaye
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 9:24 AM | Permalink

    I noticed this silliness at msnbc.com this morning…typical of how the MSM operates, lead with the warming title then later give the other side a few crumbs.

    MSNBCStory

  225. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 9:39 AM | Permalink

    How can the Arrhenius greenhouse law and its derivatives have any validity as a dominant climate forcing when it requires climate warming with increases of CO2 and cooling with decreases of CO2 while actual experience has demonstrated such warmings have failed to occur on numerous and prolonged occassions in Earth’s past?

    Two words: Climate science.

    Lets not confuse the debate with facts, please. :)

    Mark

  226. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 9:45 AM | Permalink

    Agree with you about PV=nRT. The air in my garage is at 15psi, the air in the tyres of my car is 30psi, and in the tyres of my bike is 50psi, but they’re all at the same temperature. Mark T take note.

    richardT asked for a simple explanation of something obviously more complicated than a simple equation, I provided one, and yet here you gripe. The other “variable” in the ideal gas law is n, or the amount of gas. Also, there’s a big difference between the air in your tires and the 1300 PSI on Venus, particularly since it is a _closed_ system in your tires. The amount of gas in 1 cc in your tires is much greater than 1 cc in the garage. A similar relationship will hold between the earth and Venus, though obviously not exactly the same. Note that Venus is not 93 times hotter, only about 2x hotter (in Kelvins). Steve Milesworthy, take note, and please try to remember the nit known as “context.”

    Mark

  227. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    There’s also a rather pronounced difference between the insulating layer on the earth compared to the crust, though that is probably minor overall. The shortest answer, as has been pointed out by others, is that the earth and Venus are different enough that direct comparisons don’t necessarily hold.

    Mark

  228. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    Oops, that should be “compared to Venus, known as the crust”…

    Mark

  229. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 10:23 AM | Permalink

    #226 Mark T
    I think what people are suggesting is that your reference to PV=nRT as an explanation for Venus’s higher temperatures is not relevant. Perhaps we have misunderstood you.

  230. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 10:30 AM | Permalink

    RE: #127 – Let us assume for the sake of argument that indeed, that firstly, there is AGW and secondly that it has resulted in an increase to the (expected) net annual positive energy budget equatorward of 37.5 degrees latitude. I therefore submit that ice balls / cryometeors are a negative feedback mechanism not accounted for in the GCMs. One of a number of such unaccounted mechanisms.

  231. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 10:34 AM | Permalink

    RE: #136 – What you’ve got there may be a nice stealth metric for PDO strength. Well done! My interpretation would be, positive PDO in the rising limb of the gaussian, and a negative PDO on the falling limb.

  232. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    I think what people are suggesting is that your reference to PV=nRT as an explanation for Venus’s higher temperatures is not relevant.

    And they’re wrong. Increase the pressure without an exactly similar increase in the number of particles, n, in a gas, and the temperature goes up. It cannot get any simpler than that. The tire analogy is ridiculous because it has a (relatively) closed volume, which results in a larger value for n, and hence the balance between temperatures.

    Mark

  233. jimDK
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 10:59 AM | Permalink

    Tamino has reviewed information at surfacestation and found it flawed can someone here review his work. thanks

    http://tamino.wordpress.com/2007/07/30/surface-stations/#more-324

    “Not only are the graphs strikingly similar, the trend rates are nearly identical. Analyzing the monthly, rather than annual, data for greater precision, and accounting for the effect of autocorrelation, the indicated trends with their error ranges are:

    Marysville: 3.77 +/- 1.88 deg.C/century
    Orland: 4.06 +/- 1.98 deg.C/century

    The trend rates are nearly the same! The difference between the computed trends is much smaller than the uncertainty in the calculations. So, for all intents and purposes, these two stations indicate the same trend during the modern global warming era.

    Surfacestations.org calls the Orland station a “well-sited” station and Marysville a “not-so-well sited” station, and displays them prominently to give the impression that “good” data indicate cooling while “bad” data indicate warming. It’s ironic that when you look at the actual data, during the modern global warming era Orland indicates more warming than Marysville.

    Imagine that.

    Tags: Global Warming ⵠclimate change

    0 responses so far ‘†”
    There are no comments yet…Kick things off by filling out the form below.

    Leave a Comment
    Name
    Mail
    Website

    Recent Posts

    Surface Stations
    PMOD vs ACRIM (part 2)
    PMOD vs ACRIM
    Lapse Rate
    There Goes the Sun
    Recent Comments

    george on PMOD vs ACRIM (part 2)
    John Cook on PMOD vs ACRIM
    John Cross on There Goes the Sun
    nanny_govt_sucks on There Goes the Sun
    John Cross on There Goes the Sun
    nanny_govt_sucks on There Goes the Sun
    John Cross on There Goes the Sun
    John Cross on There Goes the Sun
    nanny_govt_sucks on PMOD vs ACRIM (part 2)
    nanny_govt_sucks on There Goes the Sun
    george on PMOD vs ACRIM
    John Cross on There Goes the Sun
    george on PMOD vs ACRIM (part 2)
    guthrie on PMOD vs ACRIM
    nanny_govt_sucks on There Goes the Sun
    astronomy

    AAVSO: American Association of Variable Star Observers
    AFOEV: Association Francaise des Observateurs d’Etoiles Variables
    CBA: Center for Backyard Astrophysics
    Sky & Telescope Magazine
    Space Telescope Science Institute
    VSOLJ: Variable Star Observers League in Japan
    Blogroll

    surf.bird.scribble
    timethief’s blog
    Global Warming

    Goddard Institute for Space Studies
    Hadley Center for Climate Change
    IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
    Maribo
    Rabett Run
    RealClimate
    mathematics

    MathWorld

    July 2007
    S M T W T F S
    « Jun
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7
    8 9 10 11 12 13 14
    15 16 17 18 19 20 21
    22 23 24 25 26 27 28
    29 30 31

  234. JP
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 11:05 AM | Permalink

    #145

    Thanks Willis,
    That was a very interesting graph. I wonder if Hadley has the data seperated by hemisphere? It would be interesting to see the trends (El Nino removed) for the SH since 1998. I would suspect that NH has warmed, but the SH has cooled -with the 5 year Gaussian average being somewhat flat. It sure looks that we are on the cusp of a PDO change.

  235. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 11:09 AM | Permalink

    #232 MarkT
    Yes, if you compress a gas, it will get hotter. But then it will cool back towards equilibrium. That’s how a fridge works.

    Venus is at the temperature it is, not because of its pressure, but because at that temperature it is radiating away the amount of solar heat it absorbs – simple as that. That’s how a planet works and that’s how a radiator in your car works (at equilibrium). CO2 is only relevant to how the surface temperature relates to the radiating temperature of Venus.

  236. Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 11:57 AM | Permalink

    # 235

    What a collection of contradictions in a so short paragraph! The Cp, the emissivity and the absorbency of a gas here or on Venus increase when Pt increases and decreases when Pt decreases.

  237. Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 12:00 PM | Permalink

    # 223

    Jan Pompe,

    Yes, it was a problem of language… sorry :)

  238. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 12:02 PM | Permalink

    You, and richardT, are trying to extrapolate a simple relationship to a dynamic system… one that has a relatively constant influx of energy. Not a whole lot different than Boris trying to understand the solubility of gas in a liquid. Certainly it is much more complex than either you or I have stated, but that was intentional on my part _because that’s what richardT asked for_! Sheesh, there’s so much straw running around I’d expect a cornfield full of crows to be nearby.

    Mark

  239. Bob Koss
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 12:48 PM | Permalink

    jimDK,

    It appears Anthony posted up copies of the graphs of the unadjusted data actually provided by GISS.

    Tamino attempted to use the adjusted monthly data from GISS and do the yearly calculations himself, even though GISS provides the yearly totals on the same page. He also left out numerous random years of data. I counted more than 20 years missing just for Marysville. I’m not surprised he came up with a different graph. It doesn’t reflect reality though.

    By using the adjusted data, Marysville would have been adjusted to be a better match to the surrounding stations.

  240. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    re: #238 and others

    I’m sorry, Mark T, but in this case Steve Milesworthy is exactly correct. Well, exactly within the parameters being considered at any rate. Yes there are more complications which would have to be considered if this were a discussion in a scientific paper, but the only way a compressed gas would maintain the temperature gained while it was being compressed would be if it in some sort of perfect vacuum bottle. Otherwise any initial extra heat will be dissipated to the surroundings, which in the case of a planet means to space. Ultimately, of course, this would reduce the atmospheric temperature to the 3 deg K of space. But since Venus is near the star Sol, the venusian atmosphere can only drop to the temperature at which the insolation is balanced by the radiation to space; which is rather higher than the situation is on Earth. The only question is how much of this temperature comes from the black-body radiation of a sphere at the distance of Venus from the Sun and how much comes from CO2 greenhouse effect and from H2SO4 clouds.

    I got a BOE estimate of 27 dec C from CO2 but someone above indicates it should be more when additional (weak) CO2 lines are taken into consideration. That could well be true. The point is that you can’t get away from actually doing the calculations.

  241. Richard Sharpe
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 1:26 PM | Permalink

    The climate during the Miocene was similar to today’s climate, but warmer. Well-defined climatic belts stretched from Pole to Equator, however, there were palm trees and alligators in England and Northern Europe. Australia was less arid than it is now.

    From here: Miocene Climate

    Another random fact of the day. But wait, there is more.

    Global Temperature and CO2 over Geologic Time

    From here: Carboniferous Climate

    Based on these I have a hard time understanding how human produced CO2 (and I agree with Hans Erren that it is clear we have contributed to the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere) can have anything to do with global average temperatures.

  242. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 1:56 PM | Permalink

    Yes there are more complications which would have to be considered if this were a discussion in a scientific paper, but the only way a compressed gas would maintain the temperature gained while it was being compressed would be if it in some sort of perfect vacuum bottle. Otherwise any initial extra heat will be dissipated to the surroundings, which in the case of a planet means to space. Ultimately, of course, this would reduce the atmospheric temperature to the 3 deg K of space. But since Venus is near the star Sol, the venusian atmosphere can only drop to the temperature at which the insolation is balanced by the radiation to space; which is rather higher than the situation is on Earth. The only question is how much of this temperature comes from the black-body radiation of a sphere at the distance of Venus from the Sun and how much comes from CO2 greenhouse effect and from H2SO4 clouds.

    If there were no incident heat/energy into the system, then yes, Steve Milesworthy would be correct. However, there is about as much incident heat/energy put into the system as there is here on earth (earth gets less due to distance, but Venus reflects more). Given that, the primary distinctions are 1) Venus is almost purely CO2 while earth is mostly O2 and N2 which means different P-T phase relationships and 2) Venus is 93x the pressure.

    As I said, I only proffered a _simple_ reason why Venus would be hotter… ignoring pressure is disingenuous.

    Mark

  243. Sidviscous
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 2:24 PM | Permalink

    “Note that Venus is not 93 times hotter, only about 2x hotter (in Kelvins).”

    I think this might be the key to the discusion. We think of it being so much hotter on venus, actually the numbers I find (don’t want to quote the source, would live to see someone post a good source) is that Venus is more than 2X in Kelvin. I have Venus at 730K and Earth at 288.

    But incident radiation is also higher, close to twice exactly. With Venus at 2,643 W/M^2 and earth at 1379 W/M^2. People tend to think in terms of the arbitrary 0 that we use with F and C, but in this discusion it makes much more sense to go with Kelvin. When you compare 2X incident radiation and ~2.5X temp Kelvin they aren’t as far off.

    Now Venus’ Albedo is rated at 0.8 and Earth at 0.3 but I can’t help but think that this does not take into account the high energy radiation let in by the abscence of a magnetic field. I cannot find any references to what effect the absence of a magnetic field would cause on temperature.

  244. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 3:13 PM | Permalink

    RE: #241 – furthermore, it is confusing to me, how we could focus on something as piddly as AGW, when, based on the geological record and trend, taken at face value, there is a looming catastrophe. What will the world be like, with even less CO2 (you know we’ll get there eventually, it is seemingly unstoppable) than even the Quaternary low point to date? Our choices appear to be, colonize other planets, or, gain control of this one. I’d split it into two, parallel efforts, since gaining control of this one is a highly non trivial excercise.

  245. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 3:15 PM | Permalink

    Venus: Short and sweet. Some major differences most of which would explain the heating. But there’s really no comparison. This might answer some questions tho, like the one about the magnetic field.

    Closer to the sun.
    No water. No ocean depths to hold heat, nor to lubricate the plates and reduce friction and cool the planet.
    Clouds are made of Sulphur Dioxide that trap the heat.
    Rotates slower. (No cooling for the ground every 12 hours like earth.)
    No dynamo in the core, so no magnetic field: No particles to deflect solar winds and no pole reversal every 700K years
    No oxygen.
    Mostly CO2. And no water vapor. (which is why the CO2 holds the heat for Venus rather than the water vapor and oceans like on Earth. It has no where else to go.)
    Much higher surface pressure ( 9.3M vs Earth’s 101K) (Which I believe would compresses whatever heat holding gases there are to hold more heat.
    80 % of the surface is volcanic plains.
    No animal or plant life.
    No moon.
    No equatorial bluge.
    An Rotates the oppposite direction. (Perhaps reversed by an empact event 10 million years ago, Which would have probably sucked in whatever moon(s) it used to have as well.)
    Asteroid 2002 VE68 is in a quasi-orbit around the planet.
    Has less of an eliptical orbit.

    So why is Venus hotter? Because it is closer to the sun, has no carbon cycle to regulate temperature, no water to remove the friction on the plates, the surface is mostly huges volcanoes, and there are no water clouds to let out the heat. Any gas that absorbs heat as the main gas would result in the same type of atmosphere.

    As wiki sez about the greenhouse effect:

    The greenhouse effect is the process in which the emission of infrared radiation by the atmosphere warms a planet’s surface. The name comes from an analogy with the warming of air inside a greenhouse compared to the air outside the greenhouse. The Earth’s average surface temperature is about 33°C warmer than it would be without the greenhouse effect.[1] The greenhouse effect was discovered by Joseph Fourier in 1829 and first investigated quantitatively by Svante Arrhenius in 1896. In addition to the Earth, Mars and especially Venus have greenhouse effects.

  246. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 3:25 PM | Permalink

    So if the surface of Venus (or any planet) is warmed by the emission of IR by the atmosphere, it has a greenhouse effect. If it’s not, it doesn’t. All we have to do is read the definition. But it doesn’t matter in the case of Venus, it’s a different question.

    The conditions on Venus are so fundamentally different; it’s not the same thing as our greenhouse effect, regardless. So at the end of the day, it doesn’t matter. It works differently; no matter what we call it, it’s not the same thing.

  247. MarkW
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 4:10 PM | Permalink

    A molten core is what creates the dynamo that creates the magnetic field.
    Without a molten core, there are no plate dynamics, so the absence of liquid water will make no difference there.

    The higher temperatures and pressures will cause the CO2 and any other GHGs to be able to absorb radiation over a wider spectrum.

  248. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 4:30 PM | Permalink

    http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/

    RE: the above site’s NH “data” – BULLPUCKY!

  249. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 5:24 PM | Permalink

    #247 Mark, a molten core comes from more than just plate tectonics. And I left off a bunch of historical stuff too; trying to keep it at 50,000 feet.

    Specifically, Venus does have plate tectonics, but with the crust subducting quickly within a few million years but mostly a few hundred million years of stability. Earth’s oceans give us a fairly stable state of subduction and continental drift on the other hand.

    Dynamos require conducting liquid, rotation and convection. Venus’ rotation gives the possibility (from simulation) that it could support a dynamo, and that the core is probably electrically conductive. However, the convection is missing. Earth’s convection is in its liquid outer layer of the core, with the bottom much hotter than the top. Since there’s no heat gradient on Venus, either: The core is at a constant temperature (no convection) or solidified or there is no solid inner core (and therefore no conducting liquid at all either).

    The point is Venus has no magnetic field to speak of, regardless of why. Or in other words, the magnetosphere of Venus is too weak to protect it from cosmic radiation and that’s why the magnetic field has something to do with temperature. It’s all part of the system of the planet, and different from ours that’s the only “important” thing.

  250. Leonidas Lakedaimonian
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 5:39 PM | Permalink

    No connexion between CO2 and “global warming” : Gerlisch / Tscheuschner

  251. steven mosher
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 5:49 PM | Permalink

    RE 245.

    Yes yes sam, but what does the anomaly map show.

  252. Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 8:06 PM | Permalink

    Leonidas Lakedaimonian,

    No, no connexion when we apply the correct physics. Besides, there is not atmospheric “greenhouse” effect, of course, if we apply what we learned through experimentation.

  253. Arnost Khun
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 9:47 PM | Permalink

    Steve Sadlov

    I notice your regular dissatisfaction with Cryosphere data ‘€” you may find this comparison interesting.

    This is what Cryosphere showed as the historical Arctic sea-ice anomaly in December of last year, and what it shows now. The anomaly appears anomalous! Sourced via the “wayback machine” from here – discussed here:
    http://www.netweather.tv/forum/index.php?showtopic=38352&view=findpost&p=1031663

    Sam Urbinto

    You asked on the other thread for reasons why raw data isn’t archived. So I guess another reason is that if you publish it ‘€” it makes it more difficult to justify changes such as above.

    cheers

    Arnost

  254. Arnost Khun
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 9:59 PM | Permalink

    should appear above – sorry

  255. Arnost Khun
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 10:02 PM | Permalink
  256. DeWitt Payne
    Posted Jul 30, 2007 at 10:23 PM | Permalink

    While there will be additional pressure broadening of absorption lines, something that has not been mentioned is the shift to shorter emission wavelength with increased temperature. At the surface temperature of Venus, the emission spectrum has shifted to such a short wavelength (~4 micrometers at 750K, compared to ~10 micrometers at 300K) that CO2 is nearly transparent. As stated above, the real key to explaining the surface temperature of Venus is the cloud layer. It’s really easy to set up a single layer partial reflection model for radiation transfer in a spreadsheet. As the percent reflected back to the surface approaches 100%, the surface temperature increases without limit. Also, the Venusian clouds often have strong UV absorption features first observed by the Hubble telescope IIRC, so the albedo is probably lower in the UV than the visible.

    This brings up the interesting (to me) question: Why does the Archer Modtran calculator show peak emission at 600 cm-1 or 16.7 microns for a surface temperature of 300K when it should be 1000 cm-1 or 10 microns? I don’t know why I missed that before.

  257. MarkW
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 6:13 AM | Permalink

    Sam,

    plate tectonics come from a molten core, not the other way around.
    Venus had plate tectonics, millions of years ago, back when the core was still sufficiently molten.

  258. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 8:40 AM | Permalink

    #251 Ah, the anomalies are quite large, but the data is a little hard to come by, as we’ve had some station siting issues that are not quite worked out. It will be quite some time before I’ll be able to archive it….

  259. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:13 AM | Permalink

    #257 Yes, let me rephrase that so it’s not backwards. I shouldn’t have called it that, I was more thinking of the effects rather than the phrase. Venus has no (active) plate tectonics because they aren’t really plates to begin with, there is no fluid to speak of for the plates (such as they are) to move on: the planet probably doesn’t have an asthenosphere. The crust very infrequently subducts but mostly is mostly stationary. The planet’s surface does show features that on Earth are associated with tectonic activities: volcanoes, rifts, mountains, tesserae, folds and faults. But on Venus, these are caused by movements due to convection in the mantle.

    I think that’s correct.

  260. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:23 AM | Permalink

    RE: #257 – Not to nit pick but the way I learned it, wayyyyy back during the days of LaCoste knit piques, big hair, and MTV as the hot new thing – LOL – was that without radiactive decay in the mantle, there would be no mantle convection and hence, no plate tectonics.

  261. Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:30 AM | Permalink

    re 256:
    When comparing energy you also need to multiply the value of the yaxis with the new unit

    So the unit is energy per micron or energy times cm.

    vs

  262. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 10:32 AM | Permalink

    Well my entire point is that it really doesn’t matter if it’s the crust buckling due to internal heat and a solid core, or plates sliding around on a temperature gradient and cooled by water and so on and so forth, is that the Earth and Venus have a different system, but have the same results by and large, so the term doesn’t matter…. I think in the past on Earth they used to think radioactive decay, but isn’t that what creates the heat? Or is that an old theory? I don’t know, that’s the details I wanted to stay away from…. :)

    So let me try again: The crust on Venus is mainly stationary and heat and pressure forces geological changes. It does not have plates per se so can not let off heat. It is probably because of this probable lack of convection mechanism that it also has no dynamo; either the core is liquid at a “constant” temperature or has solidified. Therefore there is no magnetic field beyond a weak one, so the magnetosphere of Venus is too weak to protect it from cosmic radiation. And that’s why the magnetic field has something to do with temperature.

  263. SteveSadlov
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 10:44 AM | Permalink

    From the Portland, OR, NWS:

    THE LONG RANGE MODELS SHOW VARIATIONS RUN TO RUN AND BETWEEN MODELS
    WITH SOME SHOWING A FAIRLY STRONG CLOSED UPPER LEVEL LOW DEVELOPING
    NEAR THE FORECAST AREA. CONFIDENCE IN MODEL SOLUTIONS IS LOW DUE TO
    THIS VARIABILITY BUT EXPECT SOME TYPE OF TROUGH TO BE THE MAIN
    FEATURE AT THE END OF THE WEEK INTO NEXT WEEK WITH CLOUDS…
    COOLER…TEMPERATURES AND A CHANCE OF SOME SHOWERS.

    The NWS / models have consistently underforecasted these systems thus far this Summer. 2007, Year Without A Summer (in the Pac NW).

    (Some may argue, “but what about the handful of heat waves?” I would say to that, these heat waves are typical of what one would expect during the Fall, but with the higher sun angle right now, they are more intense than the fall version. Synoptically, it’s Fall in the Pac NW)

  264. fFreddy
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 11:01 AM | Permalink

    Re #260, Steve Sadlov

    …that without radiactive decay in the mantle, there would be no mantle convection and hence, no plate tectonics.

    That was Kelvin’s theory to explain why Earth hasn’t already solidified. It’s a bit unsatisfactory – without any way to measure the amount of radioactive decay going on down there, there is no way to determine if there is the right amount of radioactives to explain the observed state of the planet.

    Personally, I think the inner heat is due to tidal flexing.

  265. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 11:05 AM | Permalink

    Heat from pressure melts the rocks perhaps? Along with plate friction and water cooling some parts and not others, creating a system that’s more than the sum of its parts.

  266. Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 12:36 PM | Permalink

    #264

    I think the inner heat is due to tidal flexing

    Certainly important on Europa.

  267. Boris
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 1:19 PM | Permalink

    Not a whole lot different than Boris trying to understand the solubility of gas in a liquid.

    Still haven’t figured out how the ocean can uptake CO2 and warm at the same time?

  268. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 1:29 PM | Permalink

    Or release CO2 and cool at the same time?

  269. D. Patterson
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 5:08 PM | Permalink

    Re: #265

    Global Mantle Warming
    Haven’t you heard about the latest research about “Global Mantle Warming”? Imagine it, Anthropogenic Outhouse Warming (AOW). Too many humans digging holes in the Earth’s lithosphere and upsetting Nature’s subterranean balances and thereby causing supervolcanoes which melt, shake, submerge, and flood inhabited land surfaces far and wide in a planetary holocaust the like of which has not been experienced on Earth in millions and millions of years? Climate scientists joining with geological scientists in warning the world of these human caused planetary catastrophes? International conferences representing the scientific consensus that something must be done immediately to mitigate this threat to the survival and welfare of humanity resulting from the multitude of holes put into the protective surface of the Earth by the commercial oil and mining industries seeking to exploit the planet for their own financial and political greed. Does the report not demonstrate we are now past the point of denial? See:

    N. Coltice1, B.R. Phillips, H. Bertrand, Y. Ricard & P. Rey. Global warming of the mantle at the origin of flood basalts over supercontinents.
    http://www.mantleplumes.org/GlobalMantleWarming.html

  270. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 6:06 PM | Permalink

    Still haven’t figured out how the ocean can uptake CO2 and warm at the same time?

    If you understood basic physics and the operation of a _dynamic_ system you’d understand one very important point: The flow of CO2 into the ocean, or any gas into any liquid, is not one way. There is a dynamically changing flow both ways, with a net direction that changes with changing ocean temperatures; increase the temperature of the body of water and the net flow will change proportionally (warmer means less uptake, cooler means more). If the ocean water warms, the flow will change, reducing the uptake. Certainly at the poles, where the ocean is much cooler, there will be more going in than at the equator, where the ocean is warmer. At no point does it suddenly switch from all in to all out.

    Sheesh.

    Mark

  271. Mark T.
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 6:07 PM | Permalink

    I should actually have said “basic chemistry” not physics.

    Mark

  272. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 8:06 PM | Permalink

    I’m going to be on CHQR radio at 10.30 Eastern time (Rob Breakenridge)

  273. D. Patterson
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 8:21 PM | Permalink

    Re: #272

    Let’s see…what could go into a Johnny Carson / David Letterman style top 10 List to get the audiences’ attention [smile].

  274. Steve McIntyre
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 8:24 PM | Permalink

    #273. What about http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=132 ?

  275. Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 8:53 PM | Permalink

    # 272

    The Best, Steve. Be careful with politics.

  276. Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    Steve, are you going to be on “the news headlines”?

  277. D. Patterson
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:00 PM | Permalink

    Re: #274

    Very good!

    Top Reasons to suspect you are dating an alarmist climate scientist.

    Your date refuses to use the barbecue until you prove you have enough carbon credits to offset your CO2 emissions.

    The IRS auditor comes by to seize withheld financial records your date refused to disclose.

    Your date will not dine on cabbage and beans until you prove you have enough carbon credits to offset the GHG emissions.

    You find yourself on a tandem bicycle with your date as you furiously pedal up the steep hill where your date’s resident is safe from the 20 foot high coastal floods.

    Your date refuses to romance you until you prove you have enough carbon credits to offset your CO2 emissions.

  278. D. Patterson
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:08 PM | Permalink

    Steve, good fortune with the radio program.

  279. Boris
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:27 PM | Permalink

    270:

    So, it’s no longer your belief that the CO2 level can’t be increasing in the oceans because they are warming?

  280. John Knight
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:32 PM | Permalink

    am770chqr.com for streaming audio for those interested.

  281. D. Patterson
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:35 PM | Permalink

    Re: #280. Thank you….

  282. Mark T
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 9:39 PM | Permalink

    So, it’s no longer your belief that the CO2 level can’t be increasing in the oceans because they are warming?

    Uh, I never said that. CO2 levels in the ocean probably would increase, particularly at the surface. Carbon sequestered at the bottom of the ocean has to come to the surface before it is released, right? Below the thermocline the ocean is near freezing, which constitutes the majority of the water, and is also near the maximum solubility level, right? The oceans circulate, right?

    [snip]

    Mark

  283. _Jim
    Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 10:20 PM | Permalink

    Re: 216 Milesworthy; a bit of clarifying if I may -

    The air in my garage is at 15psi,

    Engineering-wise that is referred to as “15 psia” (psia=pounds-force per square inch absolute) where psia = “gauge” pressure (see below) + local atmospheric pressure or psia = pressure measured WRT a vacuum.

    the air in the tyres of my car is 30psi,

    Engineering-wise that is referred to as 30 psig (psig=pounds per square inch gauge) where the ‘pressure’ measured is the difference between ‘inside’ the tire and outside the tire without respect to atmospheric pressure.

    Your car tires would measure 45 psia.

    and in the tyres of my bike is 50psi,

    50 psig => 65 psia

    but they’re all at the same temperature.

    The densities DO differ though, and this affects nearly every other property.

  284. Posted Jul 31, 2007 at 10:55 PM | Permalink

    # 282

    MarkT,

    Don’t waste your time… Some people like to put words in ones mouth when have no valid arguments. Beneath 250 m of depth the temperature decreases from 22.5 °C to 2.7 °C at a depth of 4500 m. The thermocline consists of water layers from where the temperature decreases sensibly with depth.

    The organisms that use carbon dioxide to synthesize compounds to make their internal or external skeletons and other structures, so for support as for defense, are another oceanic carbon dioxide “sink”. Not always one should think about an inorganic dissolving of the compound in the marine water. When those organisms die, their structures get the ThD equilibrium and the CO2 is dissolved again in the water. You can perform the experiment described at Ocean Planet. Yeah, I know it is thought for High School students, but it is real… ;)

  285. Mark T
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 1:14 AM | Permalink

    Actually, what folks like Boris do is constantly present ill-posed arguments, bifurcations, in which only one or another answer is possible. In fact, this is rarely true in dynamic systems such as the climate as the sheer number of inputs and outputs is staggering. The answer is typically “none of the above.” You list yet another source for CO2 in the ocean.

    Of course, where the CO2 in the ocean came from has nothing to do with the original argument. Boris asked for a reference when I claimed CO2 has a lower solubility in warmer water. Pretty simple and even discussed on the wiki page regarding solubility… high school or even grade school chemistry (heaven forbid he would actually put a soda can out in the sun to test the theory). It escalated.

    Sometimes you get tired of ill-informed posts that waste bandwidth that those with real points and real issues could otherwise be filling. Sometimes you get tired of it and speak out.

    Mark

  286. Mark T
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 1:22 AM | Permalink

    The densities DO differ though, and this affects nearly every other property.

    Yet another one of those “simple” concepts that slips right over the illuminati. Gavin Schmidt and feedback reversing cause-effect relationships, Michael Mann and linear processing of non-linear systems with correlated inputs. Does it ever end?

    Mark

  287. Mark T
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 1:23 AM | Permalink

    Oh, _Jim, I was agreeing with you, btw… just in case you read that last post in the wrong way.

    Mark

  288. Jos Verhulst
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 1:37 AM | Permalink

    Flemish newspapers announce a coming publication emanating from the RMI, and claiming that the influence of CO2 on climate has been grossly overestimated.

    The RMI is the offical Belgian weather institute.



  289. Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 6:20 AM | Permalink

    Runaway and moist greenhouse atmospheres and the evolution of Earth and Venus

    James F. Kasting
    Space Science Division 245-3, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffet Field, California 94035, USA
    Received 12 March 1987; revised 17 September 1987. Available online 26 October 2002.

    Abstract

    A one-dimensional climate model is used to study the response of an Earth-like atmosphere to large increases in solar flux. For fully saturated, cloud-free conditions, the critical solar flux at which a runaway greenhouse occurs, that is, the oceans evaporate entirely, is found to be 1.4 times the present flux at Earth’s orbit (S0). This value is close to the flux expected at Venus’ orbit early in solar system history. It is nearly independent of the amount of CO2 present in the atmosphere, but is sensitive to the H2O absorption coefficient in the 8- to 12-μm window region. Clouds should tend to depress the surface temperature on a warm, moist planet; thus, Venus may originally have had oceans if its initial water endowment was close to that of Earth. It lost them early in its history, however, because of rapid photodissociation of water vapor followed by escape of hydrogen to space. The critical solar flux above which water is rapidly lost could be as low as 1.1S0. The surface temperature of a runaway greenhouse atmosphere containing a full ocean’s worth of water would have been in excess of 1500°K’€”above the solidus for silicate rocks. The presence of such a steam atmosphere during accretion may have significantly influenced the early thermal evolution of both Earth and Venus.

    Icarus
    Volume 74, Issue 3, June 1988, Pages 472-494

  290. Steve Milesworthy
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 6:47 AM | Permalink

    # _Jim
    I’m sure you are correct. The density differs along with other properties, but the temperature is the same (assuming thermal equilibrium has been reached).

    #242 Mark T.
    I’m afraid Dave is correct. Pressure is a red herring and whether there is incident radiation is not important. Energy in must equal energy out in equilibrium. Ignoring reflected energy, pretty much all energy out from a planet is through radiation. The only way of changing the amount of radiation is to change the temperature of the radiating layer.

    If pressure is an issue, it is only with regard to changing the height of the radiating layer. This, however, is only relevant if the atmosphere is radiatively active (contains greenhouse gases).

    If you are correct, and the solar energy absorbed by Venus is about the same as is absorbed by earth (because TSI is higher but so is albedo), then looking from space, the “temperature” of Venus (ie. the temperature of its upper atmosphere) should be similar to the “temperature” of earth (about 255 Kelvin).

    Anyone know the apparent temperature of Venus?

  291. Vernon
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 8:23 AM | Permalink

    I attempted to post this nicely over on RC but they will not post it, however they seem to fully support me being flamed for not support the dogma. I figure I will post it here so may be someone would address the issues I have.

    I use to think that this site[RealClimate] had real climate scientists that wanted to address the hard questions of climatology and instead I find that it is a site where real discussion of the serious issues are stymied, basically just a site where fan boy’s ok but anyone that questions the dogma are attacked and posts that attack the one asking the questions are freely posted not those that present the studies that call CO2 based global warming into question. I really do not expect this to be posted here because this site’s position is that it is better to discredit the questioner than to address the questions. Basically, this is an advocacy site, not a true science site.

    I asked three questions that are tied to the very underpinning of the CO2 theory.

    1. If the proxies show that warming peaked early in the 20th century and is lower at the end of the century, what does this do to the CO2 argument? The first problem I see this causing is that the proxies do not match the instrumented readings. This is a major problem for the theory because it means either we do not know how to measure the global temperature with direct measurements or the proxies are not representing the actual temperature. If either is true then there is no way to know if the warming now is exceptional or not.

    Millennial temperature reconstruction intercomparison and evaluation (2006) M. N. Juckes, M. R. Allen, K. R. Briffa, J. Esper, G. C. Hegerl, A. Moberg,
    T. J. Osborn, S. L. Weber, and E. Zorita soft copy can be found here:
    http://www.copernicus.org/EGU/cp/cpd/2/1001/cpd-2-1001.pdf or hard copy can be found at Science Vol. 311, Issue 5762, pp. 841 – 844 10 February 2006.

    If you look at the right edge of the chart, it clearly shows that the proxies show lower temperatures than the instrumented readings and that the highest proxy measured temperatures happened before the end of the century. None of the studies show the proxy readings matching the instrumented readings at the end of the century.

    2. It has been stated that sea level change is accelerating however there are some issues with what is causing sea level change and whether there is any acceleration or not. There are two means of measuring sea level change: tide gauges and satellite measurements. Both means have problems. Tide gauges have problems:

    Interannual sea level change at global and regional scales using Jason-1 altimetry A. Cazenave, K. Do Minh, J.F. Cretaux, C. Cabanes, S. Mangiarotti (LEGOS, France)
    Can be found at: http://sealevel.jpl.nasa.gov/science/invest-cazenave.html

    tide gauges have two drawbacks:
    1. their geographical distribution provides very poor sampling of the ocean basins, especially when studying the climatic signal over the past century, and
    2. they measure sea level relative to the land, hence recording vertical crustal motions that may be of the same order of magnitude as the sea level variation.

    Satellites have issues with accuracy, namely that the orbit accuracy does not exceed 2cm and therefore the most accurate reading possible is +/- 2cm. This can be seen in:
    Jason-1 precision orbit verification, J.C. Ries, B.D. Tapley, R.J. Eanes, H.J. Rim which can be found at: http://topex-www.jpl.nasa.gov/science/invest-ries.html

    The current models for the forces acting on the T/P spacecraft, combined with high accuracy ground-based tracking, support an orbit accuracy approaching 2 cm radial RMS (root-mean-squared), an unprecedented level of orbit accuracy for an altimeter satellite.

    When combining measurements with different degrees of accuracy and precision, the accuracy of the final answer can be no greater than the least accurate measurement. This principle can be translated into a simple rule for addition and subtraction: When measurements are added or subtracted, the answer can contain no more decimal places than the least accurate measurement. When the best reading you can get is +/- 20mm, then no amount of readings will allow the precision to be better than 2cm. This seems to be ignored by climatologist. If your accuracy can only be measured down to the cm, then there is no way to get an answer that is at the mm level.

    PRESENT-DAY SEA LEVEL CHANGE: OBSERVATIONS AND CAUSES (2003) A. Cazenave and R. S. Nerem which can be found here http://www.eila.jussieu.fr/~avolansk/PDFS_a_convertir/Cazenave2003RG000139.pdf.

    In effect, the observed value is more than twice as large as the revised estimate of the total climate contributions, although there is complete overlap between their respective uncertainties. It thus appears that either the climate-related processes causing sea level rise have been underestimated or the rate of sea level rise observed with tide gauges is in error. Munk [2002] refers to this as The Enigma.”

    Twentieth century sea level: An enigma, Walter Munk can be found at: PNAS | May 14, 2002 | vol. 99 | no. 10 | 6550-6555 or online at http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/10/6550

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change attributes about 6 cm/century to melting and other eustatic processes, leaving a residual of 12 cm of 20th century rise to be accounted for. The Levitus compilation has virtually foreclosed the attribution of the residual rise to ocean warming (notwithstanding our ignorance of the abyssal and Southern Oceans): the historic rise started too early, has too linear a trend, and is too large. Melting of polar ice sheets at the upper limit of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change estimates could close the gap, but severe limits are imposed by the observed perturbations in Earth rotation. Among possible resolutions of the enigma are: a substantial reduction from traditional estimates (including ours) of 1.5-2 mm/y global sea level rise; a substantial increase in the estimates of 20th century ocean heat storage; and a substantial change in the interpretation of the astronomic record.

    We know that the Antarctic is not contributing to rising sea levels from Mass balance of the Antarctic ice sheet (2006) by Wingham, Shepherd, Muir, and Marshall which can be found here: http://bowfell.geol.ucl.ac.uk/~lidunka/EPSS-papers/djw3.pdf

    Together, these values provide Antarctic sea level contributions in the range -0.12 +/-0.17 mm yrK-1 and improvement in certainty requires measurements with increased scope or accuracy.

    Further we know that the sea level rise is not uniform but rather regional from Cazenave(2003).

    While in tide gauge-derived sea level studies most investigators assumed uniform sea level change, now we have, for the first time, unambiguous evidence of regional variability of sea level change, some regions exhibiting sea level trends about 10 times the global mean. It is in the western Pacific and eastern Indian Oceans that sea level rise presents the highest magnitude. It is also worth noting that the whole Atlantic Ocean shows sea level rise during the past decade. In contrast, Figure 7 shows that sea level has been dropping in some regions (eastern Pacific and western Indian Oceans), even though in terms of global mean, sea level has been rising.

    Basically what this indicates is that we do not understand sea level change, we are not sure of what the sources of it are and to say that it is increasing now more than in the past cannot be proven.

    These two issues must be addressed by those that support the CO2 theory of AGW or the theory is not valid. The mere fact that when something that does not support the theory, such as mid 20th century cooling is blamed on aerosols when no studies show any change in aerosols, or that some unknown amount of aerosol is off setting supposed CO2 warming in the Arctic when the UC Irvine study shows that 35 ‘€” 96 percent of the warming and melting is due to dirty snow’ then I will remain a skeptic and this is being coming dogma and not science.

  292. Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 8:24 AM | Permalink

    > Anyone know the apparent temperature of Venus?

    The apparent brightness temperature of Venus is in the range 725-797 K.

    http://carnap.umd.edu/phil250/venus_alive_pdf/Chapter4/CH4-0.pdf

    - Stellvia

  293. Jaye
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 8:28 AM | Permalink

    contains greenhouse gases

    Does there exist a gas that does not re-radiate IR energy when subjected to solar radiation?

  294. Boris
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 8:37 AM | Permalink

    Mark T. says:
    April 2nd, 2007 at 2:25 pm

    “The oceans are warming and taking up more CO2, as you could find out with even a little effort on your part.”

    Uh, that’s nonsense. Warm waters hold less CO2.

    [...]

    98
    Boris says:
    April 2nd, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Do you know what confidence means? Anyway, enough of those games.

    As for CO2 increasing in the oceans, see:

    http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/abstract/305/5682/367

    Carbon is increasing in the air, the ocean, and biomass. Where else could it come from but FF?

    (Don’t say volcanoes. 13C/12C isotope ratios exclude anything but plants.)

    You’re wrong on this, as you are on some other GW issues.
    99
    Mark T. says:
    April 3rd, 2007 at 1:22 am

    Last reply to you, Boris…

    First, solubility of gas in water decreases with increasing temperature, in layman’s terms, that means warm water is capable of holding less of any gas. Look it up. Even your climatology friends know, and acknowldege this fact. In fact, this is what they think is the reason for the 800 year lag, because it takes that long for warming oceans to release excess CO2.

    [...]

    101
    Boris says:
    April 3rd, 2007 at 5:52 am

    “First, solubility of gas in water decreases with increasing temperature, in layman’s terms, that means warm water is capable of holding less of any gas. Look it up.”

    Is this a joke? I’ll leave it to you to figure out the incorrect assumption you make about the oceans.

    You know, it would be nice if you had even ONE source to back up your claims, but the CO2 content in the ocean is rising. I gave you one study, but there are about 20 out there showing the same thing. There’s no point in arguing with someone who denies even the most basic evidence.

    Or are Sabine and et al guilty of scientific fraud? I’m sure you have some theory or other on that one.

    You sure seem to be arguing that CO2 can’t be increasing in the oceans because they are warming.

    original thread:
    http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=640

    Note that I am asking for a source that shows CO2 decreasing in the oceans. The whole argument was about whether the modern CO2 increase is 100% due to mankind, which, of course, it is.

  295. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 9:31 AM | Permalink

    Note that I am asking for a source that shows CO2 decreasing in the oceans. The whole argument was about whether the modern CO2 increase is 100% due to mankind, which, of course, it is.

    Here’s where your concept of linear system theory fails the test. This is a massively MIMO system, with linear (and non-linear) feedbacks and effects. The last statement is incredibly impossible to state, yet another bifurcation on your part. I.e. in your mind, since they can measure the increase in the atmosphere to be some level, and they know how much we’ve put it, it must ALL be due to mankind. Not true. Again, study some system theory with an emphasis on controls and you’ll understand why. Another simple concept that you don’t get for whatever reason. Granted, I’ll take it on faith that you don’t have the requisite background, yet here you sit and harp arguing from a position of ignorance.

    Next, when water warms, its solubility decreases. That’s simple chemistry. However, near the surface, the concentration MUST increase, which I have said repeatedly. Why so? Because the surface is where the transfer is happening. While CO2 is being dredged up from the depths of the ocean, plus increased uptake in the colder regions it will necessarily increase in the surface water itself.

    Mark

  296. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 9:34 AM | Permalink

    I’m afraid Dave is correct. Pressure is a red herring and whether there is incident radiation is not important. Energy in must equal energy out in equilibrium. Ignoring reflected energy, pretty much all energy out from a planet is through radiation. The only way of changing the amount of radiation is to change the temperature of the radiating layer.

    And I agreed, in a simple scenario. But this isn’t a simple scenario as you of so many bifurcations seem want to put in place. Pressure makes a difference.

    Mark

  297. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 12:46 PM | Permalink

    #269 D. Patterson, LOL! Very nice play on words! Seriously though, I wonder how you explain away with CO2….

    #270 Mark T. That’s what I said in #268! :) Boris should stop bifurcatin’ ’round. :D

    #282, others.
    I find it so interesting how many people insist on appearing wrong, so you can write an explantion they ignore (or change the subject on or misdirect) on one single bit of fluffery. Gas goes in. And it comes out too! And there’s some stuck at different temperature gradients!! Of course we all understand that. Doesn’t matter.

    So let’s talk just about the ocean, a single data point in Climate Change. That the “Ocean’s Temperature” is some value, yes it sure is. But it’s an unknown and unknowable value. We can’t measure it because its multi-dimensional properties have an infinite number of data points; ones that constantly change, too! The other factors besides temp are likewise; amount of organisms, quantity and types of gasses and solids in solution, volume… We can’t measure any one of them in the first place. Even if we could, combining them is near impossible anyway! So… We guess, by sampling some aspect. So if you have 5 people who don’t have any idea what an elephant is close their eyes ears nose and throat and use their hands to guess what that elephant is by touching it once, for an instant, with their pinky, each of them in a different area of the animal, what do they tell you it is, how much it weighs, what it eats, where it lives, how tall it is, how big its feet are, how long its trunk is…. And their answer sure ain’t “The temperature of the ocean.”

    The same applies for atmosphere, land, wind, sun, cosmic, …. We can never know the exact value of even a single aspect of one aspect like ocean temperature, how do you model them all together?

    And no Mark, it never ends.

    #290 Since there’s no water and thus no humidity, I imagine the apparent temperature would be the same as whatever you wanted to measure. The surface mean of Venus is about 735K (850F). Atmosphere is 250K(-10F) (The Apparent visual magnitude is -4.4 although that has nothing to do with it, I think it’s interesting.)

  298. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 12:52 PM | Permalink

    re 272.

    Podcast please. Same goes for Anthony

  299. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 12:57 PM | Permalink

    Oh, and anyway, the only important thing is really the total energy level of the Earth and its change over time; likewise unknowable.

    #293
    There are a number of gasses (nitrogen and oxygen come to mind, IIRC) that don’t absorb IR (or don’t absorb much of it per unit, as in water vapor). Or was that question rhetorical? :)

    #295
    You beat me to it in between posts!!!

    But I’ll put it here again

    Boris: That the “Ocean’s Temperature” is some value, yes it sure is. But it’s an unknown and unknowable value. We can’t measure it because its multi-dimensional properties have an infinite number of data points; ones that constantly change. Besides just temperatures, this is also true in amount of organisms, quantity and types of gasses and solids in solution (of which there are many more than CO2), volume… We can’t measure any one of them in the first place. So your questions are meaningless because they have no answers.

    I’d guess this is all FUD to take attention away from the AMS’ latest issue with the Pielke Sr et al paper…..

  300. Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 1:07 PM | Permalink

    I’m looking for published quotes from prominent sceptics that the climate has been cooling since 1998 that I can cite in a manuscript I’m finishing off. I have quotes from Carter (2007) and Ball (2007). Does anybody have any other suggestions?

  301. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 1:23 PM | Permalink

    re 297.

    I understand that Boris has convinced Nasa that the ocean temp is unknowable. They are
    removing ocean temperature in their models.

  302. Boris
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 1:50 PM | Permalink

    Sam:

    What nonsense. You guys keep forgetting we’re dealing with the “anomaly” here. Is there an anomaly in ocean temps? Which way is it going?

    Mark,

    Is it your contention that the increase in CO2 is not from FF? Do you have an answer for the C12/C13 ratios in atmospheric and oceanic carbon that directly contradict your theory? Do you have an answer for where all the CO2 from FF is going? If it all ended up in the atmosphere we should be at about 500 ppm now.

  303. D. Patterson
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 2:11 PM | Permalink

    Re: #297. “explain away with CO2….”?????

  304. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 2:35 PM | Permalink

    #301 Hmmmm. I was under the impression they were measuring anomalies of some depth of water on the surface in 2 x 2 degree grids as an average, not “the ocean”. :)

    Actually, let me clarify that. We can’t measure (know) “the ocean’s temperature” because there’s no single temperature (and no single ocean or single sea, lol. Sea surface temperatures. Whatever. “liquid water on the surface of the Earth in oceans, seas and other large bodies that get measured”)

    Samples that result in calulations that result in averages that are then modeled to account for what we think the volume and other properties are is not “knowing” the SST. It’s the change in some ethereal number that’s derived from incomplete calculated averaged modeled data.

    #302 I wasn’t talking about anomalies, and neither were you. You asked if “the oceans” were getting warmer, not if the measured anomalies were getting warmer. You started by talking about the ocean uptaking CO2 and getting warmer in #267. Then you switched to asking Mark if he believed CO2 couldn’t be increasing in the oceans because they are warming in #276. In #294 you likewise asked about the oceans and CO2. Don’t get upset at me if you’re not being clear what you’re talking about, the ocean temp and CO2, or anomalies.

    But if you wanted the anomalies, what are samples of the surface that result in calculations that result in averages that are then modeled to account for what we think the volume and other properties, the change in some ethereal number that’s derived from incomplete calculated averaged modeled data telling us? I don’t know, what does the ERSST data tell us it’s doing?

    I have no idea.

    The instructions on how to do a time series is here http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/sst/ERSST-ts.txt

    Have at it if you care about it.

    #303 Yeah, if anyone can explain away the warming by blaming CO2, or how CO2 couldmakes the mantle warm! :)

  305. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 2:48 PM | Permalink

    Is it your contention that the increase in CO2 is not from FF?

    FF? Huh?

    Do you have an answer for the C12/C13 ratios in atmospheric and oceanic carbon that directly contradict your theory?

    What theory?

    Do you have an answer for where all the CO2 from FF is going? If it all ended up in the atmosphere we should be at about 500 ppm now.

    You’ve got a massively MIMO system with an unknown ability to sink just about any material, and somehow simple surface measurements tell you _everything_ about the system?

    Really, man, try to learn and understand how a feedback system behaves. It’s not a black/white “it’s gotta be this way or it’s gotta be that way, choose or die!” situation.

    It’s interesting how you keep switching around, hoping to catch basic science in some sort of “conundrum” that cannot be explained, and suddenly out you spring with a “GOTCHA!” Sorry, but you have neither the understanding, nor the cleverness to pull off something as such.

    Mark

  306. Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 2:54 PM | Permalink

    FINER POINTS FROM THE REAL NATURE: I’ve had a weird experience that I hope someone here be able to explain… I checked the temperature from a given square meter of grass and it was 134.78 °F. The grass was about 30 cm high and I the laser pointed to the base of the steams. Then I went to the next square and the temperature was 112.10 °F. The situation is that I cannot make any median because at the next square the temperature was 89.78 °F. I walked along some 164.04 ft and checked the temperature of the grass and it was 101.66 °F. It was a cloudless day and the temperature of the uncovered ground (sand) was 137.12 °F. The temperature of air under the sunbeams was 92.30 °F. The intensity of the SR was 455.51 W/m^2 and the luminosity was 25.5 eV. The RH of each grassy area was 57%; and it didn’t change from one square to another. The wind speed was 9.32 mph and it changed some times down barely to 8.82 mph. What could be the cause of those sharp differences? Would getting a median be applicable? Could it be the CO2? (Hah).

  307. Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:03 PM | Permalink

    Boris, What’s FF?

  308. steven mosher
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:09 PM | Permalink

    306.

    Grass is like the Ocean. Listen to Boris. There is no temperature for grass.

  309. D. Patterson
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:12 PM | Permalink

    Re: #306. Must have been variable methane from earthworm flatulence….

    Seriously, consider such variables as changing angle of incidence in combination with grass density, inter-grass color and albedo, moving shadows, soil ventilation and micro-hydrology, heat from decomposition, etc.

  310. MarkW
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:17 PM | Permalink

    Boris,

    Are you honestly saying that the only possible sink are the oceans?

  311. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:23 PM | Permalink

    Forcing Forcing?

    Forcing squared?

  312. Mhaze
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    Fascinating discussions here, as always.

    My question is on tree rings: I would like to know if there are what may be called “error bounds” on temperatures derived from tree rings, and if so, how they are calculated. I’ve found numerous explanations of determining temp from rings, but nothing that said “So the temp for 1703 is known to be 19.6 C to 19.95 C and here is why”. Also, do tree ring temp estimates become less certain with older series, or are they considered to be relatively consistant as to the error bounds?

    Thanks.

  313. Dave B
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:27 PM | Permalink

    FF= fossil fuels

  314. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:42 PM | Permalink

    Are you honestly saying that the only possible sink are the oceans?

    And the only possible source is man-made emissions… i.e, burning of FF. Apparently the system has devolved to single input single output.

    Thanks for the clarification, Dave B. Apparently my buzzword/anagram dictionary is on the fritz.

    Mark

  315. John F. Pittman
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 3:53 PM | Permalink

    #291 1. There are several problems with the assumptions versus divergence of proxies and AGW. One possibility that has been alluded to in veiwing the adjustments used for temperature to develop the grids that are used for the anonolies whose trend is used to claim global warming, is that the adjustments were wrong as in UHI or microsite contamination which could cause this problem. Assume this is true, then the divergence problem (recent times only) could disappear, the proxies were good, because the data was bad. I think this would have political worldwide repurcussions due to the world is ending by CO2 scare that is on-going with temperatures always rsing and the new correlation would be the temperatures reached their peak in the 1990′s while CO2 is yet rising (direct falsification). Another possibility is not only is the data bad, but once corrected, the modern global warming would be shown to be solar in nature not anthropogenic. Once again political fallout. I believe that RC has as big a stake (on the individual basis) to be AGW, as EXXON does that it is NOT anthropogenic. Thus the censorship.

    2. IPCC is by consensus. The rules allow unpublished, unsupportable theories to be accorded the same value as proven science. Majority rules (See Rule 10 under Rules and Procedures of IPCC). Thus it should be unsuprising that such a large range that better describes what they don’t know rather than what is known to be included. If you wonder how IPCC could do this, just read the rules and understand that the lead author “can stack the deck” and throw out complaints from disagreeing scientists by simply stating that the consensus was reached.

    3

    These two issues must be addressed by those that support the CO2 theory of AGW or the theory is not valid.

    I believe this is what climateaudit is about. Apparently the claim is that if it is peer-reveiwed and consensus has been achieved, then real science does not matter, nor does it count.

  316. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 4:12 PM | Permalink

    The point exactly; this is not “simple siso” it is “massive mimo”. You can’t just talk about what the mean anomany SST is, nor how much CO2 is estimated to be absorbed and released in the SST area without realizing that is just .1% of that question in the first place, and we guess at the other 99.9% And that’s just one of the mimos.

    #312 Cores from trees are like cores from ice. They tell you something, but I have no idea what that something is (maybe along the lines of my paragraph above).

    Know what the anomaly for SSTs are yet Boris?

  317. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 4:25 PM | Permalink

    Boris,

    being an EE, I understand what Mark T is saying, and he is exactly right. But I don’t think you’re understanding his terminology or conceptual framework, so I’ll try to answer these questions in a different way, more layman like. I take FF to refer to Hydrocarbons.

    >> Still haven’t figured out how the ocean can uptake CO2 and warm at the same time?

    I’m presuming by this that someone postulated that the measured increase in C02 at Mauna Loa could be caused by oceans increasing in temperature. This is very likely. The answer is that the ocean is not a singular point at a certain temperature. The ocean has currents. Cold water will absorb C02, and sink to the ocean floor. At some other point in the oceans, C02 water will rise and at the equator, it will warm even more, and by Henry’s law, expel C02.

    >> Note that I am asking for a source that shows CO2 decreasing in the oceans.

    If only the vast ocean area upwind from Mauna Loa were warming, it would cause the measurement increase. Measurement of ocean C02 show that the levels are generally low, which is expected, since it’s a cycle. It’s like saying, rain generally strikes the ground at a lower altitude from whence it came. Measuring C02 on top of a volcanoe, a known C02 source, is quite questionable. An alternate explanation is that this particular volcanoe is increasing it’s C02 output.
    >> The whole argument was about whether the modern CO2 increase is 100% due to mankind, which, of course, it is.

    You can’t know that, since like Sam said, the huge C02 fluxes are unknown and unmeasureable. You should realize that the carbon cycle is, like the water cycle, a cycle! It goes around and around. Just like the atmosphere CANNOT accumulate water, it cannot accumulate C02. Henry’s law forbids it. All the C02 in the atmosphere is on it’s way into the ocean. C02 atmospheric lifetime is about 5 years, not the 100+ postulated by the AGW idea, which violates a known scientific law.

    >> Is it your contention that the increase in CO2 is not from FF?

    Yes, it certainly is my contention. It’s more likely that human C02 output is a mere .2 % of the total C02 flux. Human C02 output merely makes it look like there is a bit more animal life. Just as the average human’s C02 output is negligible in his immediate environment, it is even more negligible for the earth as a whole.

    >> Do you have an answer for the C12/C13 ratios in atmospheric and oceanic carbon that directly contradict your theory?

    Do you mean C-14? The evidence is that at MOST, only 4% of the C02 in the atmosphere is from burning Hydrocarbons. Even this is questionable, since the premise of this conclusion is that burning petroleum products is the ONLY source of non C-14 C02, which it isn’t. There is a huge inorganic carbon cycle. The bottom line is that all evidence points to the conclusion that humans are only responsible for an extremely small fraction of the C02 flux.

    >> Do you have an answer for where all the CO2 from FF is going?

    Like all C02 in the atmosphere, it’s either being absorbed by plant life or being absorbed by the oceans.

    >> If it all ended up in the atmosphere we should be at about 500 ppm now.

    We really don’t know the global C02 level. The global amount could be unknowable. All we can do is measure at specific points. For example, measuresments taken in luxembourg between 2003 and 2005, with over 58600 data points, range from 330 to over 550 ppm. Contrary to AGW, there is no C02 dome over cities. During the depression, human C02 went down by at least 30%, yet accurate C02 measurements don’t show any human effect. C02 levels went up during that time, reaching a peak of 420 in 1940.

  318. Dave B
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 4:34 PM | Permalink

    boris, look here for an SST map:

    http://weather.unisys.com/surface/sst_anom.html

  319. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 5:32 PM | Permalink

    Interesting info is in the sap1-1-final-chap4.pdf (Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere – Understanding and Reconciling Differences; Mears, Forest, Spencer, Vose, Reynolds, Thorne, Christy)

  320. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 6:00 PM | Permalink

    I thought if Boris even answered or knew ahead of time what the answer was, he’d change the subject or something, and that he didn’t know anyway, so I plotted it in the meantime, and it was as I expected, 0. The problem with that first link, you have to do each year separate or download the dataset seemingly one year at a time and then Excell it in some odd painful process.

    I found at http://nomads.ncdc.noaa.gov:8085/las/servlets/constrain?var=726 you could do all years, but it seems only one lat band at a time (which is odd since they’re in 2s…) But I did all 4 bands, and they were 0, at least at the color resolution eyeballing it.

    (#318 I hadn’t found the Unisys map, thanks for putting it up)

    However, I did go ahead and look at the Min/Max for the SST readings for the average of the entire period 1854-2006, 1854, 2006 and the period 1961-1990. On a yearly basis from the monthly values. These are the reported temperatures. So if you’d like to know what the temperature of the sea surfaces “is” here you go.

    In each case, the min was -1.8 The max:

    1961-1990 29.4405
    1854-2006 29.4356

    2006 29.8842
    1854 29.5606

    So rounding the mean to two decimals gives us a base period mean of 1961-1990 of 13.82 or a base period of 1854-2006 of 13.82, same mean. No change.

    The anomaly of 1854 is +.06 and the anomaly of 2006 is +.22 So there’s a .16 difference. You can trend that if you want to, I’m not going to bother.

    On the min, there is no difference at all.
    On the max, if we take the 29.44 number of 61-90 (versus 29.43 for 1854-2006), we get +.12 on 1854 and +.44 in 2006 for a variation of .32

    So absolutes, “the oceans” have warmed, in 150 years (excluding the fact that in that time we changed measurement methods and they are now more accurate) 0 on the min, .32 on the max and .16 on the mean. (Which is interesting, it’s also about at the median)

  321. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 6:05 PM | Permalink

    Oh, I wanted to mention that the +.51 land temp anomaly value for 2006 is 3 times larger than the +.16 mean SST in 2006 was.

  322. Boris
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 7:26 PM | Permalink

    FF=fossil fuels.

  323. Boris
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 7:37 PM | Permalink

    Boris,

    Are you honestly saying that the only possible sink are the oceans?

    No, CO2 has increased in the biosphere as well. It has increased in the coean, the atmosphere, and the biosphere.

  324. Boris
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 8:00 PM | Permalink

    And the only possible source is man-made emissions… i.e, burning of FF. Apparently the system has devolved to single input single output.

    This is getting silly. You lecture people and it’s clear you have never bothered to crack the lit on this subject. Start with RC and go from there.

    http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=87

  325. STAFFAN LINDSTRÖM
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 8:35 PM | Permalink

    #298 Steve Mosher and others interested in Steve
    Mc Intyreⳳ appearance on CHQR AM 770 Tuesday
    July 31 2007 20.30 How to hear and/or get it:
    You go to the CHQR website, in the left column
    there is “audio vault” click it, then if youⳲe
    not a member you have to fill in a form but
    I still sit in Solna Sweden so I had to make
    up a Toronto number 416 area code and put 2 extra digits to my old 1940ⳳ 6-digit number
    (but handles 8 MB/S fine ADSL)(Steve McIntyre
    I really hope that it doesn⳴ happen to be
    yours…LOL!)(I first thought CHQR was a Toronto station (my DX-ing NAm station knowledge is getting a little rusty..)
    After filling in procedures you get an e-mail
    and confirm it which is tricky for me since
    after last Java update Internet Explorer crashed so
    now itⳳ the “Cunning little vixen”(Also opera
    by Leos Janà¡cek…)
    The audio vault: CHQR is a Calgary station
    so hour to choose 20.00 You must have Windows Media player!
    If you want to save it copy location and use
    Net Transport or maybe Flash-get for downloading the stream. If that is
    to complicated use Jet Audio and do it in real
    time…For your own personal use only of
    course!! Peace of cake as Mr Chamberlain
    would have said returning from Münich…

  326. Duane Johnson
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 9:46 PM | Permalink

    I would like to thank TCO for inspiring me to get off my duff and make a long neglected donation to Climate Audit. Come to think of it, I didn’t even get off my duff to do it.

    Another hoi polloi

  327. tetris
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 10:27 PM | Permalink

    Re: 323 and 324
    Boris,
    Re: 323, pls provide verifiable references for your contention re: CO2 concentrations in the oceans, atmosphere and biosphere.
    Re: 324, RC is a reference on “climate science” as much as the Vatican is a reference on birth control.

  328. Mark T
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 11:46 PM | Permalink

    This is getting silly. You lecture people and it’s clear you have never bothered to crack the lit on this subject. Start with RC and go from there.

    I couldn’t care any less about what RC says than what you say. You both clearly have an agenda, and you both have demonstrated a very serious misunderstanding of basic science.

    First of all, my statement was ridiculously sarcastic if you haven’t been able to figure that out. Second, I still dare you to educate yourself on the behavior of massively MIMO systems with linear and non-linear feedbacks. Until you do, I doubt you’ll ever even be able to understand what I’m talking about.

    Mark

  329. Mark T
    Posted Aug 1, 2007 at 11:57 PM | Permalink

    Btw, Einstein, chapter 3 of the IPCC report contained in the link you just provided…

    The uptake capacity for CO2 also varies significantly due to additional factors, most importantly seawater temperature, salinity and alkalinity

    Uh, does that count as a DUH? Emphasis in the above quote as well as caps on the DUH, mine…

    Mark

  330. Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 2:25 AM | Permalink

    312,

    My question is on tree rings: I would like to know if there are what may be called “error bounds” on temperatures derived from tree rings, and if so, how they are calculated. I’ve found numerous explanations of determining temp from rings, but nothing that said “So the temp for 1703 is known to be 19.6 C to 19.95 C and here is why”. Also, do tree ring temp estimates become less certain with older series, or are they considered to be relatively consistant as to the error bounds?

    See http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=647 ,

    how they are calculated

    in the MBH99 case nobody knows..

    I tried to compute error bounds for some known proxy sets using Brown’s Multivariate Calibration as a reference:

    http://signals.auditblogs.com/2007/07/09/multivariate-calibration-ii/

    These results indicate that proxy data is not accurate enough to make conclusions about unprecedentedness of 20th century. And maybe here’s an explanation why there’s no interaction between the Team and mainstream statisticians. But this is all non-peer reviewed, so let’s not jump to conclusions too early.

  331. Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 3:04 AM | Permalink

    Re Comment 4 on Gerry North’s Suggested Reading Thread

    I’ve put this here because it doesn’t really fit on the above:

    quote: re: comment #3:
    1. How much is naturally occurring CO2 + 2. How much is anthropogenic in nature

    natural CO2 is about 280 ppmv; today’s CO2 is about 380 ppmv, so about 30% of the CO2 in the atmosphere is due to humans endquote

    I would like this to be proved and not hand-waved. The statement that the level has gone up from recent historical levels and therefore we’ve caused it is naive in the extreme — levels have varied before without human intervention.

    quote: also, we know that the increase in CO2 over the last hundred years or so is due to fossil fuels because it is depleted in both C13 and C14. endquote

    This is the best of the smoking guns. However, it was proposed before the paper showing the ability of non-obligate C3 metabolism phytoplankton to switch to C4 metabolic pathways in conditions of stress (low CO2, low chromium and zinc levels, I don’t know about iron). The C3 pathway distinguishes much more between heavy and light isotopes than C4 — has allowance been made for the fact that C4 plants may be altering the overall isotopic biological pump? Do the calculations which assert the 12C/13C change acknowledge this possibility? C14 is strongly selected against in C3 plants, not so much in C4. The same question applies. Isotopic biological pull-down is not at a set ratio.

    SSTs have been rising since the LIA. Has there been a tiny increase of deep water temperatures which has altered the rate of clathrate consumption by deep ocean methanophage bacteria? If deep-sea methane is being consumed, the CO2 signature will be the same as that caused by burning fossil fuels.

    quote: 3. How much is absorbed by various sinks
    we emit about 8 billion tons of C each year into the atmosphere, and the amount of C in the atmosphere goes up by about 4 billion tons … which says that sinks absorb the other half. endquote

    Or other sources which we have not allowed for are increased enormously — the clathrate consumption one for example. So the sinks may be able to absorb 50 GT extra a year but they’re being fed 54. But look at the atmospheric vs anthropogenic CO2 graphs during the 1940s — burning of fossil fuels increases while atmospheric CO2 goes down, a curious fact which suggests that we don’t really know what is going on. Why does the CO2 dietician suddenly allow the planet to devour the whole plateful while before and after there is an edict that only half is allowed?

    The human contribution to the CO2 turnover is minute. To assume that we cause the rise in atmospheric CO2 is like a little boy feeling guilty when a dam bursts after he has widdled in a lake.

    quote: 4. What are the limits of those sinks
    good question endquote

    See the point above about the 1940s. Why this mysterious half? A few decades ago the sinks could consume 2 Gt. Now 4. Tomorrow, 5. Why not 5 now? Why not 7 now?

    quote: 5. How long before such a doubling of CO2 occurs.
    probably around the middle of this century endquote

    I’m not sure this question is meaningful. Put simply, we don’t really know what is going on. If we have clathrate trouble then a big bubble could double it in a year. If the problem is sea pollution then a change to non-oily propulsion might increase ocean fertility to such an extent that levels drop alarmingly. We don’t know.

    HTH

    JF

  332. Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 5:27 AM | Permalink

    Global warming and lawyers.

  333. Rod
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 5:58 AM | Permalink

    A recent news item in Nature about aerosols over asia suggests, under certain circumstances, they can cause warming. Given that aerosols have been used in models as a negative feedback, i.e. are cooling – does this new evidence not imply a reduced climate sensitivity to CO2.

  334. Boris
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 7:36 AM | Permalink

    Uh, does that count as a DUH? Emphasis in the above quote as well as caps on the DUH, mine…

    Mark

    If you don’t care what RC says then read the literature.

    I never said ocean warmth doesn’t affect solubility, just that that fact is irrelevant to whether the CO2 level is increasing in the ocean or not. It’s fine if you want to back away from your claim that CO2 is not increasing–and honestlky I don’t know if that’s your claim or not. You haven’t been very clear. Let me make two statements which are true and verified by multiple studies. If you disagree, then say so.

    1. CO2 is increasing in the oceans, even though they are warming. (I’m talking net increases here–of course there is exchanging going on.)
    2. The modern increase in atmospheric CO2 is dvirtually entirely due to the burning of FF.

    If you agree, then why are you arguing?

  335. Boris
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 7:52 AM | Permalink

    The human contribution to the CO2 turnover is minute. To assume that we cause the rise in atmospheric CO2 is like a little boy feeling guilty when a dam bursts after he has widdled in a lake.

    But the increase adds up year after year. So if that boy had been widdling for 150 years non-stop…

  336. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 8:53 AM | Permalink

    But the increase adds up year after year. So if that boy had been widdling for 150 years non-stop…

    I never commented on magnitude and there is gain in the system (positive or negative) so the impact is not known.

    If you don’t care what RC says then read the literature.

    I have, and I did… where do you think the quote came from.

    1. CO2 is increasing in the oceans, even though they are warming. (I’m talking net increases here’€”of course there is exchanging going on.)

    It is increasing at the surface, which has to happen in order for the ocean to release more, i.e. it has to come from somewhere. Duh #2.

    2. The modern increase in atmospheric CO2 is dvirtually entirely due to the burning of FF.

    Wait a minute, you said all, before?? The fact of the matter is that there are too many assumptions in the system to draw any clear conclusions. Majority? Probably. All, not possible (my only contention all along). “Virtually entirely,” maybe, maybe not.

    Mark

  337. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 8:56 AM | Permalink

    But the increase adds up year after year. So if that boy had been widdling for 150 years non-stop…

    Btw, this is where the original argument began. The oceans warmed first, then the temperature rose, 800 years later, in historic records. Your contention was that warming the ocean would not cause a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, which is patently wrong.

    Mark

  338. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:04 AM | Permalink

    >> 1. CO2 is increasing in the oceans, even though they are warming.

    C02 measurements in various ocean waters show levels way below equilibrium. Therefore, oceans generally sink C02. The levels are low enough, and the size of the ocean reservoir so massive, that it will always be a net sink. However, hot equatorial waters outgas C02. The fact that folks at Mauna Loa only take measurements when the wind is blowing in from the sea supports the contention that Mauna Loa measurements are most likely corrupted by 1) equatorial outgassing, 2) weather (C02 plumes from equator are weather dependent and 3) discarding data which doesn’t fit the AGW idea.

    >> 2. The modern increase in atmospheric CO2 is dvirtually entirely due to the burning of FF.

    Completely false. I dealt with this in #317

  339. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:17 AM | Permalink

    Gunnar, how do you account for the current trend of decreasing oxygen content in the atmosphere?

  340. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:22 AM | Permalink

    A strawman because the discussion is about CO2, not O2. There are many possible reasons for that anyway…

    Mark

  341. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:28 AM | Permalink

    I completely disagree. The O2 and CO2 cycles are tied together through photosynthesis, respiration and combustion. The variation in oxygen content of the atmosphere provides strong evidence for the role of fossil fuel burning in the increase of atmospheric CO2. It also allows us to partition the importance of the different sinks for CO2 viz the ocean versus terrestrial uptake.

    You indicate there are many possible reasons…such as?

  342. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:41 AM | Permalink

    The O2 and CO2 cycles are tied together through photosynthesis, respiration and combustion.

    Sure, they are linked, but that doesn’t mean they are 100%.

    The variation in oxygen content of the atmosphere provides strong evidence for the role of fossil fuel burning in the increase of atmospheric CO2.

    It provides strong evidence for the impact of fossil fuel burning on O2 content in the atmosphere.

    You indicate there are many possible reasons…such as?

    Gee, I don’t know… deforestation, natural cycles, ocean yet again… The system’s pretty complex and making such definitive statements as “decreasing O2 means all the CO2 is due to man’s burning of fossil fuels” is a stretch.

    Mark

  343. tetris
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:43 AM | Permalink

    Re:339 and 340
    340: exactly.
    The above is akin to the proverbial cat around a bowl of hot milk [or porridge as the Swedes would have it]. AGW says: Increased CO2 causes increased temperatures. How about some repeatable, verifiable experiment that conclusively demonstrates this. Without that, fact is best available empirical data is increasingly falsifying the hypothesis and the discussion becomes purely academic.

  344. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:47 AM | Permalink

    >> Gunnar, how do you account for the current trend of decreasing oxygen content in the atmosphere?

    Before I even begin to consider this, can you point to comprehensive measurements of global oxygen levels?

    >> The variation in oxygen content of the atmosphere provides strong evidence for the role of fossil fuel burning in the increase of atmospheric CO2.

    Doesn’t it more directly imply that plant life hasn’t yet grown sufficiently?

  345. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:48 AM | Permalink

    Doesn’t it more directly imply that plant life hasn’t yet grown sufficiently?

    Hadn’t thought about that…

    Mark

  346. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:54 AM | Permalink

    #343 I’m not sure that a discussion about the reason for an increase in CO2 in the atmosphere has anything relevant to say about AGW. Did I say anything about increasing CO2 being the cause of increased temperatures?

    #342 There are very few processes, none that I can identify at present that can cause a simultaneous rise in CO2 and decrease in oxygen other than respiration and combustion. Whilst our inventories of fossil fuel burning, cement production and deforestation are not perfect, they are consistent with the level of rise in CO2. The drop in oxygen content is also consisitent with this inventory.

  347. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 9:57 AM | Permalink

    >> The variation in oxygen content of the atmosphere provides strong evidence for the role of fossil fuel burning in the increase of

    atmospheric CO2.

    It seems like quite a stretch to imagine that puny man is using enough oxygen to actually effect atmospheric levels. Of course, Oxygen is also subject to Henry’s law, which is how fish can breathe oxygen. Like C02, it would sink and source to and from oceans based on localised water temperatures.

  348. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

    Okay, there are a growing number of measurements of the oxygen and CO2 content of the atmosphere taken at several locations on the globe. Here’s just a few:

    Bender, M.L. and Battle, M.O., 1999, Carbon cycle studies based on the distribution of O2 in the air. Tellus, 51B, 165-169

    Bender et al., 1996, Variability in the O2/N2 ratio of the southern hemisphere air, 1991-1994 – Implications for the carbon cycle. Global. Biogeochem. Cycles, 10, 9-21

    Keeling et al., 1996, Global and hemispheric sinks deduced from changes in atmospheric O2 concentration, Nature, 381, 218-221

    You may well be right about plant life. An increased greening of the planet as a result of increased CO2 could well lead to a restoration of oxyegn levels but we don’t see that yet.

  349. Sam
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:05 AM | Permalink

    First time here…I thought I would post this NASA article about the cooling oceans. It seems to be needed.

    http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2006/sep/HQ_06318_Ocean_Cooling.html

    Has anyone here ever been to surfacestations.org?

  350. Boris
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:12 AM | Permalink

    Your contention was that warming the ocean would not cause a rise in CO2 in the atmosphere, which is patently wrong.

    Now you are making things up.

    I said “The oceans are warming and taking up more CO2”

    You said “Uh, that’s nonsense. Warm waters hold less CO2.”

    But way to equivocate.

  351. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    re: #349 Sam,

    First time here…

    Has anyone here ever been to surfacestations.org?

    Second quote proves the first. There are dozens of threads here concerning surfacestations.org. Anthony was in fact fill-in host recently while Steve was on vacation. (And appears to still have refrigerator rights.)

  352. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:13 AM | Permalink

    Has anyone here ever been to surfacestations.org?

    Many topics on this blog are focused on Anthony’s work. Several are on the side panel as current hot-topics of discussion.

    You may well be right about plant life. An increased greening of the planet as a result of increased CO2 could well lead to a restoration of oxyegn levels but we don’t see that yet.

    Really, this comes down to a bit more control theory. Lots of sources, known and unknown, non-linear effects, linear effects, feedbacks, etc. Simply doing a measurement at some point in such a chaotic (like) system doesn’t tell a whole lot about what’s going on. Sure you can attempt to draw conclusions, but it’s not hard to draw other conclusions as well, both are equally valid (or invalid) in the absence of a method to test them.

    Mark

  353. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:15 AM | Permalink

    Well Gunnar, it may seem a stretch but it can be measured. For example, using estimates of the fossil fuel inventory between 1990 and 1997 we would calculate that CO2 should rise by about 20ppm and oxygen decrease by a similar amount 20ppm. Of course it’s easy to measure the rise in CO2, being several percent of the total CO2 concentration. For oxygen the decrease is 20ppm in 210,000 ppm. An extraordinarily difficult measurement to make, but one that can be done.

    The actual measurements are a rise of CO2 of about 9ppm and a drop of oxygen of about 22ppm.

    This observation can be explained by an oceanic sink of 1.9+/-0.8 Pg C/yr and a biospheric sink of ca. 2 +/-1.5Pg C/yr.

    Incidentally using 13C/12C ratio measurements the oceanic sink is estimated at 2.1 Pg+/-1.5Pg C/yr.

    I agree wide error estimates but the coincidence of two different lines of evidence (oxygen/CO2 concentration variations and carbon isotopes) strongly supports the interpretation.

  354. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    Compared to C02 at 383, Oxygen is 209,460 ppmv, for a total mass of 1.1776 x 10^18 kg or 8.4 x 10^20 L.

    Total amount of O2 used in burning gasoline: 1.7 x 10^15 L of O2.

    It would take 24,000 years to decrease the Oxygen from 20.95% to 19.95% of the atmosphere.

    And this is a static analysis that ignores the reality.

    Paul, you surely can’t mean to imply that in a few short years, man is capable of affecting the oxygen level? It would be the ultimate in human conceit.

  355. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:18 AM | Permalink

    You said “Uh, that’s nonsense. Warm waters hold less CO2.”

    A misstatement on my part, though not entirely untrue, good catch, however. Warmer waters will hold less than they otherwise would have been able to hold. As noted by Gunnar, the oceans aren’t at the point of saturation. The point being that increasing ocean temperatures will result in either less uptake, or increased release (the two are indistinguishable in a feedback system).

    Mark

  356. Boris
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:27 AM | Permalink

    Completely false. I dealt with this in #317

    No, you didn’t. You posted some nonsense about CO2 having an atmospheric life of 5 years. You did not answer or understand the isotope evidence. You claimed things were just too complex. You conflated modern CO2 measuring capabilities with older ones known to be in error. You claimed that all carbon from FF went into the atmosphere, then was pushed in to the ocean and biosphere very quickly only to be replaced with some unknown natural CO2 source. In short, you didn’t do very well at all.

  357. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

    Gunnar, I’ve already said that the decrease in oxygen is small and in the ppm range, not percent range. The measurements are out there. We’ve even made the measurements in my own lab. Taking your figures a drop in oxygen levels from about 210,000 to 200,000 ppm in 24,000 years is equivalent to a drop of about 0.5ppm per annum. This is within range of what we actually measure.

  358. KevinUK
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:29 AM | Permalink

    #349 Sam

    Welcome to CA. If you are intrested in the auditing of climate science you won’t find a better website/blog. Steve is very thorough and IMO often too polite towards some of the trolls who occasional visit. Stick around you’ll learn a lot.

  359. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    >> Of course it’s easy to measure the rise in CO2

    This is, of course, completely incorrect.

    >> we would calculate that CO2 should rise by about 20ppm and oxygen decrease by a similar amount 20ppm.

    I calculate that human burning of hydrocarbons would result in a change of .41, no more than about 1 ppm.

  360. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:33 AM | Permalink

    There seems to be some confusion over residence times and the time required to establish equilibrium. The residence time of CO2 in the atmosphere is simply found by dividing the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by the total atmosphere to land/ocean flux and comes out at 750 PgC/150 pgC.yr^-1 or 5 years. This is different to the time required to establish equilibrium after a system has been perturbated.

  361. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:40 AM | Permalink

    >> equivalent to a drop of about 0.5ppm per annum. This is within range of what we actually measure.

    Ok, I’m glad we agree on that. But what does this prove? It only shows that Man is buring hydrocarbons, a fact which is not in dispute.

  362. MarkW
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

    Given that CO2 had only increased by a few parts per billion, and given that it takes one molecule of O2 to turn one atom of C into a molecule of CO2.

    So the increase in CO2, even if 100% has come from the burning of fossil fuels, would only cause a drop in O2 of a few parts per billion.

    And that’s only if there are no other changes in the system.

  363. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

    Gunnar I meant that measuring a change of 20ppm in CO2 is relatively easy instrumentally. Interpreting measurements is another matter. For what it’s worth I trust the Mauna Loa measurements. They are matched by measurements at Scripps, Southern California; Cape Grim, Tasmania and Alaska all showing rises in CO2 concentration.

    With respect to the calculations on the change in oxygen level I’m not sure what your estimate relates to. Is it the annual change?

  364. MarkW
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:41 AM | Permalink

    A few decades back, this alleged drop in atmospheric O2 would have been taken as proof positive that we are all going to die if don’t stop the deforestation of the rain forests.

  365. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:45 AM | Permalink

    #362 Mark, I think you probably mean ‘a few parts per million’ rather than’a few parts per billion’. But your reasoning is correct and that is what we observe when making such measurements. Now it is possible to argue over the interpretation but at some point it’s useful to invoke Occam’s razor. It seems, at least to me, that the simplest interpretation that unifies our observations on isotopes, CO2 levels, oxygen levels is that the recent perturbation can best be explained largely by fossil fuel burning, in combination with cement production and deforestation.

    Now I’m not saying anything about AGW. The radiative role of CO2 is another discussion that steve has set up elsewhere.

  366. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:47 AM | Permalink

    #364…MarkW a few years back I received an email from someone who wanted data to support his contention that man would take himself to extinction because of the drop in O2 levels. I had to point out that we are measuring tiny, tiny changes that had absolutely no implications for life on the planet, human or otherwise.

  367. MarkW
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:49 AM | Permalink

    Metals rusting take a lot of O2 out of the atmosphere. Refining of metals from ore would presumably put O2 into the atmosphere. Unless the O2 is consumed by some other reaction in the refining process that I’m not aware of.

    In the early part of the last century, huge amounts of iron was dug up and refined to support the growing industrial revolution. In the last few decades we’ve been shifting, in massive amounts to other materials. The result of this would be that, at present, the amount of iron rusting exceeds the amount of iron being refined.

  368. tetris
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:54 AM | Permalink

    Re: 354 and 357
    Agree with Gunnar’s take. Arguing that we are depleting O2 is hairsplitting of the first order. Until someone conclusively shows it’s harmful, more CO2 benefits the biosphere and humans get by very well on 30% of 21% O2 everytime we breath. A 20ppm drop is the last thing to keep us awake at night I would think.

  369. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 10:56 AM | Permalink

    Bob asked the following question:

    “Paul Dennis said

    …It is hard to see how other processes which generate CO2, other than burning fossil fuels can lead to a decrease in the oxygen content of the atmosphere. Hence the finger points towards fossil fuels!

    There must be something else in addition to fossil fuels to account for the decrease in O2. Over the last ten years CO2 has increased by 15 ppm while O2 has decreased by 30 ppm according to your numbers. Since an O2 molecule is an O2 molecule the numbers should be about the same, shouldn’t they?

    Since CO2 rises and falls annually we should also see a corresponding fall and rise for O2. Do we?”

    Bob, in answer between 1990 and 1997 CO2 increased by about 9ppm and oxygen decreased by 22ppm. The reason we don’t see an approximate 1:1 correlation is because photosynthesis takes out some of the carbon and pumps oxygen back into the atmosphere, and the oceans take out CO2 as dissolved inorganic carbon but has relatively little effect on oxygen levels.

    With respect to seasonal variations you’re absolutely right..the CO2 and O2 cycles are in antiphase to each other. There’s also a diurnal cycle with photosynthesis during the day and respiration at night.

  370. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 11:00 AM | Permalink

    #367 Interesting point MarkW….perhaps we need an inventory for rusting iron too. I’ve not seen one.

    #368 Who was saying that the decrease in oxygen concentration was harmful. Certainly not me. I was using the combined oxygen and carbon cycles to illustrate why I’m presently convinced by the hypothesis that burning fossil fuels is a major contributor to the present perturbation of the atmospheric CO2 levels.

  371. Mark T.
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 11:02 AM | Permalink

    I don’t think Paul is arguing this is a problem, quite the contrary. He’s just drawing conclusions about CO2 from the O2 measurements (at least, coupled with CO2 measurements). I simply thing the errors involved are too great because the quantities are either a) tiny, or b) estimated/measured poorly. I.e., an error of only 0.5 ppm on the O2 content drastically changes any correlation with CO2 content, which has its own measurement problems.

    Mark

  372. Paul Dennis
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 11:17 AM | Permalink

    #371 Thankyou Mark T. Out of interest, in my lab we can measure the oxygen content of the atmosphere to a precision of about 1ppm. i.e. 210,000 +/- 1ppm. Analytically this is excellent but of course we would like to do better. It means that we have to maintain standards over many years in order to detect small changes in atmospheric composition say over a 5 to 10 year period. It’s challenging to say the least.

    Anyway, I’m based in the UK and if there are any UK residents, or visitors from anywhere else who would like to visit and see and debate the work being done then please feel free to contact me. I keep an open door policy in my lab.

  373. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 11:23 AM | Permalink

    >> No, you didn’t. You posted some nonsense about CO2 having an atmospheric life of 5 years.

    Nonsense? Here are 26 studies that confirm that the AGW assertion that the C02 atmospheric life is 150 years is COMPLETE nonsense.

    Based on natural carbon-14
    Craig [1957] 7 +/- 3
    Revelle & Suess [1957] 7
    Arnold & Anderson [1957] 10
    including living and dead biosphere
    (Siegenthaler, 1989) 4-9
    Craig [1958] 7 +/- 5
    Bolin & Eriksson [1959] 5
    Broecker [1963], recalc. by Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
    Craig [1963] 5-15
    Keeling [1973b] 7
    Broecker [1974] 9.2
    Oeschger et al. [1975] 6-9
    Keeling [1979] 7.53
    Peng et al. [1979] 7.6 (5.5-9.4)
    Siegenthaler et al. [1980] 7.5
    Lal & Suess [1983] 3-25
    Siegenthaler [1983] 7.9-10.6
    Kratz et al. [1983] 6.7

    Based on Suess Effect
    Ferguson [1958] 2 (1-8)
    Bacastow & Keeling [1973] 6.3-7.0

    Based on bomb carbon-14
    Bien & Suess [1967] >10
    Münnich & Roether [1967] 5.4
    Nydal [1968] 5-10
    Young & Fairhall [1968] 4-6
    Rafter & O’Brian [1970] 12
    Machta (1972) 2
    Broecker et al. [1980a] 6.2-8.8
    Stuiver [1980] 6.8
    Quay & Stuiver [1980] 7.5
    Delibrias [1980] 6.0
    Druffel & Suess [1983] 12.5
    Siegenthaler [1983] 6.99-7.54

    Based on radon-222
    Broecker & Peng [1974] 8
    Peng et al. [1979] 7.8-13.2
    Peng et al. [1983] 8.4

    Based on solubility data
    Murray (1992) 5.4

    Based on carbon-13/carbon-12 mass balance
    Segalstad (1992) 5.4

    Unfortunately for you, the AGW idea requires a lifetime of 100+ years. Evidence has falsified the idea.

    >> You did not answer or understand the isotope evidence.

    Yes, I did. You are claiming a conclusion that is not backed up by measurements. Segalstad explains: “CO2 from hydrocarbon combustion and from biospheric materials have delta-13-C values near -26 permil. “Natural” CO2 has delta-13-C values of -7 permil in equilibrium with CO2 dissolved in the hydrosphere and in marine calcium carbonate. Mixing these two atmospheric CO2 components: IPCC’s 21% CO2 from fossil fuel burning + 79% “natural” CO2 should give a delta-13-C of the present atmospheric CO2 of approximately -11 permil, calculated by isotopic mass balance (Segalstad, 1992; 1996).

    This atmospheric CO2 delta-13-C mixing value of -11 permil to be expected from IPCC’s model is not found in actual measurements. Keeling et al. (1989) reported a measured atmospheric delta-13-C value of -7.489 permil in December 1978, decreasing to -7.807 permil in December 1988 (the significance of all their digits not justified). These values are close to the value of the natural atmospheric CO2 reservoir, far from the delta-13-C value of -11 permil expected from the IPCC model.

    From the measured delta-13-C values in atmospheric CO2 we can by isotopic mass balance also calculate that the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 in the atmosphere is equal to or less than 4%, supporting the carbon-14 “Suess Effect” evidence. Hence the IPCC model is neither supported by radioactive nor stable carbon isotope evidence (Segalstad, 1992; 1993; 1996).”

    >> You conflated modern CO2 measuring capabilities with older ones known to be in error.

    I referenced direct C02 measurements from that time, performed by scientists using a standardized method, published in scientific papers. Neither the IPCC, nor you, can give us any scientific reason why these measurements are not valid.

    Instead, you give us a bad C02 proxy for 1940. Ice Cores are very inaccurate. There are significant problems associated with testing trace quantities of atmospheric gases. One is the adsorption and desorption of gases on sample system surfaces. The second is Knudsen diffusion. The effect of this would be that the gas analyses would show reduced variation over time. The evidence of this inaccuracy can be seen by looking at Leaf stomata indices (SI), a good proxy for C02 concentrations. SI shows much higher C02 levels AND more variation. This conforms with current C02 measurement variability. More specifically, the vostok study has been exposed as a scientific fraud. They cherry picked and massaged data to come up with their reconstruction.

    Nearly all the C02 measurements (90,000 data points) were obtained in rural areas without large industrial contamination. The measurements had a systematic error ranging from 1% to 3%. The Pettenkofer method was developed from eleven principal measuring techniques (including gravimetric, titrimetric, volumetric and manometric). The IPCC has ignored these chemical methods despite being the standard in analytical chemistry for 100 years, rejecting the data as faulty and inaccurate, but providing no scientific support for that view. The Pettenkofer process was used universally as a standard and was accurate enough to develop all the modern knowledge of medicine, biology and physiology (photosynthesis, respiration end energy metabolism).

    Based on these measurements, we know that the C02 level was 420 in 1940, contrary to AGW propoganda.

    >> You claimed that all carbon from FF went into the atmosphere, then was pushed in to the ocean and biosphere very quickly only to be replaced with some unknown natural CO2 source.

    Huh? There is a natural carbon cycle that maintains the atmospheric C02 levels. C02 in the atmosphere is analogous to water flowing in a river.

    >> In short, you didn’t do very well at all.

    In short, back at ya.

  374. Sam Urbinto
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 11:38 AM | Permalink

    As I’ve said, there are an infinite number of shifting data points on “the temperature of the ocean”: Meaning, for those of you not paying attention, there isn’t one. So all we can do is sample and model. The satties measure Sea Surface Temperature. Period. All we can talk about is the surface.

    And even still, the surface isn’t warming anyway, according to the SSTs. As I went into more detail in #320, I plotted the ERSSTs as absolutes for the temp average of all 2×2 grids for 152 years. The mean was +18.32 C for either 1854-2006 or 1961-1990. There was a 0 trend for the min, +.16 for the mean and +.32 for the max.

    Here’s the mean for start and end over either base period:

    1834: +.06
    2006: +.22

    I attribute any rise to changing from ships/bouys to satties and/or margin of error.

    So I’m done discussing this! There’s nothing to discuss. The science is settled! :)

  375. Dave Dardinger
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 12:15 PM | Permalink

    re: #367

    Refining of metals from ore would presumably put O2 into the atmosphere. Unless the O2 is consumed by some other reaction in the refining process that I’m not aware of.

    Hate to be snarky, but apparently there’s lots you’re not aware of. Iron is refined by using coke (i.e. carbon) to pull the oxygen from the ore out producing CO2 and metal. The same is true for most other metals. In a few cases, chiefly aluminum, the metal is produced electrolytically, though even then carbon electrodes are used which produce CO2 and only the energy in excess of what carbon can provide comes from the electric current. And even then the electricity could come from carbon burning power plants. Though in the past a lot of aluminum plants were located near hydroelectric power plants which wouldn’t use coal or oil.

  376. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 12:35 PM | Permalink

    >> the temperature of the ocean”: Meaning, for those of you not paying attention, there isn’t one

    Sam, you are absolutely correct. This kind of oversimplification is at the heart of AGW.

  377. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 12:39 PM | Permalink

    >> Gunnar I meant that measuring a change of 20ppm in CO2 is relatively easy instrumentally.

    Ok, I understand.

    >> For what it’s worth I trust the Mauna Loa measurements.

    They have to “adjust” the figures for the active volcanoe right next to them. They only take measurements when the wind is blowing from the sea (which implicitly indicates the source of C02. The weather is another explanation for the seasonal variation. There have been reports of only reporting the data that fits. Clearly, the creators of that program were AGWers, and everyone working there has a job that depends on the correct conclusion. That said, I still believe that C02 levels are probably increasing. My hypothesis: Sun warms oceans, Oceans outgas C02.

    >> They are matched by measurements at Scripps, Southern California; Cape Grim, Tasmania and Alaska all showing rises in CO2 concentration.

    But contradicted by the 2005 Luxembourg study, which found (contrary to Mauna Loa) that C02 goes up in the summer, not down. What’s more, they saw no upward trend over the 3 year period, contrary to Mauna Loa.

    >> Is it the annual change?

    Yes, our calculation agreed.

    >> Now I’m not saying anything about AGW.

    That seems reasonable, since it seems only to indicate that man is burning hydrocarbons, which is not in dispute.

    >> oceans take out CO2 as dissolved inorganic carbon but has relatively little effect on oxygen levels.

    Henry’s law applies to Oxygen as well, so it’s the same.

    >> I was using the combined oxygen and carbon cycles to illustrate why I’m presently convinced by the hypothesis that burning fossil fuels is a major contributor to the present perturbation of the atmospheric CO2 levels.

    This is where I’m losing you. This does not change the fact that there are huge natural processes going on, and that the AGW premise that all is in balance, but for man, is completely false. It’s more of a religious statement, and completely indefensible. The calculation that I did was static, assuming no reaction from the biosphere. How long have you been measuring Oxygen? You are probably seeing a localized effect. Measuring the global O level is extremely complicated, maybe unknowable. And if we do calculations for C02 similar to what we did for Oxygen:

    Number of Litre of CO2 in atmosphere is: 5.5 x 10^16mole x 22.4L/mole = 1.23 x 10^18 L
    CO2 produced is: 9.395 x 10^11L of gasoline/y x 1164.8 L of CO2/L of gasoline = 1.1 x 10^15 L of CO2/y
    The Carbon Dioxide content of the atmosphere would annually change by 0.000027%

    So, in a static analysis and pretending Henry’s law doesn’t exist, raising the level by 30% should have taken 372 years!

    Yet, the AGWers claim that it happened in only some 60 years. Clearly, this MIMO system is not easy to measure and there are other forces at work here. And Henry’s law does exist. Everytime we open up a soda pop, we should say: Henry’s law does exist, AGW is impossible.

    >> I.e., an error of only 0.5 ppm on the O2 content drastically changes any correlation with CO2 content, which has its own measurement problems.

    Exactly. This is the kind of measurement that would change if you breathed on it.

  378. Boris
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 2:17 PM | Permalink

    Clearly, the creators of that program were AGWers and everyone working there has a job that depends on the correct conclusion

    Way to bash the intergrity of scientists you don’t even know–going back 30 years even.

    But contradicted by the 2005 Luxembourg study

    Have you ever thought that something might be wrong with this study? It’s contradicted by every other study of CO2 in the atmosphere out there. Aren’t they measuring CO2 in the middle of industrial Europe? Don’t you think that’s a bad idea?

  379. Dave B
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 2:29 PM | Permalink

    yes, luxembourg, the industrial powerhouse of europe…

  380. Gunnar
    Posted Aug 2, 2007 at 2:45 PM | Permalink

    >> Way to bash the intergrity of scientists you don’t even know’€”going back 30 years even

    After the work by M&M with the Mann hockey stick, no scientist or group of scientists should expect respect, if they do not publish their raw data.

    Looking at the large range of values found in the luxembourg study, the comment by Bacastow that the Mauna Loa measurements were “edited” seem quite plausible. Pales & Keeling said that large portions of the raw data were rejected, leaving just a small fraction to be subjected to averaging techniques. This shouldn’t be a surprise, since the Scripps program to monitor CO2 in the atmosphere was conceived and initiated by Dr. Roger Revelle (Revelle evasion factor). Pales & Keeting say “Revelle foresaw the geochemical implications of the rise in atmospheric CO2 resulting from fossil fuel combustion, and he sought means to ensure that this ‘large scale geophysical experiment‘ .. was documented”. Pales & Keeting continue “he inspired us to keep in sight the objectives which he had originally persuaded us to accept.”

    Does this sound like true, unbiased research? All they were doing was measuring C02. Why would they need inspiration to keep the objectives in sight? What were the objectives? Why the need for persuasion? What’s so hard about measuring C02, and reporting all the data.

    >> Have you ever thought that something might be wrong with this study?

    They reported their raw data. Operating a FIR instrument is simple, so there is nothing to go wrong.

    >> It’s contradicted by every other study of CO2 in the atmosphere out there.

    But they don’t publish their raw data. Besides, we’re talking about a very small number of testing sites.

    >> Aren’t they measuring CO2 in the middle of industrial Europe? Don’t you think that’s a bad idea?

    You see, you say this because of your AGW premise that man is the main source of C02. In reality, man’s C02 output is dwarfed by natural causes. For example, the ocean, volcanoes, etc. Now, they are measuring C02 in the middle of the ocean, on top of one volcanoe, right next to an active volcanoe, only when the wind blows in from the sea. That IS A BAD IDEA. When the wind blows from the land, the readings go way down. In the luxembourg study, they reported that there was no C02 dome over cities.

    This discussion exposes the fatal flaw in the whole AGW idea: We cannot determine the global C02 level by measuring it one place. What would you think if we measured the temperature in only one place, and said that was the global average?

  381. Posted Apr 4, 2009 at 9:36 PM | Permalink

    This layman has been trying to understand the useful material provided by Mr. Biggs. Let’s see if I have it anywhere near correct. Four independent but lightly coupled periodic systems find themselves from time to time in phase, with the result that the coupling is substantially increased. This then causes phase shift in one or more of these systems so that they are no longer in synchronicity.

    Do the authors propose a physical mechanism for this phenomenon? Seems to me that all the physics analogues (electronics, mechanical resonance, …) that I am aware of have exactly the opposite effect when coupling is increased–the tendency is to lock in the synchronicity. Or perhaps I don’t understand how they are using this word.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 2,878 other followers

%d bloggers like this: