it out before but I didnt gronk it until I went back to the source documents.

My hope was to create a simple model for folks, where one subtracts out the Solar component

and the Volcanic forcing from the anomaly record. That should leave you with C02+ other.

The solar focing by RC accounts and by the data I can lay my hands on is mouse nuts!

]]>My conclusions: 1) there are significant negative feedbacks 2) the 11 year solar cycle, and the variations in that cycle explain all the temp variation that we see. No mystery. No room for AGW.

]]>Um, I don’t think the Wikipedia simplified description of the greenhouse effect (which is later augmented with a more correct description) is the model used in the GCMs.

The greenhouse effect is not about heat storage.

Have you had a chance to look at radiosonde data for moist vs dry locations? What’s the temperature like a few hundred feet from the surface?

]]>I was not able to correct for autocorrelation in the GISTEMP trend this weekend. I haven’t had any luck finding what’s required for the correction. Maybe one of the statistics experts will step and help determine if the GISTEMP trend is significant. Anyone?

=====

#1039 steven mosher:

The GISTEMP trend from start of 1998 to November of 2007 is 0.19C/decade with sd=0.09 (before correcting for auto-correlation). That agrees pretty well with your value of 0.22C change in temp.

You can’t pick a single year and compare its anomaly to the predicted anomaly. The standard deviation for yearly data is ~0.1C. The sd for the difference between 1998 and 2006 is therefore ~0.2C. You’re saying the difference should be 0.22C, but the error bars are +/-0.4C.

=====

#1060 Sam Urbinto:

This is really quite simple. Theres been warming and cooling since 1998. But its not warmer now than it was then. So no overall warming. No net warming. Is this difficult to understand?

There is a large yearly variation in temperature and 1998 was an extremely hot year. Is that difficult to understand? If you’re going to draw a line between single years, your error bars have to around +/-0.4C (see comments above to steven mosher). You need to use a trend line to get any real idea about temperature trends.

[Begin sarcasm]

If the game is cherry-picking, I choose January 2000 vs January 2007. The difference is +0.96C. Or all of 2000 vs all of 2007. The difference is +0.33C. It’s clear that the warming has accelerated since 1998.

[End sarcasm]

When you cherry-pick end-points you can reach any conclusion you want. If you add the error bars, the conclusions are all meaningless. That’s why real science is done with trends, not differences.

=====

#1071 Sam Urbinto:

If something changed in 1998, then the trend before 1998 should be different than the trend after 1998. Since the satellite lower-troposphere temperatures were the basis for the “no net warming” claim, let’s look at those:

I fit two linear trends to each data set. The first is pre-1998 (to June 1997) and the second is post-1998 (from July 1999). The trends are:

Before 1998 (to June 1997):

UAH5.2: 0.03C/decade

RSS3.0: 0.10C/decade

Average: 0.07C/decade

After 1998 (from July 1999):

UAH5.2: 0.29C/decade

RSS3.0: 0.17C/decade

Average: 0.23C/decade (+0.16C/decade compared to pre-1998)

So, excluding the anomolously warm 1998, the trend is actually increasing. Even with the satellite data.

I know what you’re going to say. 1999 was a cold year so it’s invalid to start a trend in 1999. That’s probably fair. But then you have to admit that starting a trend in 1998 is also invalid.

For completeness, if I extend the trendlines to include 1998 (breakpoint in June/July 1998) I get the following trends:

Before 1998 (to June 1998):

UAH5.2: 0.09C/decade

RSS3.0: 0.16C/decade

Average: 0.13C/decade

After 1998 (from July 1998):

UAH5.2: 0.20C/decade

RSS3.0: 0.09C/decade

Average: 0.15C/decade (+0.02C/decade compared to pre-1998)

So, even including 1998 the trend is increasing (although the increase is almost certainly not statistically signficant).

]]>Indeed, the simplest formula to know how much energy any substance can store.

Indeed. And guess what? Our atmosphere can store just enough heat to make it about as hot tomorrow as today. You don’t need to consider radiation at all.

]]>The reason this warms the surface is most easily understood by starting with a simplified model of a purely radiative greenhouse effect that

ignores energy transfer in the atmosphere by convection(sensible heat transport) and by the evaporation and condensation of water vapor (latent heat transport).

And I ask, again, how we have a “radiative-convective” model that ignores convection?

No wonder the models are not correctly predicting mid or upper tropospheric temperatures.

]]>Gunnar,

Thats correct. Physics of Wilson shows the formula also:

deltaT = q/m (Cp), clearing q we have:

**q = deltaT (m) (Cp).**

Hmm. Exactly. The heat storage equation.

]]>