The blogosphere is buzzing with talk of global non-warming or even global cooling.
First, another sceptic for Marc Morano’s list:
Atmospheric Scientist Dr. Art Douglas recently retired Chair of the Atmospheric Sciences Department Creighton University in Omaha Nebraska:
Ice pack belies global warming
Excerpt: Whatever the weather, Douglas said, it’s not being caused by global warming. If anything, the climate may be starting into a cooling period. Many were greatly alarmed at melting sea ice near the North Pole with about one-third of the normal ice pack melted by 2007. But Douglas said between November 2007 and January 2008 the entire Arctic Ocean froze over, with the ice pack forming farther south than normal. Ice is forming in places in Korea and Alaska where it normally doesn’t, and Siberia’s January snow cover was extensive. “We’ve really never seen anything like this for many, many years,” he said. And the impact has been enormous, with China importing coal “because of a super-cold winter.” The amount of sea ice is the largest ever seen in the Southern Hemisphere, and it has even snowed in Buenos Aires, Douglas said. “Within four or five months, it appears that a warming trend can go very rapidly in the other direction.” Douglas said the climate can quickly correct itself, restoring lower average temperatures in as little as two years. He said he doubts global warming. He said if greenhouse gases were responsible for global warming, both the Arctic and Antarctic would be experiencing warming, but they aren’t. Douglas said he believes the weather patterns the world is now experiencing are regional phenomena and not a global pattern. He also noted that the warmest year on record was 1998, but questioned why, if we’re in a warming trend, it hasn’t gotten any warmer than it was that year. Douglas said warming trends put more moisture in the atmosphere, resulting in more snow, which leads to cooling.
Lubos Motl’s The Reference Frame:
GISS: January 2008 was the coldest month since May 1995
Recently we noticed that according to the satellite data, January 2008 was the coldest month since 2000.
However, NASA’s GISS led by James Hansen offers us a more impressive figure extracted from the weather stations (land) and sea surface temperatures (ocean) – a methodology that normally leads to the fastest warming trend. According to the global temperature anomaly in January 2008 was 0.12 °C, the coldest reading since May 1995 when it was 0.08 °C: Hansen’s team hasn’t seen a cooler month for more than 150 months, not even during the 1995-1996, 1998-2000, 2000-2001 La Ninas. Also, January 2008, the globally coldest January since 1989, was exactly 0.75 °C cooler than January 2007.
If we were fans of the alarm and extrapolated the latter trend, we would deal with 75 °C of global cooling per century. That could indeed be a catastrophe. 😉 If we extrapolated the 0.28 °C month-on-month cooling since December, the cooling would remove 336 °C per century, dropping below 0 Kelvins before 2100. 🙂 Entertainingly enough, January 2008 was also 0.27 °C (anomaly-wise) colder than June 1988 when Hansen gave his infamous testimony before the U.S. Congress, predicting a dangerous warming in the following 20 years.
No, I am not comparing apples and oranges here. January 2008 was also 0.39 °C colder than January 1988. Incidentally, NCDC shows January 2008 as the global lands’ coldest January since January 1982.
La Nina (now referred to as a “strong one”) might be insufficient to explain the recent cool weather. An unusually quiet beginning of the solar cycle 24 might be another culprit. I won’t really endorse the predictions of a new ice age but I find it obvious that the solar activity matters; see also sunspots and climate.
Joseph D’Aleo (a big shot meteorologist) argues that the temperature is strongly correlated with the ENSO index (El Nino vs La Nina) but it lags by 2 months or so. With this assumption, we should expect the global cooling to continue in the following months. Also, he argues that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) that switched to the cold phase during this winter (the Great Pacific Climate Shift II?) shouldn’t be included separately: its effect is to increase the proportion of El Ninos (warm PDO phase) or La Ninas (cool PDO phase).
Anthony Watts of Watts Up With That?:
GISS Land-Ocean Index dives in Jan08, exceeding drops for UAH and RSS satellite data
Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) Land-Ocean Global temperature index data was released yesterday for the month of January, 2008. Like we’ve reported before for other datasets, including the RSS and UAH satellite temperature anomalies, GISS also had a sharp drop in January.
The GISS ΔT was -.75°C, which is larger than the satellite data from UAH ∆T of -.588°C and the RSS RSS ∆T of -.629°C
The ΔT of -.75°C from January 2007 to January 2008 appears to be the largest single year to year January drop for the entire GISS data set.
This is yet one more indication of the intensity of planet-wide cooler temperatures seen in January 2008, particularly in the Northern Hemisphere, which has seen record amounts of snow coverage extent as well as new record low surface temperatures in many places.
A note from blog contributor Arnost:
I’m not really sure that the strengthening of the La Nina is totally responsible for the January drop in temperatures. If you look at the latest NCDC global temp anomaly (+0.18C) and then at the component land and sea temps, it is the land temperatures that have plummeted – by something like 0.8C with the sea surface temps remaining more or less the same:
NCDC Global Combined
2007 11 0.4484
2007 12 0.3975
2008 1 0.1793
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land_and_ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
NCDC Global Land in deg C
2007 11 0.9856
2007 12 0.8042
2008 1 -0.0129
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.land.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
NCDC Global Ocean
2007 11 0.2536
2007 12 0.2498
2008 1 0.2481
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/anomalies/monthly.ocean.90S.90N.df_1901-2000mean.dat
This suggests that the sea surface temps are not the driver.
It also must be remembered that the Nina did not really kick in until mid 2007, and typically there’s up to a 6 month lag between ENSO and global temps. So its effects are only beginning to be felt now. Further, the Nina is at the moment only a borderline moderate/strong event – it does not make the top 7 over the last 60 years (check out Klaus Wolter’s MEI page http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/klaus.wolter/MEI/ ). So the current drop in temperatures up to now have likely been caused by another factor. And only the December and January drops may be considered as significantly Nina influenced.
To be fair, I would point out that the GISS January land temp has not decreased as much as the NCDC number (down by 0.3C). GISS does not break-up the land and sea temperatures (as far as I know) so their numbers are: GISS Land + Sea in January +0.18C (down from 0.40C) GISS Land in January +0.31C (down from 0.60C).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
It will be interesting to see the HadCRU temps when they come out to see their split. It will also be interesting to see if NCDC corrects what probably is an error.
Jennifer Marohasy BSc PhD is a critical thinker with expertise in the scientific method.
Blog’s not getting any better – what a wishy washy post,
(1) “He said if greenhouse gases were responsible for global warming, both the Arctic and Antarctic would be experiencing warming, but they aren’t” – SAYS WHO? Probably why he’s on Morano’s list.
(2) “If we were fans of the alarm and extrapolated the latter trend, we would deal with 75 °C of global cooling per century. That could indeed be a catastrophe. 😉 If we extrapolated the 0.28 °C month-on-month cooling since December, the cooling would remove 336 °C per century, dropping below 0 Kelvins before 2100”
Yea well you wouldn’t so just some inflationary filler (and despite the smiley).
(3) Joseph D’Aleo beloved Grande Pacific Shift analysis got heavily nuked at http://tamino.wordpress.com/2008/02/03/exclamation
I was shocked.
(4) La Nina not significant or powerful – says who? So we’re now doing the old add up cold and hot are we? Jeez Arnost. Seen an anomaly map lately – you know where they are.
Post after post for a few years by denialists that you can’t trust the temperature record but now it’s suddenly OK?? No hypocrisy there. Has McIntyre held your hands and said it’s OK to use these data ? Has he personally checked the satellite record yet? Trust noone.
So suddenly cherry picking is in season. So everyone is prepared to say “that’s that, all decided – right now?”. Nobody thinks it might be a bit soon?
Blogosphere also gets excited about aliens and seeing Elvis too.
Anyway it’s obvious that the explanation for all this is the current orbital position of Jupiter.
Paul: Re this spreadsheet
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
What does that solid bunch of negative figures up front give us today?
Am I missing something here?
Douglas is correct – there is a big difference between Arctic and Antarctic ‘warming.’
Lubos was having a laugh with the 100-year extrapolation, but you knew that.
Nah – it’s fun to play the alarmist temperature game in reverse!
I saw Elvis on Saturday night – I’ll be seeing him again in a couple of weeks – still sounds good at 72.
Gavin – you could ask Jimbo, but he’s gagged!
And wouldn’t you know it RC has a new post – on – wait for it – Antarctica.
Sigh.
‘Antarctica is Cold? Yeah, We Knew That’
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=529
Jimbo gagged, really?
Paul: I’m very worried about Arnost being drowned in raw GISS data. A proper assessment starts here
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/
In any chaotic event, a system for measurement and analysis is required.
http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1987/Hansen_Lebedeff.html
Modifications see
data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/sources/gistemp.html
Stitching records together is an art form and so is the integration of various disciplines dealing with the vast array of climate drivers and feedbacks. This complex event called climate change requires perhaps a complex visual model and certainly a flexible imaginative approach.
We can understand chaotic conditions. We do control furnaces but still struggle with bushfires. Tapping the radio spectrum with a metal rod and looking for signals in the background noise is a one example of our engineering. Traffic control is another however idealist pursuit of perfection with any of these systems is likely to end in disappointment.
Luke you are right that it is cherry picking to look at Jan figures and also right to suggest that its unfair to question the data when it suits but then use the same data to support what does suit.
That said, don’t you think that there seems to be an increasing case to suggest that being sceptical of RUNAWAY AGW is reasonable?
Paul – So now we are going month by month? Is every cold month going to be trumpeted loud and strong by you people as the end of global warming?
The trends are long and 5 years is a short time let alone a cold month in a year where the temperature may dip as it has done before and will do again. The long term trend, that you prefer to ignore, is for rising average global temperatures with dips and peaks as you would expect.
You would not see a reversal of the long term trends for 10 years or more so this talk of cold months is ridiculous however I am sure that it will deceive the ignorant and the self seeking. As this seems to be the sole purpose of posts such as this one then you are achieving your objective.
And we must be overdue for another Pinatubo scale eruption that will punch another -0.75C off the global mean and take us all back to zero change since 1915. Bring it on Huey.
Paul I would suggest you look at the sea-ice extent more closely, as the Arctic hasn’t re-froze “with the ice pack forming farther south than normal.” Check at the cryosphere website and compare this year with any year from the 80’s. This year is still below ‘normal’ for the Arctic. The reason the re-freezing seemed so substantial is that is was coming from such a huge loss. Also note the lack of ice north of Norway. There’s a big hole there.
You will also note on that cryosphere site, that Antarctic is about ‘normal’ for this time of year.
I have an idea. Why not leave out the data and run a political line. The poor use of data on this site is very transparent and your argument would be stronger without it.
Arnost: The SOI switched from negative to positive (warm to cool) in June according to this graphic: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/current/soi2.shtml There’s more than enough time for the equatorial Pacific to help drive global temperatures lower, especially land air temperature.
Want pictures? Here’s the CRU gridded global temperature anomaly graphics (equidistant Mercator and polar projections) for January 2007. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2007/1.gif The 06-07 El Nino is still there and high latitude temperature anomalies over Europe and Asia and western North America are 2 degrees C above normal. Here’s May 2007. http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2007/4.gif The La Nina is just starting to form and temperatures are dropping around the globe. Most of the high latitude cooling is seasonal, but then there’s December 2007: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/tgrid/2007/12.gif The majority of the northern hot spots are gone and the Pacific basin and parts of the Atlantic have cooled.
Now go back and pull up the January (El Nino) and December (La Nina) graphs in sequence and cycle back and forth between them. We can’t blame seasons for that change in temperature anomaly, and if you bother to go back and do it for each El Nino and La Nina year you’ll see the pattern in the regional heating and cooling and possibly the long-term effects of the greater number and magnitude of El Ninos since the mid-seventies. They make a great slide show.
I’d love to make a movie of those CRU monthly projections from 1960 to present and have four graphs with flags proceeding alongside them: Northern Hemisphere Temperature Anomaly (since it has the greatest variance), the AMO (because it affects North American and European temps), ENSO (due to the global and regional impacts), and solar (though I doubt you could pick up any changes in solar). Maybe AO, too, to see what its impact is on the Arctic. The polar projections are great because they bring the high latitudes back to scale. GISS used to have an mpeg of global temperature anomalies since the 1886, but it was a continuous stream that you had to pause repeatedly to be able to grasp anything, and of course with the Mercator map, the magnitude of the high latitude warming is blown out of proportion.
Luke! I’m really tired of your continuously negative posts. Why don’t you give it a rest? You contribute absolutely nothing here, so why bother? You surely can’t believe all the nonsense you spout, so I must assume you are employed by one of the rich environmental(?) organizations to scan the web for new posts and then try to shoot them down. I have noticed the same situation at other blogs, as well, where the first response is always by a reality denier. You, sir, are one of the more repugnant!
Cheers…..theoldhogger
Toby – “runaway” AGW has not been a prediction.
Well hogsbreath – gee I really care what you think – Not ! – you’ve actually got a hyde to make your comments – I have made specific comments. I’ve never heard anything from you except whinging and sooking.
I can see you’re a sucker for the distilled essence of bulldust here, so sit back and enjoy it. Aren’t differences in opinion so annoying.
Cheers Luke.
I must say, I find this conjecture about weather rather interesting. Here in Melbourne, February has, so far, been underwhelming.
Been scorching all Summer here in Perth. Wouldn’t be surprised if it isn’t the hottest on record. Not that that means anything, other than it’s effing HOT!
Mr T ‘Been scorching all Summer here in Perth’ – get used to it, lie, back think of turning up the aircon. For Australia, 16 of last 18 years were warmer than the now historic and superceded average ( B of Met). Now if you were a punter? My garden has not seen a frost in twenty years. Meanwhile in most parts of eastern Australia we are enjoying the mild and wet summers even late La Ninas bring. Long may she reign.
Bazza, I’ve been thinking of moving to New Zealand! The heat’s too much for me here now. It certainly seems hotter than what I remember in my childhood, especially at night.
Well La Nina is good for cooling and rain, but if it persisted I think you want it to end!
“I’ve been thinking of moving to New Zealand”
Hey there isn’t many blue patches left on average!
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
“The year 2007 tied for second warmest in the period of instrumental data, behind the record warmth of 2005, in the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) analysis. 2007 tied 1998, which had leapt a remarkable 0.2°C above the prior record with the help of the “El Niño of the century”. The unusual warmth in 2007 is noteworthy because it occurs at a time when solar irradiance is at a minimum and the equatorial Pacific Ocean is in the cool phase of its natural El Niño-La Niña cycle”
We can’t help all the facts can we?
Luke…wow, a play on words with my name! I’ve never experienced that before! This is unprecedented! Wait a minute……..?
Cheers…theoldhogger
Gavin, don’t ruin my dream!!! I imagine it’s still cooler in NZ than Perth…
Mr T, watch out in NZ, it is full of denialists ( on rugby) and others who cant see the trends for the trees. If you had been favourite for the last four Rugby World Cups and lost the lot, how are you going to feel.? It is like waiting for the cooling to kick in.
Whoops, 5 RWC.
Over at Climate Audit, Steve McIntyre has been busy plotting the surface weather stations Hansen has used in calculating the global temperature record since 1885.
The statistical analysis is a bit beyond me, but what is startling is the grossly unrepresentative global coverage.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2711#more-2711
Apparently, there has been a lot of dodgy ‘estimation’ (guesswork?) involved.
Gosh….d’yuh think some of these ‘scientists’ have ulterior motives? Golly, y’think?
Oops (ref. my previous post), the splendid work was done by by John Goetz.
Wm. L. Hyde, why say ‘scientists’? I think there is no doubt they actually are scientists.
Be interested to see what you think their ulterior motives are.
Have you considered writing any papers to refute their work? That’s how science normally works.
chrisgo – “The statistical analysis is a bit beyond me, but what is startling is the grossly unrepresentative global coverage.”
No really??? You must have missed the other blog post where Mr McIntyre, so incensed by this, will now be leading a program to mobilise money and volunteers all over the world to address the problem.
No wait I just slipped into a parallel universe there where McIntyre was a real scientist.
It is not the size of yoy drop in temperature which is interesting [horrifying] [ Currently 1.2 degrees F at 1km] but the rate the figure has been increasing.
IF there is a real connection between sunspot length and temperature, the current extreme quietness of the sun and the reluctance of Cycle 23 to give way to cycle 24 provide good theoretical reasons to think that the above drop in temperature is only the start of something bad.
WCR has plotted the RSS/UAH lower atmosphere global average temps from Jan 2001 to Jan 2008:
http://www.worldclimatereport.com/index.php/2008/02/07/more-satellite-musings/#more-306
There’s no overall temperature change for the period, and the rate of change seems to be slowing. It’ll be interesting to see what happens in future months/years.
Ender, McIntyre is a ‘real’ scientist. Why else would he receive an invitation to speak to and with JEG’s students at Georgia Tech? etc. Your slanders are rather petty.
Scientists may disagree without having to question each others credentials as scientists. This immaturity from both sides is really tiresome.
Ender: CA has achieved one thing IMO and that was in highlighting the difficulties of measuring and modeling climate change. However without those old instruments and records we would still be guessing. On the other hand RC has enlightened those who want to learn the basics of climate science and beyond.
Heaven forbid they ever get together. Atmospheric physics in particular will never be the same for us pure bloggers.
Wm. L. Hyde and his out of the blue suggestion scientists have ulterior motives has yet to respond with a little evidence. Scientists, unlike contributors to sites like these where there are no barriers to entry, have disciplines they sink or swim in on evidence based performance, and doubly they are disciplined by peer review. They get funding from sources who live by the same rules, and can spot ulterior motives fairly quickly, or at least the second time around. Put up or shut up. It is a tough dog eat dog world. So Wm. give us a little evidence for your ulterior motives or stay slinked off.
proteus – “Ender, McIntyre is a ‘real’ scientist”
Yes you are probably right however is he going to fix the climate recording stations as that would be a worthy objective for a real scientist. Only when he is done whinging about it of course.
“Scientists may disagree without having to question each others credentials as scientists”
Again you are probably right however the usual way to criticise another scientist’s work is to produce better work of your own and be able to publish it with the work of your peers. This he has failed to do which makes him suspect amongst other scientists that have paid their dues.
You remember that study of the Atlantic ocean currents? The one where they set bouys that measured the amount of water flow in order to determine if the ocean conveyor was shutting down.
They named that experiment Rapid Climate Change. http://www.soc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/rapid.php
Ender likes to trot out the “less then thirty years is just weather and not a climate trend” dogma.
A cursory look at the RAPID page reveals that AGW believers and advocates hold no such restrictions for their own pet projects, theories, and observations.
Better people then you assert that climate can change rapidly, so Ender, put a sock in it. OR Better yet, avail yourself of the feedback link on the RAPID CLIMATE CHANGE website and correct those people.
Those scientists seem magnitudes more confused about the difference between weather and climate then anybody on this site.
Well, morning coffee and I’m surfing some websites. Sorry I didn’t answer before. You see, I have a life, I wasn’t slinking off. Aside from the fact that you all know very well what I’m talking about, I have no intention of writing a paper to refute anything. There has been a veritable flood of peer-reviewed papers released recently. Do your own investigations, I’m not your mommy! Besides, these ‘scientists’ work refutes itself. Perhaps you mouthpieces should spend more time learning and less time expounding. You want evidence? The world is full of it. Find it! Study it! Read! Learn! Ignorance is NOT bliss. Well, got to go! Busy, busy!
Cheers…..theoldhogger
chrisgo – “The statistical analysis is a bit beyond me, but what is startling is the grossly unrepresentative global coverage.”
No really??? You must have missed the other blog post where Mr McIntyre, so incensed by this, will now be leading a program to mobilise money and volunteers all over the world to address the problem. No wait I just slipped into a parallel universe there where McIntyre was a real scientist. (Ender at February 13, 2008 07:15 PM )
Luke has been complaining about the quality of comments on this blog and it’s good to at last see the standards lifted (see also Feb 13, 10:23 AM, 10:33 AM, 10:38 AM, 12:28 PM & 09:47 PM ).
Ender, I appreciate your droll comments, even if less perspicacious readers think they are vacuous or just plain stupid.
Now if you can find the time in your busy schedule of lectures and research work (not to mention your hectic blogging commitments), perhaps you can explain Steve McIntyre’s methodology here:
“A principal advantage of this method is that it uses the full period of common record in calculating the bias \delta T between the two stations. Determination of \delta T is the essence of the problem of estimating the area-average temperature change from data at local stations. A second advantage of this method is that it allows the information from all nearby stations to be used provided only that each station have a period of record in common with another of the stations. An alternative method commonly used to combine station records is to define \delta T by specifying the mean temperature of each station as zero for a specific period which had a large number of stations, for example, 1950-1980; this alternative method compares unfavorably to ours with regard to both making use of the maximum number of stations and defining the bias \delta T between stations as accurately as possible”.
Over to you ‘Brains’:
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/410KJY05TJL._AA280_.jpg
James Mayeau – “Ender likes to trot out the “less then thirty years is just weather and not a climate trend” dogma.
A cursory look at the RAPID page reveals that AGW believers and advocates hold no such restrictions for their own pet projects, theories, and observations.”
So James, out comes the straw man. What has rapid climate change got to do with examining trends? Rapid climate change is an extreme event that may or may not occur if we (or something else) pumps the atmosphere/ocean with enough energy to trigger such an event. It has nothing to do with examining the climate over a long period hence the straw man.
Nice try though. It really just shows in stark contrast how little you really understand.
Wm. L. Hyde,
Thanks, I’ll look for the ‘evidence’ about the all the facts that I know very well about… Because it’s obvious, right? Yes… so obvious, those facts, that we know about. Because we… found it and read it… Yes, I am now convinced.
HA ha haaaaaaaaaaaaaa
Mr Hyde, you have no idea what you’re talking about. Just some vague conspiracy theory, that you are completely unwilling to back up. It’s cowardice on your behalf. Say what you think or don’t bother writing.
Delta T rings a bell
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirac_delta_function
http://calendars.wikia.com/wiki/Delta_T
Lets avoid “probability distributions” and carry a decent thermometer every where we go while “sampling”. A flat Earther like me is normally content to just use the Horizon when seeking a “level”.
chrisgo – “Now if you can find the time in your busy schedule of lectures and research work (not to mention your hectic blogging commitments), perhaps you can explain Steve McIntyre’s methodology here:”
However I am not the one that is setting up myself as the auditor of scientist’s work. For the other text you posted please direct me to the peer reviewed paper that McIntyre has published containing it. Until then it is just a blog post.
Ender,
“However I am not the one that is setting up myself as the auditor of scientist’s work.”
but you are setting yourself up as the auditor’s auditor so how about you just answer the question.
Jan Pompe – “but you are setting yourself up as the auditor’s auditor so how about you just answer the question.”
So that would make you the auditor’s auditor’s auditor so why don’t you answer the question.
I am not auditing anything. My opinion is that McIntyre is a one trick pony that was originally found to do a hack job on a scientific study for the sole purpose of creating doubt. He now seems to have some sort of sad obsession that really Dr Phil should have a look at.
Ender, David Jones from the BoM trumpeted January as the hottest on record, and claimed it was caused by “global warming”. So come off it.
Ender,
“why don’t you answer the question.”
I’m not the one asked why are you being evasive.
“My opinion is that McIntyre is a one trick pony that was originally found to do a hack job on a scientific study for the sole purpose of creating doubt. ”
In a word then you are clueless but noisy.
Sid,
“David Jones from the BoM trumpeted January as the hottest on record”
When was the last time he stepped outside his air-conditioned office?
regularly actually Pomposity – but a gimp like you wouldn’t really know that.
anyway Siddles as usual you’re on your BoM bashing bastardry crusade.
Here’s what was said – obviously as the papers reported it but what’s the problem?
http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,23143525-5009760,00.html
http://www.smh.com.au/news/environment/into-the-fire-last-month-hottest-january-so-far/2008/01/31/1201714150490.html
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,23144117-5013605,00.html
regularly actually Pomposity
how droll?
Hey Luke, Mr. T, gavin even: you need to take a gander at all the respect you’re getting over at Blair’s
http://timblair.net/ee/index.php/weblog/comments/cold_due_to_warmth/#339699
Now that is humor, blokes.
The crock spewing from Alarmist’s mouths these days is simply unbelievable:
http://www.thestandard.com.hk/news_detail.asp?pp_cat=11&art_id=61512&sid=17581089&con_type=1
Well the public will only buy this tosh for so long, particularly those who are living through it!
Jan Pompe – “”why don’t you answer the question.””
Because I do not have to. Is the definition of a scientist someone who can write something that may mean something? Confronted with a question, if indeed that what it was, I would ask the opinion of people that are qualified.
How do you know what was posted is valid? Are you going to evade this question now?
If the evangelists of the Gore Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change (they know who they are) loiter around this site for the purpose of attracting converts, they certainly have a unique way of going about it. Otherwise, I can’t see the point.
Following Mark’s link (re HK cold snap), we find polar researcher Rebecca Lee Lok-sze commenting:
“Carbon dioxide emissions are heavy, which is changing the weather rapidly. We could see colder winters and hotter summers in the future in Hong Kong”.
Meanwhile, C.Y. Lam of the Hong Kong Observatory in the Hong Kong Meteorological Bulletin, Volume 16, Number 1/2, 2006, ‘Climate Change and Its Impacts’ writes “The number of cold day (daily minimum temperature 12 degrees or below) will decrease from 21 to an amazing 0.8, that is, less than one day per year on average”.
http://www.weather.gov.hk/publica/reprint/r616.pdf
You would think they could get their stories straight.
It’s almost as if they make it up as they go along.
They do!
Ender,
“Are you going to evade this question now?”
Shifting the burden is just a cop out. I]m not the one here criticising (or was that auditing) something I don’t understand.
Just answer the question..
“Gore Church of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Climate Change” ROTFL – what a ripper.
“(they know who they are) loiter around this site for the purpose of attracting converts” – oh no way – nobody here gets convinced into AGW – we just enjoy putting shit on your pathetic shonk science, redneck behaviour, intolerance and meanness of human spirit, and exposing you for the creeps that you are.
Now having said that – you’re not a bad bunch really and we actually (well I do) spend a fair bit more time reading up on your ideas than you might give us credit for. I check up on your silliness much more than I should.
(Even reading McLeans Great Pacific Shit papers which he has very selectively interpreted (IMO of course).)
However the distinguishing feature is that very few return the research courtesy.
If you’re serious you don’t use an unpalatable policy response (e.g. carbon tax maybe) as an excuse to shit on the science. That may be gratifying but isn’t logical.
Nothing would make me happier than if AGW was a no goer or was a benign goer. Having AGW around is very annoying – a complication we could well do without.
The other aspect that is is overlooked is that climate already wreaks its fair share of havoc as frostbitten Afghanis and Chinese have recently experienced. As those flooded out, droughted or blown away also experience.
I got into climate on the variability end with climate change only a distant rumble on the horizon. And maybe it still is. We’re still emerging from the background IMO. Which is why it’s not as obvious as one would like for science proof (or plain “wrong” you all chant).
So even understanding the causes of variation will be big help. Knowing an El Nino is coming or a hurricane is on the way gives room to plan, adapt, move, get out of the way. And you can adapt in the long or short term. Tactically, strategically or structurally.
Anyway – where was I – oh yea – ROTFL and LMAO and up yours.
P.S. Big floods again in central Queensland
http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/gallery/0,23816,5029554-17382-01,00.html
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23218016-5006786,00.html
Record or near record stuff.
It’s AGW I tell you – nah just kidding. Good La Nina though.
Chrisgo said “An alternative method commonly used to combine station records is to define \delta T by specifying the mean temperature of each station as zero for a specific period which had a large number of stations, for example, 1950-1980; this alternative method compares unfavorably to ours with regard to both making use of the maximum number of stations and defining the bias \delta T between stations as accurately as possible”
That’s the same way San Fran liberals stay in power. The city pays junkies and bums to move there, counts heads for apportionment purposes, resting in the blessed assurance that heroin addicts could care less about voting. In this way Bay Area Libs augment their political power.
They are in effect voting for two or three every time they pull the lever for a socialist.
Same reason they declare themselves sanctuary cities and let the illegals run amok.
We get a congress full of unreconstructed lefties but on the plus side, it keeps the streets clean of drug addicts and panhandlers.
I’m weeping James
“Climo-tards”, I love it. I suppose much of central asia should now be called “Brassmonkistan”.
Jan Pompe – “Just answer the question..”
There isn’t much point if you can’t tell if the answer is correct. How are you going to verify that , assuming I can answer the question, that my answer is right?
So my question needs to be answered first – how do you know what McIntyre writes is correct when it has not been checked by anyone other than the anti hockey stick crowd and his mob of sycophants?
And the best the denier pukes can come up with is “its cold today so global warming must be wrong”
Boy is that a convincing argument.
Ender,
Don’t worry about whether or not I can understand it.
“how do you know what McIntyre writes is correct when it has not been checked by anyone other than the anti hockey stick crowd and his mob of sycophants?”
Well why don’t you check it for us and explain it you have been keen to criticise it. Tell us what is wrong with it instead of resorting to ad hominem. If you don’t understand it just say so and I’ll let it go.
No, Ender, it has been cooling for quite some time now as you know perfectly well. The interesting bit about McIntyre’s latest work is that he reveals how under represented the central asian countries are in the so called Global Temperature Series.
These places have recorded temps that are 20C cooler than last year but surprise, surprise, Hansen only has a few stations to record it. Meanwhile, the list of European and Nth American stations distorted by UHI and other factors just grows and grows.
Dropping back in. I wish all the Reality Deniers on this site would stop referring to “THE SCIENCE”. If you add the word “junk” to it, you’re more correct. But really, it’s not that even, it’s “Snake-oil Salesmanship”, that’s all.
BTW, if you do go to CA, don’t expect to understand it without a lot of work. His “group of sycophants” are all scientists, and they don’t simplify everything for dummies. Good Luck, you’ll need it! Also, you should know that if you add heat to a system it doesn’t get colder. Use your common sense. And don’t tell me I don’t understand “THE SCIENCE”! (But somebody important told us that. Duh! I have some ocean front property for sale, cheap, in Nevada. Any takers?)
Cheers….theoldhogger
Willy – I didn’t know you were a good ol’ boy. BTW – I think you’ll find that CA are on your side. Just a tip in case you were a tad confused.
Luke,
I think you should make an offer on his Nevada beach front property.
A little augmentation of Ian’s last point.
Temperature plot of Lampasas Tx HCN station.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722570030&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
Same plot with Giss correction applied.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=425722570030&data_set=2&num_neighbors=1
The two plots compared with the Giss correction in red.
http://thumbsnap.com/v/t6YCrt9e.png
You see the difference?
Now how in the world did Lampasas TX temperature jump off the chart between 1999 and 2007?
James
They turned the air conditioner on?
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/lampasas_tx_ushcn.jpg
Damn Prius owners and their air conditioners.
James – don’t bother pasting links – nobody reads them. It just confuses Willy – coz he thinks he’s not a dummy. Just carry on like an opinionated boofhead – follow Pomposity’s lead.
Luke,
Have you made an offer yet on William’s Nevada beachfront property?
Jan Pompe – “Well why don’t you check it for us and explain it you have been keen to criticise it. Tell us what is wrong with it instead of resorting to ad hominem. If you don’t understand it just say so and I’ll let it go.”
Honestly I really think that you should let it go. I have no intention of checking it as the original ‘question’ was that McIntyre is a real scientist because he can understand the passage of text that Chrisgo posted. This is not the mark of a real scientist as you should well know.
McIntyre does not publish in the peer reviewed system that every other scientist that works in the climate field does.
This is a chance for McIntyre to stand up and be counted. Improving the surface temperature record with work that can be peer reviewed would be a worthy task and if successful would be an achievement that would make climate scientists perhaps accept him.
Muttering on a blog will not. It is not up to you or me to audit him – he has to earn respect by building a body of work.
The ball is in McIntyre’s court now. Either he can remain a fringe dweller of science and whinge from the sidelines or he can take an active role and produce some real work that improves the body of knowledge on the climate.
Nice place hey
http://pics.classifieds1000.com/members/Tatiana_Moody_1/Nevada/real-estate:Fantastic_Home_Waterfront_Location_in_Lake_Las_Vegas_Nevada/5240_sq_Feet_lakefront_house_360_veiws
Ender,
You might ask whether a mathematician is a scientist because that is what Steve is. What he discusses is the tools the climatologists use and how they use it. A perfectly valid and appropriate thing for him to do. I would argue it would actually be inappropriate for him to attempt to add to the body of work that is climatology he is not a climatologist.
You should also realise the vast majority of scientists in the world do not publish or research but keep exiting systems working. For example it’s a scientist but not a research scientist who will test the tissue samples in the path lab and produce the data that the pathologist will interpret for the enquiring GP who incidently is also a scientist.
Your rather restricted point of view of who or what is a scientist is arrant nonsense that non-scientists like to put about when attacking the person and not the science.
Improving the surface temperature record
Enders shooting for the stars.
Me, I’m wondering how you could make the NOAA USHNC any worse.
I suppose you could install the thermometers actually in the barbeque pit, instead of just off to the side.
Jan, a mathematician isn’t a scientist.
Sure McIntyre can question all he likes, doesn’t mean he’s correct. My understanding is that he’s approached the issue from an adversarial perspective. He has approached it as a way of ‘disproving’ the science. You can’t approach any questions of science with such subjectivity. All you’ll end up doing is seeing what you want to see and ignoring the rest, which seems to be what’s happened. E.g his obsession with UHI, it’s been demonstrated many times that the areas with the most warming have been in areas away from urbanisation. And yet he carries on with it.
Well clearly, Mr T, the presence of a black satellite dish just above the station would have quite a bit to do with the jump in recorded temperatures.
And your guff about most temp increase being recorded in non-urban stations merely highlights the fact that you do not understand the broad range of data integrity issues that are lumped under the UHI label. Changes in vegetation cover, especially the increase in tree density observed over much of North America, Australia, Africa and most of the worlds savanna woodland ecosystems has produced a significant reduction in albedo and commensurate increase in temperature. Ditto for irrigated land which has a much greater capacity to retain heat.
“BTW, if you do go to CA, don’t expect to understand it without a lot of work. His “group of sycophants” are all scientists”
All scientists? I know where to come when I need a good laugh.
Mr T,
“Sure McIntyre can question all he likes, doesn’t mean he’s correct.”
Can you show him wrong?
More particularly can you support this?
“it’s been demonstrated many times that the areas with the most warming have been in areas away from urbanisation.”
Finally How did you arrive at this “understanding”
“My understanding is that he’s approached the issue from an adversarial perspective.”
Try not to assume motivation in your answer.
” He has approached it as a way of ‘disproving’ the science.”
Uh-uh-uh! Someone said “THE SCIENCE” again!
“Uh-uh-uh! Someone said “THE SCIENCE” again!
It’s an important part of the catechism.
“Finally How did you arrive at this “understanding””
well that’s a threshold intelligence test for you.
zzzzzzzzzzzzz ….
“Finally How did you arrive at this “understanding”
I’m afraid , then, that we must assume that he guessed. Since unwarranted assumptions are so prevalent in this field, then I ‘guess’ it’s ok.
Friends on trends, global averages, missing data etc, some are wet and some are dry trust me. The reason why some here haven’t got a clue on the “science” of record reconstruction is their total lack of experience with “real” instruments.
Let’s examine some climate records from central Asia this way. Who has ever seen an antique thermometer made in say China? Google – antique, thermometer, instrument “China, Chinese” and so on till you hit one then go after standards after starting here
http://www.madeinchina.com/1681922/P5034062/Thermometer.shtml
or here
http://www.made-in-china.com/showroom/xiaotong88/product-detailNqwmnWxDbfcy/China-Galileo-Thermometer-LY-WDJ-.html
Repeat search for “Russian” made instrument precision. Let’s know the earliest dates for a decent time series to begin using standardised instruments.
Given “Quality Assurance” via MOU’s between trading nations supported by bodies such as NATA is a fairly recent thing I can say boggers on CA and similar sites are only just scratching the surface.
Yet, Gavin, Jones had the gall to claim that the USSR and Chinese data from the first half of 20th century was stable and consistent enough for him to claim that UHI was not seriously altering the past century of temp records.
Are you now changing your opinion to support those, including McIntyre, who have been saying all along that Jones was talking bunk?
Ian: I read bit on P D Jones first time tonight via google seeking clues to his system of reference ie alternative data sources to modern records.
At a glance they include his palæoclimatology studies and river flows. That’s enough to satisfy me for the min three way observation rule for evolving standards in climate science.
Piling up data from unchallenged sources was pretty common. Engineers in my day could go to a local university for techniques and sub standards on occasions but usually relied on building their own as we progressed in some technology or another. Deciding who became the policeman in each new discipline got quite interesting. Industry generally told governments what was practical across the spectrum of fresh challenges.
Jones stands up well IMO.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/people/pjones/
Gavin, Jones claimed that his selected stations from China and USSR, during two world wars and extended revolutionary turmoil, were reliable, consistent and complete. But he refused to reveal either the stations or their data to support his claims. When he eventually provided this to McIntyre it was all proven to be a complete sham.
Nice try at sidestep though.
“standards in climate science”, give us a break.
Ian,
“standards in climate science”, give us a break.”
I’m sure they’ll get there some day but they need to break their total reliance on only members within their clique, if it is to happen sooner. McIntyre’s invitation to Georgia Tech is a step in the right direction IMO.
I agree they will get there eventually, Jan, probably when the Thames has frozen over again. And they will all be rewriting their resumes to reinvent themselves as sceptics all along.
Jan, look at the diagrams on GISStemp, you can clearly see most of the heat anomaly is in the Arctic and Siberia, not in urban areas. It’s also been discussed on Real Climate.
If there was a problem with UHI, you would see heat in areas of urbanisation.
Also, the sattelite data tends to support the surface station data.
So tell me, how much do you believe UHI affects the record? can you quantify it? Or are you only interested in casting doubt?
Steve, has admitted he’s been wrong on his blog. Go and look.
It’s also pretty obvious he has approached it from an adversarial postion – that’s why he has a blog. If he was just auditing to ‘make sure’ why would he blog about it? Why would he continuously moan about data quality publicly? Why wouldn’t he actually work with them and assist them?
And this very lame claim to religion is very poor. No science can be considered religion. This is a really weak attack, you can do better. It seems people who use this “AGW is a religion” are actually more interested in a political argument. Similarly for those who argue that it is a leftist conspiracy. People seem to see AGW as an attack on ‘lifestyle’ or as a means to ‘control’. And this fear leads to irrationalism, and an inability to be objective.
Mr T,
Perhaps you should look at the “Where’s Waldo” series on climate Audit and show where the errors are.
you made some unsupported statements and return with shifting the burden of proof, complex questions and innuendo.
Sorry that doesn’t cut it.
CA on USSR Temp series.
“Jones also says that 60 station records were used to construct the gridpoint series, of which 25 stations in operation by 1901 and 32 were operating in 1987 and that there were 4 stations common to the gridpoint and rural time series. In the caption to Figure 2, he also says of the 38-site rural network that 20 were contributing in 1901; that 7 began recording after 1930 and that the number of missing values from 1930-1987 was 8% of the total. In addition to ~0.09 cooling trend in the Jones network from 1930 to 1987, he also reported (Table 1) that there was a 0.31 deg C upward trend from 1901-1987”
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1152
So,
“Figure 1. HAdCRUT3 Grid selected to approximate 22 gridpoint-grid in Jones et al Nature 1990 Figure 1a… etc
and
Over the 1901-1987 period, the estimated linear trend in the HAdCRUT3 network is 0.44 deg C (1901-1988: 0.49 deg C), as compared with a reported linear trend of 0.38. This difference between versions is much less than the 1930-1987 difference. It’s hard to figure out exactly what’s going on here, as long as Jones refuses to identify the stations or release the data. Despite the many citations, it doesn’t appear that anyone, including the IPCC, has ever tried to directly verify these results. Does this study still stand for the proposition that UHI effects have been shown to be inconsequential? Well, the Coordinating Lead Author of this AR4 chapter was, um, Phil Jones”
“The arguments from Jones, etc. are essentially statistical arguments; that’s one reason why I’d like to see the data. The amusing thing about this Russian data is that Jones’ results are not replicable using HadCRUT3 data. But hey, they’re the Team. If their results can’t be replicated, well, they’ve “moved on”
Am I amused by this all fab argument about UHI influence? No, “statistical arguments” about clouded measuring conditions never washed with me. I will write again sometime about building trust from a practical perspective.
Jan, I told you why I believed what I believe. I can do no more. I cannot ptove anything to you for two reasons.
Proof doesn’t exist in science
You wouldn’t believe what I said.
Mr T,
Blind Faith as touching as it is just doesn’t wash with me.
“Proof doesn’t exist in science”
Evidence however does exist and is absolutely required in empirical science. Your statement is just a piece of obfuscation.
Jan, you revert to the “religion” argument. It’s just lame, you could think of a better catch-cry than that surely.
It’s not obfuscation, you asked for “proof” – I can’t give you proof.
There is, however, LOTS of evidence of Global Warming, I can give you that:
Satellite temps, Arctic melt, glacial retreat, early flowering of plants, movement of species to new zones (either up in altidtude or towards polar regions), CO2 increase, O2 decrease, pH changes in the ocean, comparisons with paleoclimates.. The list goes on.
This is coupled with the physics of the Greenhouse Effect, it confirms what is expected.
To pretend that there is no evidence is a little silly.
Mt T,
“It’s not obfuscation, you asked for “proof” – I can’t give you proof.”
More precisely I asked you to show him wrong and on what evidence ( what support do you have?). As for you religion complaint you say there is no such thing as proof, when I asked for evidence you said you believed what you believe, since there is no such thing as proof or evidence, that is blind faith in any language.
” This is coupled with the physics of the Greenhouse Effect”
Aha so now you are saying there is evidence. OK so you can explain the physical basis for assuming that doubling of CO2 leads to ~3k )or whatever the current favourite number is) increase in temperature as claimed by IPCC.
Good go for it I’m all ears.
Well we could randomly try some beloved Pompous empiricism
http://www.amath.washington.edu/research/articles/Tung/journals/solar-jgr.pdf
GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 31, L03202, doi:10.1029/2003GL018765, 2004
Radiative forcing – measured at Earth’s surface – corroborate the increasing greenhouse effect
Royer DL, Berner RA, Park J. 2007. Climate sensitivity constrained by CO2 concentrations over the past 420 million years. Nature, 446: 530-532.
Come on Luke what sort of rubbish is that? Nowhere in the paper do they actually correlate CO2 level with temperature – they don’t even try. There is some hand waving regarding models and estimates from it. The work on solar effects is interesting I’ve already been looiking at that in the light of more recent work by Leif Svalgaard and friends.
However the physical basis is for a relationship between CO2 and temperature is not addressed at all.
I see lots of parallels. What do we do with a guy from the railways with a cracked radio case, give him a replacement? Digging deeper it was rumored some in the shunting yard used the blunt end of their handy two way to stop rolling stock shifting on a gentle slope.
Note, IMO some climate scientists obviously feel the same about handing out their data sources willy nilly..
Abused instruments are common enough for everyone to realize the hunt for gross errors is far more than mere stats. For instance battery failure is in a class of its own when it comes to repetition of faults.
Moving on, in radio spectrum use do we focus on the purity of the mathematics involved or the quality of our transducers? Believe me, the greatest signal distortion occurs when some rogue clobbers your channel and that leads me to ask what bloggers really know in general about second and third order impacts. See the discussion on CA after Lief Svalgaard. Fishing for signals in any sort of data won’t be entirely defined by stats. Try using spread spectrum or understanding CDMA v Next G.
CA runs on circular arguments UHI and Maunder minimums while CO2 is simply implicit in all climate sensitivity calculations.
Luke: The one with the day job complains about these “distractions” on my PC but Tung & Camp was worth it hey
Well Jan – all I needed to know – the way you have jumped at that was all I needed to know. You didn’t even understand it (the conclusions are independent of the models) and didn’t bother with the rest.
Don’t bother Mr T – he’s a troll. You’re wasting your time. Anything you put up will just get endless silly circular discussion. Having asked for empiricism he’s now not interested.
P.S. Thanks Gavin and glad you liked it.
Sorry Luke you obviously didn’t understand the paper or what they were discussing if you think that it contains the physical bases fro the IPCC assumptions. There is a simple sanity test you can do.
The sensitivity of temperature to radiative energy change is given by:
dT/dQ = 1/(4 sigma T^3) if you plug in the numbers for sigma and T=288 and use Keihl and Trenberth use of black body radiation which you so vigourously defended even though you agreed it was wrong. you get ~.18K/Wm^-2. If you plug in the numbers they give for dT = 3.2K (median line 18) and dQ = 3.7 w/m^2 (line 330) you get
dT/dQ = 3/3.7 = 0.86K/Wm^-2)
a contradiction.
Now we can take into account that the atmosphere is not a black body and factor in atmospheric emissivity and taking satellite data where there is a temperature inversion (where the spectrum is due to warmer air and the colder surface is invisible to instruments) the emissivity is around .9 we get a sensitivity due to S-B law of .18/.9 = .2 the sensitivity in the paper is still to high by a factor of 4.
“where the spectrum is due to warmer air and the colder surface is invisible to instruments”
Oh
All of which has been disturbingly overthrown by empirical measurements which you summarily ignored. Oh dear – darn reality. Some day you might be up to making a positive contribution and mature from troll-dom.
Did I say it contains the physical basis for the IPCC discussions – I was responding with THREE accounts of empirical evidence which have tritely ignored. Arrogance is interesting in that it assumes that the conversation is only about people like you.
“where the spectrum is due to warmer air and the colder surface is invisible to instruments”
Oh
Yes Gavin that’s a limitation of optical systems if you have something brighter, in this case the atmosphere, in the way you can’t see what is beneath it.
Luke
What I’ve given you is derived from empirical measurements.
Only empirical measurements discussed in the paper were with respect to climate sensitivity to solar variations nothing but absolutely nothing is covered in the paper regarding the physical basis for climate sensitivity to CO2 doubling apart from those two contradictory numbers. They do repeat it in the conclusion with some intermediate handwaving but do not address how they get to it. If they actually did do that they would run into the same contradictory result.
Luke: Since I reluctantly go to CA for science updates (and RC for that mater) I missed this outstanding argument re feedback / sensitivity see CA Jan 30. It starts about here
“29, here’s where the control systems theory comes in: If you have a linear system, with a positive feedback greater than one, the system must run away. There are only three ways out of that: 1) the system is nonlinear and gain decreases with temperature, and will thus self-limit, 2) the system is non-linear in a way that increases gain as temperature, in which it’s quasi-stable now, but will hit what Hansen calls a “tipping point”. This implies that the earth has never been significantly warmer than now, or we’d have already gone there. 3) the feedback gain really isn’t greater than one, but something as yet unidentified is perturbing the system.
21, I don’t think you followed the argument. The “gain” is a mathematical abstraction that has nothing to do with shortwave v.s. longwave radiation. These control system theory arguments are irrespective of mechanism, and are simply requirements of any dynamic system that feeds back on itself. If a 1 degree increase causes a subsequent 1.1 degree increase, regardless of mechanism, the system will go into a singularity (or in reality, hit some kind of limit at some point).”
I wonder who Larry is but IMO its familiar enough theory to recommend following all his posts through this thread.
“122, that may be another source of confusion. The climate feedback is defined in terms of temperature. It can also be rearranged in terms of power, but the common feedback multiplier used is degrees per degree, i.e. dimensionless.
Because the conversion between power and temperature involves Stefan-Boltzmann, it’s not a simple linear transformation (but we already knew that it’s a fudge to apply linear control system theory to the nonlinear climate)”
Lief @ p 157 is interesting too.
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2679
“that’s a limitation of optical systems if you have something brighter, in this case the atmosphere, in the way you can’t see what is beneath it”
Ahhh but we all live below it (atmosphere), there must be important imperical measurements from zero to near infinity.
Apparently I am a troll…
Mr T: Are you still looking for an appropriate group here?
Gavin,
“”that’s a limitation of optical systems if you have something brighter, in this case the atmosphere, in the way you can’t see what is beneath it”
Ahhh but we all live below it (atmosphere), there must be important imperical measurements from zero to near infinity.”
An irrelevant consideration when attempting to measure atmospheric emissivity.
You will only get an idea of what the the emissivity of the atmosphere is by measuring the spectrum from above at temperature inversions where what is measured is entirely due to emissions from the atmosphere. If the surface is cold enough like at Barrow or better yet, the Antarctic, with clear sky in winter there is little atmospheric water vapour to interfere.
Jan: Can I guess we can filter out all reflection from the ice?
Gavin,
“Jan: Can I guess we can filter out all reflection from the ice?”
Are you concerned about starlight being reflected?
I don’t think we need concern ourselves about that.
Jan
I was hopeful we could have some input from you re emissivity on what has actually been achieved in atmospheric radiation research over ice on a dark night.
Gavin,
“I was hopeful we could have some input from you re emissivity on what has actually been achieved in atmospheric radiation research over ice on a dark night.”
Asking about reflections from the ice is not the way to achieve this.
There is quite a bit of data about that few have looked at in order to actually determine it there are however few about and it’s mostly done to study clouds and their behaviour and how they might interfere with radio astronomy which makes it hard to find. However the general range for atmospheric emissivity found or quote is from .7 to .9. I’m not sure how good these figures are but I’ll keep looking. In the seventies there were some readings from satellites at 70 km (temp at this level ~220K) that show emission within the CO2 absorption band at about 220K that can only be due to the major atmospheric constituents indicates an N2 O2 mix at that density is has radiation very close to that of a black body. To get greater precision I need the temperature profile of the atmosphere on the day the spectrum was measured and I don’t have that data.
Yeah: After a google on ARM issues I got sidetracked into cloud stuff using radar
http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=forward-links&doi=10.1175%2F1520-0477(1998)079%3C0443%3AAUCPRF%3E2.0.CO%3B2
However it’s all way off thread and should be the subject of another discussion but I won’t buy into it since UHF and microwave work was more my practice. Since I can’t recall any of the calcs for splatter etc in that part of the spectrum I’m obliged to look on while the next gen play with their programs.
BTW Jan; control theory was solid enough for industry before we went digital.
I recently read an article at a web site called wideminded,it speaks of a natural heat vent at the equator which regulates global temps hence the error in many of the warming prediction models which have failed to recognise this despite it being confirmed by research at NASA. I was sckeptical about the name dropping so hopped on their site and sure enough there it is.
I know I’m a dumb bastard and can’t speak of my incredible skills in anything much,but I note a lack of reference to this in the limited trawling I have done on the subject. Why has this proposition remained buried,or is it debunked and thrown out.?
Hadley’s out. Jan Global: 0.037
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/monthly
“Yeah: After a google on ARM issues I got sidetracked into cloud stuff using radar”
Easy to do. Spend hours and still come up empty handed.
“but I won’t buy into it since UHF and microwave work was more my practice. ”
extended to EHF and your in the world of microwave sounding units and O2 emissions. I was looking at 60 GHz band for small comms (networking) cells back in the mid nineties then Wifi came out I and I bothered no more.
Re pre digital control one of my last projects involved a phase locked loop (4046) and a state observer using LM324 it worked a treat with good lock over 90% of its range.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_observer
analogue controls is what I did solid state physics is what I learned.
In Victoria, Australia, trees are turning Autumn brown and losing leaves already in early to mid February – I can never remember this happening before. Normally autumn colours don’t develop until April
Seems tome to confirm that weather is unusually cool this year.
wally