Home/BlogIt’s been 8 years since Al Gore told us in January 2006 that we had only 10 years left to solve the global warming problem.
In the grand tradition of prophets of doom, his prognostication is not shaping up too well…still no statistically significant warming:
And if you use RSS version of the satellite data, it will look even worse for Mr. Gore.
Oh, I know. All that extra energy, hundredths of a degree of it, could be hiding in the deep ocean. Good luck getting Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer worked up over that one.
John Holdren. All I can say is typical global warming spin, putting it nice.
I am frustrated because solar activity has been so much above the parameters that I think are needed to have a significant climatic impact, along with the secondary factors which I think will come about as a result of prolonged minimum solar activity.
Until the maximum of solar cycle 24 ends and how quiet thereafter , I can’t begin to know just how great or small the solar /climate connection may or may not be. I am still of the opinion that prolonged solar minimum conditions will resume sooner rather then later and maybe we can find out.
On the other hand if one looks at the aerosol thickness charts post late it is nil, ENSO has been neutral, PDO cool, AMO warmish, no major volcanic activity, while SOLAR has been moderate to active for the past two years, while CO2 is still increasing, and yet as is pointed out in this article and others no temperature increase.
So I would say on balance it does not look to good for those that believe in AGW.
In addition the basic assumptions AGW theory is based on have not happened as far as I know.
Those being a lower tropospheric hotspot due to a positive CO2/water vapor feedback in the lower troposphere in the tropics, and a more positive AO due to stratospheric cooling being greater near the polar regions then the lower latitudes, which by the way equates to less extremes in weather and a more zonal flow. Those two cornerstones of AGW theory have not happened at all.
What is so amazing is AGW crowd is trying to say their theory called for a more meridional atmospheric circulation more extremes in climate all along, a bold face LIE. They called for the opposite to take place. Now they come up with the ridiculous low Artic Sea Ice due to global warming they predicted as a cause of a more meridional atmospheric circulation just like they predicted, which they did NOT predict. Just lies to try to look right in the face of just being plain wrong.
Add to this the fact that they say the stratosphere overall should be cooling and humidity in all levels of the atmosphere should be on the rise. Not happening.
Not to mention if anything the last 100 years of climate data shows one of the most stable climatic periods over the last 20000 years.
So things are not adding up for the AGW side, while the factors I am calling for to cause global cooling have yet to really start in earnest, that being very low prolonged solar conditions and the associated secondary effects.
I agree 100%. I would add jumps cosmic radiation, which has a huge impact on the circulation of the winter.
An interesting map to use. Click to Earth.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=-103.42,38.04,1106
Salvatore: On July 13, 2013 you wrote on this blog: “I think the start of the temperature decline will commence within six months of the end of the solar cycle maximum and should last for at least 30+ years.”
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/07/uah-v5-6-global-temperature-update-for-june-2013-0-30-deg-c/#comment-84963
So where is this temperature decline?
Where is the end of the Solar Cycle maximum? Start counting months then.
Why are you talking about Gore? is it because the IPCC document is too hard for you to read? The current claims and predictions are identical to those made in 1990. current modelling has shown the impact of the La Nina cycle is the cause for the pause and has reinforced the dry period in the American Mid West; the variability in the solar output is trivially small and irrelevant. Still the focus on temperature is a red herring. What is not in doubt is that: desertification I spreading, the ocean is rising and becoming more acidic, Arctic ice I smelting as are the major glaciers, and increased CO2 levels do not lead to increased plant growth. The current CO2 level is the highest level in almost a million years. On a geological time scale this is inexorably connected to a much warmer climate. You guys need to stop slagging Gore and Suzuki and telling each other how smart you are to be ignorant, and instead read the current literature.
“the current CO2 level is the highest level in almost a million years”
this statement is based on ice core data & ice core data is false…
Read th current literature, this weeks Nature:
hiatus.
One important finding came in 2011, when a team of researchers at NCAR led by Gerald Meehl reported that inserting a PDO pattern into global climate models causes decade-scale breaks in global warming3. Ocean-temperature data from the recent hiatus reveal why: in a subsequent study, the NCAR researchers showed that more heat moved into the deep ocean after 1998, which helped to prevent the atmosphere from warming6. In a third paper, the group used computer models to document the flip side of the process: when the PDO switches to its positive phase, it heats up the surface ocean and atmosphere, helping to drive decades of rapid warming7.
A key breakthrough came last year from Shang-Ping Xie and Yu Kosaka at the Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla, California. The duo took a different tack, by programming a model with actual sea surface temperatures from recent decades in the eastern equatorial Pacific, and then seeing what happened to the rest of the globe8. Their model not only recreated the hiatus in global temperatures, but also reproduced some of the seasonal and regional climate trends that have marked the hiatus, including warming in many areas and cooler northern winters.
There are now more temperature proxies than there are global change doubters, you are incorrect, this is the highest CO2 in a million years. If you have some scientific reference to contradict this please provide it. But you do not have such a reference because it does not exist. This backwater of dissent is mostly irrelevant and the rest of the real scientific community is no longer in any doubt. Read this weeks nature, which I excerpted below, instead of this pointless denial. For a site that claims to be run by a scientist I have seen all the recent work, ie last year completely ignored. One is tempted to call this cynical
If as you assert, we experience the highest CO2 in millions of years , how do you claim to know the CO2 levels from millions of years ago? Keep in mind atmospheric gasses trapped in ice cores last I check contain the carbon 14 isotope. Since the carbon 14 half-life is only ~5730 years all residue of carbon 14 should cease to exist after 5-6 half lives or 30-40k years. So much for apparently delusional proxies. If you are aware of ice-core proxies completely void of the carbon 14 isotope (unlikely since the permafrost remains contained in many of them are carbon datable and the ice-age commenced only a few thousands of years ago) please provide FACTUAL EVIDENCE. That would reassure the many CAGW believers who no doubt find the increasing realization by the general public that it’s all a bunch of psuedo-science quackery alarming.
Have a great day!
o.k.; which proxy were you using as a basis for your statement then?
There are many other proxies, a most recent publications used stalactites. Read the literature
B Parsons,
Please feel free to read all the literature you wish but please don’t IGNORE the Carbon 14 isotope.
Have a great day!
B Parsons,
BTW, it should be noted you still have failed to provide one EMPIRICAL (I.E. ASSUMPTION FREE) method to measure the age of the earth. Hence you have provided no SCIENTIFICALLY VALID means of determining it. When one occurs to you please provide it. As to their being “many proxies” it’s interesting that you seem incapable of providing one that actually proves anything and/or that does not rely on many debatable assumptions. Please don’t waste people’s time asking them to read literature they may very well understand better than you do. If you have the FACTS, please present them.
Have a great day!
Please note in addition to the age of the earth, B Parsons has yet to provide an empirical method to date ANYTHING outside of direct human experience.
Have a great day!
B Parsons:
You’ve fallen for the global warming mantra hook, line and sinker.
– Current modelling = bull dust – junk in junk out
-La Nina cycle is the cause – how (what study / paper supports this)
-re-enforced dry period – how (what study / paper supports this)
-solar output is irrelevant – did the church of global warming tell you this (what study / paper supports this)
-the ocean is rising – 2cm per hundred years – yeah I can see that it is rising and the Moldive island are sinking
-the oceans are becoming more acidic – what study paper supports this
artic ice is melting – yes it melted but has now rebounded just like iy did in the 1920’s – so what
major glaciers are melting – like the Himalayan glaciers that will be gone in 30 years as stated by the IPCC – someone’s opinion at WWF – this was claimed to be peer reviewed – NOT
C02 does not lead to increased plant growth – then why do green houses pump CO2 up to 5 times the normal air – what study paper supports this
CO2 highest in a million years – can you count to one million
You are delusional and in need of help my friend. Is this what they indoctrinate you with in elementary school and now you cannot understand critical thinking, let alone common sense.
Read the current Nature edition jan 15 and all the references you want are there, if you wish to refute Nature , then send them your paper. The ice is not rebounding, CO2 in a greenhouse is not here same as in the wild where this is usually accompanied by drought. I will get you paper references s you wish, then you have to read them
The ice is not rebounding?
What planet are you living on?
from todays Jan 23 nature, I look fwd to your rebuttal.
Impacts of the north and tropical Atlantic Ocean on the Antarctic Peninsula and sea ice
Xichen Li,
David M. Holland,
Edwin P. Gerber
& Changhyun Yoo
Affiliations
Contributions
Corresponding author
Nature 505, 538542 (23 January 2014) doi:10.1038/nature12945 Received 19 August 2013 Accepted 10 December 2013 Published online 22 January 2014
Article tools
PDF
Citation
Reprints
Rights & permissions
Article metrics
In recent decades, Antarctica has experienced pronounced climate changes. The Antarctic Peninsula exhibited the strongest warming1, 2 of any region on the planet, causing rapid changes in land ice3, 4. Additionally, in contrast to the sea-ice decline over the Arctic, Antarctic sea ice has not declined, but has instead undergone a perplexing redistribution5, 6. Antarctic climate is influenced by, among other factors, changes in radiative forcing7 and remote Pacific climate variability8, 9, but none explains the observed Antarctic Peninsula warming or the sea-ice redistribution in austral winter. However, in the north and tropical Atlantic Ocean, the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation10, 11 (a leading mode of sea surface temperature variability) has been overlooked in this context. Here we show that sea surface warming related to the Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation reduces the surface pressure in the Amundsen Sea and contributes to the observed dipole-like sea-ice redistribution between the Ross and AmundsenBellingshausenWeddell seas and to the Antarctic Peninsula warming. Support for these findings comes from analysis of observational and reanalysis data, and independently from both comprehensive and idealized atmospheric model simulations. We suggest that the north and tropical Atlantic is important for projections of future climate change in Antarctica, and has the potential to affect the global thermohaline circulation6 and sea-level change3, 12.
Nature is not science. The publication is firmly wedded to AGW and even a brief perusal of thier pages would show an unbiased reader how poorly they are researching their CC articles.
1.Lean, J. L. & Rind, D. H. Geophys. Res. Lett. 36, L15708 (2009).
Article
Show context
2.Hansen, J., Sato, M., Kharecha, P. & von Schuckmann, K. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 11, 1342113449 (2011).
Article
ISI
ChemPort
Show context
3.Meehl, G. A., Arblaster, J. M., Fasullo, J. T., Hu, A. & Trenberth, K. E. Nature Clim. Change 1, 360364 (2011).
Article
ISI
Show context
4.Trenberth, K. E. & Fasullo, J. T. Earths Future http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013EF000165 (2013).
Show context
5.Feulner, G. & Rahmstorf, S. Geophys. Res. Lett. 37, L05707 (2010).
Article
Show context
6.Balmaseda, M. A., Trenberth, K. E. & Klln, E. Geophys. Res. Lett. 40, 17541759 (2013).
Article
ISI
Show context
7.Meehl, G. A., Hu, A., Arblaster, J. M., Fasullo, J. & Trenberth, K. E. J. Clim. 26, 72987310 (2013).
Article
ISI
Show context
8.Kosaka, Y. & Xie, S.-P. Nature 501, 403407 (2013).
Article
PubMed
ISI
ChemPort
Show context
9.Seager, R. et al. in Earths Climate: The Ocean-Atmosphere Interaction. Geophys. Monogr. Ser. 147, 105120 (2004).
Article
Show context
10.DiNezio, P., Clement, A. & Vecchi, G. A. Eos 91, 141152 (2010).
Article
Show context I look fwd to your rebuttal of these papers ne by one. Except you don’t have one and have not read these articles have you? It is not I that has had his opinions bought and paid for, it is you sir. Get your head out of the sand and read the reviewed literature then perhaps we can have a discussion. While you guys stand around congratulating yourselves for cynicism like it was some sort of intellectual accomplishment, real scientists are doing real science. You shd read them instead of this site.
http://www.nature.com/news/tropical-ocean-key-to-global-warming-hiatus-1.13620
Star reading, this and the others I posted are most of not all the references you request. Enjoy your new brain
Heated debate
Cane was the first to predict the current cooling in the Pacific, although the implications werent clear at the time. In 2004, he and his colleagues found that a simple regional climate model predicted a warm shift in the Pacific that began around 1976, when global temperatures began to rise sharply9. Almost as an afterthought, they concluded their paper with a simple forecast: For what it is worth the model predicts that the 1998 El Nio ended the post-1976 tropical Pacific warm period.
here read this and tell me what is wrong with it
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/qj.2297/abstract
What I am clearly delusional about is any idea that anyone on this site either follows or understands the current literature, and I am really delusional for thinking anyone’s mind here is going to be changed by real science, you guys have your mind made up. Real scientists change their mind when confronted with new facts. there are clearly no scientists but me on this site.
What you cd use is some indoctrination into the scientific method in grad school. When I was in elementary school I doubt you were alive. Go get a PhD and them tell me how it altered your brain. Do not lecture me on critical thinking I have been a professional scientist for 45 years, made my living by presenting new data and new experiments in open peer reviewed journals. Try it some time and see how much of this blather is publishable. Read the literature and tell me specifically what is wrong with it, every point I have seen raised here has been rebutted by the real scientists. By the way how come no one here is telling us that the guys who found the Higgs boson are not brain dead and brain washed fools? It is because you understand that you know nothing about elementary particle physics? Well you know just as much about this topic but seem to believe that because you experience weather that all the real scientists are wrong. Well it is clear who has been brainwashed and your opinions have been bought and paid for by the people making money off you right now.
you live in California?
Kate Galbraith
facebook
tweet
post
U.S. News
01.24.14
California May Have Its Driest Season in 500 Years
The Golden State is so parched that bears cant hibernate, wildfires are erupting, and towns are running out of water. And this is supposed to be the rainy season.
SAN FRANCISCOWeird things are happening in California. Bears, normally hibernating at this time of year, have climbed out of their caves to search for food. Some visitors to Tahoe are renting bikes, not skis.
As the East Coast digs out from its latest snow dump, Californians can only look on enviously. Here, the snowpack in the Sierra Nevada Mountains, the states great water-supply source, stands at a scary 13 percent of normal. California suffered its driest year on record in 2013, but whats yet to come is even more terrifying. Federal forecasters predict that the drought will continue or intensify through at least Aprilby which time, the rainy season will be over.
buffalo your way out of that reality
Tell you what I ‘ll make you a deal. Send me a reference to just one of your refereed jnl articles that you have published, ever and then I will send you mine, and we’ll see who is capable of critical thinking.
Parsons, exactly who are you? You provide nothing but personal attacks and nonsensical crap in response to valid discussion. If you reallly were the scientist you claim, even the die-hard warmers would be shunning you.
“and increased CO2 levels do not lead to increased plant growth. ”
Yes it does, and it is happening now. The planet is getting greener as a result of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. Even at the equator, the vegetation index has risen since 1980.
You missed the latest from the IPCC:
The SPM.2 (Note (c)) discloses that the assessed range for near-term (2016-2035) temperature change is lower than the 5-95% model range.
Translation. The Models are CRAP.
A discreet footnote appeared on page 11:16 No best estimate for equilibrium climate sensitivity can now be given because of a lack of agreement on values across assessed lines of evidence and studies.
The SPM refers to the WG1 report {Box 10.2, 11.3} saying in some models, an overestimate of the response to increasing greenhouse gas and other anthropogenic forcing (dominated by the effects of aerosols).
Translation we can’t come up with a good number for climate sensitivity but we know the models are over estimating the response to GHGs.
In other words they just ran up the white flag of defeat but don’t expect to see that explained in the media.
Recent modeling, referenced above does not agree with these statements. Read the literature. And check this link outhttp://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/ if you think the ice is rebounding, it is lower than last year at this time which was a record low. The facts mam, just the facts. Everything I have referenced here has been in the open literature mostly Nature and Science in the last six months and everyone on these sites continues to ignore them. Just for reference the oil biz, the insurance biz and anyone with a real dollar stake in this issue are no longer arguing about any of this. You guys are irrelevant and it seems afraid to read the real scientific literature. I thought this was site run by a scientist but I have seen no discussion of the most recent work, available free on line to anyone. This is just the sort of intellectual dishonesty you accuse the real scientists of, but with no real basis in fact. I only come to this site every few weeks to see how much further into irrelevance it has sunk, and I am never disappointed in that regard. The AIDs deniers are gone, the tobaccos causes cancer deniers are gone, and you guys are doomed for the same fate. You can rant all you want, you are wrong and wronger every day. Have some humility and reads some work by real scientists. The arguement is over and you are irrelevant
If the previous modeling was shown to be crap by the passage of time, why should anyone believe unequivocally that the current modeling will not?
Since this website appears to attempt to make the GW topic accessible to amateurs, like myself, I hope someone here will indulge some questions I have about the 1979 to present satellite data.
There seems to be a frequency of about 3.25 years running through the graph. That frequency appears to be shifted in phase and amplitude by external factors (Pinatubo, huge El Nino, etc).
Prior to the 1998 El Nino, the 3.25 year cycle had a fairly consistent 0.3C amplitude. After the 1998 El Nino settled out, there was a sudden offset of +0.25C, and the 3.25 year cycle was considerably dampened, though still there.
So, what causes the 3+ year temperature cycle?
Did the 1998 El Nino cause the .25C offset, if not, what did?
Did the El Nino cause the reduced temperature amplitude seen since 2001(except for the 2008 La Nina)?
Thanks for your patience.
Dr. Roy;
It appears that the nonsense just never ends. Latest missive from NOAA in todays press:
World records fourth hottest year on record in 2013: NOAA
Seth Borenstein, The Associated Press
Published Tuesday, January 21, 2014 2:07PM EST
WASHINGTON — Last year was tied for the fourth warmest year on record around the world.
The National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration on Tuesday released its global temperature figures for 2013.
The average world temperature was 14.52 degreees Celsius, tying with 2003 for the fourth warmest since 1880.
NASA, which calculates records in a different manner, said Tuesday that 2013 was the seventh warmest on record, with an average temperature of 14.6 Celsius.
Both agencies said nine of the 10th warmest years on record have happened in the 21st century. The hottest year was 2010.
A global insurance firm says there were 41 billion-dollar weather disasters last year. Unlike 2012, most of the heat and disasters were outside the United States
http://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/world-records-fourth-hottest-year-on-record-in-2013-noaa-1.1649319#ixzz2r48j52BS
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
here is what a few tenths of a degree means in real energy terms, and yes even a layman can understand this one
Except that RADARSAT2′s raw data shows unequivocably that the arctic permanent sea ice has grown in area and thickness (volume) for the past 3 years and is continuing to grow.
If you want to review the data, send an ATIP request to Natural Resources Canada and they will provide it to you on a DVD.
Given the long lead time in the effect of CO2 on equilibrium temperature, was Gore saying we had that long to get CO2 emissions on a downward trend, as opposed to saying the planet would overheat in that time frame?
I don’t want to be an apologist for Gore, but I wonder if you are misinterpreting…
Excuses, excuses…
Hmmh! Didn’t Al Gore predict in his December 10, 2007 “Earth has a fever” speech that the Entire north polar ice cap will be gone in 5 years. It’s little wonder so few retain faith in academic, political or other institutions when the only thing they EMIT from their mouths and papers is psuedo-science quackery and an endless stream of fiction. Like the fact-free psuedo-science of the neo-Darwinian synthesis, Goldschmidt’s hopeful monster fables, Gould’s punctuated (dis)equilibrium and other evolutionary babble relevant to a previous thread, the continuing climate farce only reinforces what everyone already knows. The facts/science (in the original empirical meaning of the word) and even the Constitution don’t seem to matter to the current crop of money/power-hungry “social engineers” and their more recent progeny. Even if someone mis-interpreted poor Al he has yet to articulate a precise plan of action to address the problem he claims to worry about, namely the seemingly inexorable increase in green house gasses of which CO2 seems to have piqued his greatest resentment. He merely seeks to regulate citizen access to the nation’s hydrocarbons through the EPA, auto and plant emission controls, innumerable executive orders, etc., arbitrarily and irrationally impose carbon fees/taxes and otherwise harass law abiding citizens with a seemingly endless plethora of self-serving, ineffective rules which not only have done nothing to reduce CO2 levels but only increase public confusion and corruption as everyone seeks to transfer the sting of said rules and/or legislation to someone else.
Personally, I prefer CO2 and “greenhouse” EMISSIONS to the toxic brew of psuedo-science quackery, arbitrary rules, confiscatory over-reach and general lawless imbecility so seemingly prevalent. At least “greenhouse gasses theoretically provide warmth. The cold dark age promised by the non-sense mentioned above may not be mended in many lifetimes.
Have a great day!
Oh! Btw I don’t believe rising CO2 levels currently pose a huge problem either. If fact, if history proves a lesson they’ll likely contribute significantly to human survivability, but the level of public ignorance and our current political class may be a different story.
Again, have a great day!
Again, I don’t believe in AGW because of Al Gore. I might even say I believe it in spite of Al Gore, who does hype the near term consequences.
I agree that the warming thus far is not a problem. But I think it will be a problem (or a set of problems) for my kids when they are my age, and even more so for their kids. And of course, a little warming is fine in the higher latitudes, but a lot of the world lives in tropical places that are already just marginally inhabitable.
As the people of Charleston WV can now attest, there are other downsides to fossil fuels.
Hops
“Given the long lead time in the effect of CO2 on equilibrium temperature, ”
Transient change is the majority of ‘equilibrium’ change and we can observe that.
That the oceans may store some energy is understood, but so too is the fact that they will moderate temperatures and release that energy very slowly.
There are a number of reasons to not try and predict too far into the future. The biggest is what’s happening in the US now.
CO2 emissions per capita have decreased since the 1970s ( mostly due to market response of consumers ).
CO2 emissions in absolute terms have fallen since 2008, largely due to the market impact of cheap natural gas.
Natural gas is available widely through out the world and there’s every reason to believe the rest of the world will follow the pattern of the US, NOT because of government mandates ( which have demonstrably failed in Europe ) but because of economics.
Beyond that, economists who have an interest in population indicate a falling population level within decades:
http://www.businessinsider.com/deutsche-population-will-peak-in-2055-2013-9
There is warming but exaggerations of extent and impacts appear to be an abusive attempt to expand government power.
There are also downsides to Alternatives that will be pushed in the CAGW movement. We have lost much Amazon rain forest, millions of birds, species of frogs — and human life — due to the CAGW. I see no need to waste fossil fuels, and I see no need to ignore environmentally-friendly procedures in using fossil fuels, but to suggest that fossil fuels are the only energy choice with downsides — that undermines credibility.
The tropics don’t vary, the high latitudes do. FAIL.
Where is it that you cam find any “warming” at all, at any latitude? It is the CO2 hype combined with psudo-science nonsence that is the driver to your belief in the so called AGW.
I do agree there are many downsides to fossil fuels. All of the dounsudes can be corrected, way better and way cheaper by real economics, rather than by fake government regulations and fake government fiat currency! This is the relm of “BANKERS”.
Earthlings always foul there nest, then leave the hatchlings to clean up the mess. The best you can do demonstrate all of your own knowledge to the hatchlings and provide a means for them to learn much than you! They can and they will!
If successful, your only reward is that before the hatchlings are 30 years, the will redilly admit to you and all others that, Mom and Dad were never that stupid. If this is not enough reward (even occasionally),why did you ever allow hatchlings?
Are “you” willing to admit that you had “no clue” as to what you were doing? I hope it was before 30!! -will-
Good afternoon An Inquireer (not very skeptical),
You claimed:
“We have lost much Amazon rain forest, millions of birds, species of frogs and human life due to the CAGW.”
Please provide any evidence that any of the Amazon rain forest, birds, frog species and/or human life has been lost due to rising CO2 levels in the atmosphere or even the small amount of warming observed in the last few decades.
Thanks.
Have a great day!
NASA says the Amazon is CO2 neutral, consuming as much in the day as it produces at night. Its runoff fertilizes much of the ocean, though, creating a major O2 source. FAIL.
The above directed at TheInquirer.
Corr: An Inquirer (AKA Mr. FAIL)
I do think that you misinterpreted my posting — and I may have left out a key word. It is CAGW hype that is causing the losses that I mentioned, not changes in the climate.
The government establishes ethanol mandates which can only be currently met by corn production, so millions of acres in Brazil are no longer subtropical Amazon rain forest but are now plowed up to met the high demand for grain used as fuel.
The government mandates the construction of windmills, and I believe that the best estimate is about 800,000 birds are killed yearly along with hundreds of thousands of bats.
The golden frog in Central America handled climate change just fine through the centuries until some researchers — convinced that CO2 would be their doom — studied and tested them, introducing a fungus them which wiped them out.
The increased food prices caused by using grain as fuel led to foods riots which left people dead. Americans may not see a rise in grain prices as a big deal — since grain prices constitute only 5-10% of the final product price, but in countries where people buy grain directly and it costs them 75% of their income, an increase in grain prices is a big deal.
There are more examples of CAGW hype causing problems for humans:
In Australia, authorities were convinced the CAGW meant less rain so the diverted their limited resources away from building needed dams to building a desalination plant which would be needed in a CAGW world. Years later, the heavy rains with no dam meant disaster and loss of life and property. Meanwhile the desalination plant remained unfinished due to costs.
In England, convinced that snow was a thing of the past, local government did not budget sufficiently for sand to be used on roads what the Brits call grit. When the snow came, there was not enough grit to put on the roads again causing loss of life and property.
You cd not be more wrong.http://www.igbp.net/globalchange/climatechangeindex.4.56b5e28e137d8d8c09380002241.html
everything is changing very fast and higher carbon dioxide is driving it,. Anyone who tells you otherwise is deliberately and cynically lying to you
B Parsons:
Junk science
Peter K I guess you are troll because it is easy to say and impossible to prove. If you have some specific proof of junk science in any of these papers I assume you will soon be publishing it, but that is not going to happen is it?
you cd not be more wrong.
4 April 2012
Global warming preceded by increasing carbon dioxide concentrations during the last deglaciation
Jeremy D. Shakun,
Peter U. Clark,
Feng He,
Shaun A. Marcott,
Alan C. Mix,
+ et al.
Nature 484, 49-54 doi:10.1038/nature10915
Rights and permissions
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-magazine/an-industry-that-has-woken-up-to-climate-change-no-deniers-at-global-resinsurance-giant/article15635331/?page=2#dashboard/follows/
Unfortunately the Globe & Mail has never been accused of being an unbiased reporter or of even sticking to the facts but rather tends to follow the pack. I would trust reputable science long before relying on the G & B for anything requiring more facts than the daily comics.
Hey! When someone REALLY WANTS TO BELIEVE in CAGW where else can they turn except the daily comics?
Well then I invite you to read the papers I referenced about – real science. Go for it and see what you find out. It will challenge your assumptions.
Then if that is what you want then go to the literature. Start here
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v484/n7392/full/nature10915.html
I think even Doonsbury would be more accurate.
Refer to my other comment about Nature. It is not a reputable source for anything “scientific”.
It looks like Big Al’s wrong on this one (and so many other things), but I’m grateful to him for inventing the internet.
http://0.tqn.com/d/politicalhumor/1/0/J/C/gore_internet.jpg
Well, in all fairness to Big Al, he didn’t say he “invented the internet”. What he said was that he was an early proponent, and that’s a fair characterization.
On the other hand, it is becoming increasingly clear that Big Al DID invent “global warming”.
He actually said “I took the initiative in creating the internet.”
it was just a joke,ron. hot potato is not one of gore’s biggest fans and was just making a funny…
I believe that I once heard Christopher Monckton of Brenchley say that he had been an advisor to Margaret Thatcher and that she was largely responsible (hard as this may be to believe) for starting the anthropogenic global warming scare. She did this because she was mad at the Welsh coal miners for striking and wanted Britain to switch to nuclear power.
I have heard this stated before, there is something to the idea I would think, but it was capitalized on by others to a much greater extent than the old rotten hag ever did.
Don’t know about this, but in his book James Hansen says the UK is responsible for more historical per capita CO2 emissions than any other country.
Why not warn before this?
http://oi40.tinypic.com/20rs1h0.jpg
15 km altitude doses in millisieverts?
The stratosphere above the polar circle, the height of 15 km. Here’s the current cosmic radiation.
http://terra2.spacenvironment.net/~raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/dose.15km.png
Here all the data.
http://terra2.spacenvironment.net/~raps_ops/current_files/rtimg/table.png
Hi David A,
Well if I lived in the UK I personally would want to keep warm. While the Gulf stream helps maintain livable temps, it remains a cold region. The added plant food may help keep them warm and the isle green. A WIN-WIN PROPOSITION.
I seriously doubt they want to be another Sweden or Norway.
Have a great day!
This is your site – you do and say anything you want to. But this has got to be one your dumbest posts in some time.
You know this is a selective telling of how it really is. You make out there is no trend because you base this on a very SHORT time frame. You thereby introduce NOISE from graph into temperature readings and fling this out to the UNDER educated about Climate Change/Global Warming. You then make a statement out of context and take 2006 as your starting point on the warming commentary. ALL climate scientists are well aware of huge variability in short periods of time.
Your post here is a obfuscation of what a MAJORITY climate scientists are in reality telling us. The data from multiple lines of sources are telling us Global Warming EXISTS and shows up in ALL the data collections over longer periods of time frames.
1. You make it confused or opaque as to be difficult to perceive or understand global warming trends by hand picking the reading and taking out of context a very selective speech mined quote.
2. You render and darken by fogging and fudging the information with obtuse over bearing commentary since 2006!
3. You further cloud the debate by politicizing it into some social engineering conspiracy. The systematization of a political system and threat is then complete and perceived. Neatly wrapped in false humble pie and southern old time religion. In Australia we Christians look on in wonderment. How on earth can a Christian believer and scientist be so so entrenched in a conservative political system in the USA that looks more and more ridiculous as the years go on about climate denial.
You must have broken the grommet off of you “Dial a Buzz Word” circular slide rule. The words you write sound OK all alone but you put them together in a totally unfathomable fashion.
Ross, I am perfectly happy to believe in AGW, even to pay more taxes to try to circumvent it.
All the climate scientists have to do is to make some useful predictions that come true.
So far they haven’t. Tim Flannery is the perfect example – he haa directly cost Australians billions of dollars in unnecessary desalination plants.
To make matters worse, when things don’t go their way, rather than taking a step backwards and reevaluting the models/science, they say that they are still correct – it is just the deep oceans warming now instead of the atmosphere. Or some other excuse.
Here in Australia, Suzuki publicly stated that cyclone activity had increased and blamed AGW. There is no evidence to substantiate his claims. Why do you need to essentially lie to the public if the theory is sound?
With each new piece of evidence that doesn’t fit, they come up with some new catch cry (climate weirding now), or some new excuse.
This is not the way science works – but it is the way superstition works.
AGW scientists are rapidly eroding what is left of respect the general public have for science.
I have a science degree and I am glad that I never pursued a career in science.
See! Words strung together in such a way that they can be understood.
You can’t take anything Suzuki says seriously. He’s nothing but a talking head who hasn’t done any real science since his doctoral thesis on fruit fly genetics. After that he went into talk radio & TV full time. He makes his millions off the gullible.
Chris,
Successful predictions of climate science:
http://davidappell.blogspot.com/2013/02/successful-predictions-of-climate.html
David A,
All I saw on your link was a broken link to a video and a blog exchange that approached gibberish in content.
I used to spend hours reading Real Climate, looking for successful predictions of CAGW climate science. So far, I have not seen any that is not better understood through other explanations.
David,
I am not talking about predictions, only measurements.
It was hotter in January 1939 than January 2014.
Can you explain how it has been getting hotter and hotter and hotter and now it is cooler?
Sorry, wrong thread, but the comment applies, and would be happy to hear a plausible explanation.
The simpliest is of course natural variability
http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT/heat_content2000m.png
here is some data that does fit
B Parsons:
More junk science. I too can create a graph, make it look pretty, put nice column names on it and submit it to anyone I think is dumb enough to believe in my graph.
Science is still fine! It is the fake claim that Climate Science
or Climatology is science. This FRAUD is much worse than all claims of the so called Scientologists. In both cases you are only left with a fake religion. This is a deliberate desecration of both science and religion. Such behavior must be a capital crime, or all earthlings and humanity must be destroyed! Bye bye! All done by Arrogant, Academic, Assholes, The University (AAA)! Sorry Roy! -will-
too bad, you must have flunked out of school somewhere along the line did you?
TH he IPCC and other have shown that Suzukis statement is in fact rue, the total number of cyclones/hurricanes has not increased but the proportion that are extreme has. Just saying he is wrong does not make him wrong.
I asked before, who is this Parsons TWIT? With all his junk “science” postings and personal attacks on people we have to wonder why he is so threatened by people asking questions.
Speaking as a farmer (I have 18 acres under glass), I see nothign wrong with CO2. I use compressed CO2 in my greenhouses to stimulate plant growth. It has increased our yields by over 35 % on average, with a spike of over 80% for leafy vegetables. If CO2 is so evil, I am staying firmly on the dark side of that force!
Ross,
“You further cloud the debate by politicizing it into some social engineering conspiracy.”
Humm.. Starting with my initial contact with the environmental movement at the first ‘Earth Day’ rallies (1970), which I attended while still in college, it has been blindingly obvious to me that the entire eco-loon cabal (from the Club of Rome to Al Gore, and the many lesser lights) are PRIMARILY motivated by a desire for “social engineering”. Calls for large reductions in fossil fuel use almost always go hand-in-hand with calls for ‘social justice’ (leftist-speak for wealth transfer and extensive public control of nearly all private activities). I have never heard of a well known eco-loon who was not also a dedicated leftist (eg. John Holdren). I suggest you get out more my friend, because you are sadly mistaken about the strong political motivations of most eco-loons.
Liberalism and Christianity are mutually exclusive.
“I love your show, I always agree with you, and I voted for Bush (and I am a Christian)”.
@rossbrisbane; What “majority of climate scientists” would that be? There is a very vocal MINORITY who are firmlly glued to AGW/CC and a far larger number who privately admit there is something wrong with the theory but won’t speak publicly out of fear for their jobs and safety. You prattle on about various matters but fail to address even one aspect of the data.
So, address this one point: RADARSAT2 data shows a clear increase in the surface area and thickness of the arctic permanent ice pack (Volume) for the past 2 plus years. How do you balance this simple fact with the predictions and claims of those wedded to this poorly constructed hypothesis? Facts only please.
http://nsidc.org/arcticseaicenews/
The fact is that right now the Arctic ice cover is even lower than last year, which was a record low. This site gets worse all the time. I suggest some of you go to the NOAA site and get some real dat. The temp has gone up, just as predicted. This is all whistling past the grave yard and a read guard deception no one even pays any attention to. I come here once a month and it has just got further and further from the facts every month
Please show any measurement, rather than projections from “models”!
STRONGLY suggest you do an ATIP request of NRCAN, which is the only authority doing actual satellite measurements of the arctic ice. They are using RADARSAT2 for this, which far exceeds anything NASA or NOAA is doing.
B Parsons:
Arctic is rebounding and will be just fine in a year or two. This also happened in the 1920’s.
Now take a valium and go rest.
you are of course quite wrong and the data shows it
B Parsons, take some advice and review the real data.
@Ross Brisbane “You make out there is no trend because you base this on a very SHORT time frame”.
The 30 year UAH report reveals a similar trend of 0.09 C/decade. The statistical trend over that period is 0.14 C/decade but that was taken from data that began in a -ve anomaly region, indicating a recovery from cooling, not true warming.
The only true sustained warming we’ve had was a sudden rise of 0.25 C in 2001 following the 1997/98 El Nino. However, there has been no trend since. CO2 could not cause such an abrupt change.
The IPCC admitted in AR5 that the trend since 1997 is 0.05 C/decade.
I don’t understand what you are arguing about.
Ross:
Your argument is weak and your “one of your dumbest posts” remark is unfounded.
“You make out there is no trend….”
Dr. Spencer didn’t say that, although it is slim-to-none.
“You thereby introduce NOISE from graph….”
Not true. RSS data is what it is.
“You then make a statement out of context….”
How so? Data starts at 2006, because that’s when Al Gore made his statement.
“Your post here is an obfuscation….”
No it isn’t. Global Warming is not the issue, but rather its cause and consequences. To date, both seem at odds with Gore’s predictions.
You [confound] global warming trends by [quote mining].”
It’s not about trends. Dr. Spencer simply points out the absence of evidence supporting Gore’s predicted CAGW.
I don’t see how your final two points even relate to this post.
Interesting because 100 years is a very, very short record in the bigger picture. Last glacial minimum ( about 125 kyr ago) global sea level transgressed and peaked at 20 feet or 6 meters higher compared to today. And that is the highest frequency scale typically recorded in the rock record. Look at most ultra high frequency paleo climate records and u see all sorts of regional climate events recorded (for example tree rings or lacustrine varves) that overwhelm the the environmental changes of this warming. Point is for this to even be an event it has to continue. No one can celebrate a victory in the climate issue at this point, and I’m sick of the majority wins argument. Talk to geologists or solar physics experts or read the literature and you will see the issue is not one sided… Except in media politics and funding. The models don’t work and 5 years ago they explained w volcanoes now the heat is supposed to be buried in the ocean… I don’t doubt warming occurred for a century but the sun concurently increased and then maintained high levels of activity… It will be really exciting to watch the data over the next decade as the earth starts to feel the reduction in solar output through the minimum trough of the weakest cycle in a century. Finally the natural experiment will isolate co2 as a variable and we can see if it has s a large impact on earths temperature.
well said
rossbrisbane,
It is Al Gore that picked the date in Jan 2006, and it is he who started the 10 year clock. NOT Dr Spencer. Al Gore made the date, and he, as leader as the CO2 death cult, must live with his 10 year horizon.
“And if you use RSS version of the satellite data, it will look even worse for Mr. Gore.”
Come on Roy, don’t do that, you know that cooling is spurious over correction of the diurnal drift.
I get some other skeptics suddenly deciding they like RSS better now (I don’t like it but I get it) but you, of all people, know better.
Why would Dr. Spencer use RSS data? He’s made it clear several times on this blog that the thinks his own data is better than theirs, giving specific reasons….
Or is it just a matter of citing whatever dataset is most convenient?
In his chart he uses his own data. It’s the snippy comment I didn’t like, but, on reflection I can understand.
Think of it this way. Someone might quickly object, that Roy has only show that Gore’s prediction looks bad using data that he himself, a skeptic, maintains. So thinking about it again I think I now understand Roy as saying “Okay, well, even if you don’t believe my data, if you go by *these* guys, who aren’t skeptics, *you* would have to admit the situation looks even worse for Gore.
It doesn’t strike me as doing anything “convenient” to cite *both* datasets as agreeing with your point. It would be to cite only one, if the other did not.
I think Roy is happy to highlight his data or RSS’s, depending on what suits his mood at the time.
I think you’re an obtuse moron.
@Andrew “…that cooling is spurious over correction of the diurnal drift”.
What does that mean, exactly. Are you still on about the drift errors that were resolved nearly 10 years ago, and were found to be within the margin io error given for the data?
Gordon, UAH and RSS use correction algorithms for the bias introduced by diurnal drift: they disagree about the magnitude of these corrections. I am saying the corrections are *smaller* than RSS says. I don’t really get how this could be seen as disagreeing with the statement that the real errors are small: RSS’s correction implies they aren’t, but it represents an *overcorrection*.
@Andrew…I did not understand what you meant by “…cooling is spurious over correction of the diurnal drift”.
It seemed to me you were going back to the old alarmist argument that the sat data is unreliable due to the drift.
You claimed that UAH and RSS disagree over the magnitude of the drift correction. It was later revealed that RSS had errors as well that showed more warming.
I may be wrong about this, and I stand corrected if someone can offer some proof, but it seems to me RSS got into the debate in an attempt to disprove UAH interpretation of the sat data.
I have written to Carl Mears complaining about their use of hot oranges to portray cooler temperatures.
I think objective scientists should steer away from offering interpretation through the use of gimmicks such as hot colours to infer drastic temperature increases that are trivial in reality.
Gordon- The correction for diurnal drift goes in different directions depending on which satellites you are talking about. Some drift cool, some drift warm. In the 1990’s, on balance they drifted cool and had to be adjusted for that, in the 2000’s on balance they drifted warm and had to be adjusted for that in the opposite direction. So RSS’s earlier correction that increased warming has now switched sign to increase cooling. In *both* cases, I, and Roy and John, agree that RSS’s adjustment appears too large-it added too much warming in the 90’s and it is adding too much cooling now.
This is good news! In only 2 more years Al Gore will finally shut up about this. At that point, according to him, the problem will either be solved, or it will be unsolvable. Then there will be no reason to bring hardship on people over this issue, so he will stop proposing things that will add to the financial burden of lower income people. Only a very selfish, uncaring person would continue to promote policies which oppress the poor when those policies have no chance of producing any benefit. And we know that the Nobel Prize winner is full of compassion and good will for all, so he would never do such a thing.
Al Gore speech, 1988
‘Throughout most of my life, I raised tobacco. I want you to know that with my own hands, all of my life, I put it in the plant beds and transferred it. I’ve hoed it. I’ve dug in it. I’ve sprayed it, I’ve chopped it, I’ve shredded it, spiked it, put it in the barn and stripped it and sold it.’
Gore talking to an audience about a hospital visit to his sister in 1984
‘She couldn’t speak, but I felt clearly I knew she was forming a question: ‘Do you bring me hope?’
All of us had tried to find whatever new treatment or new approach might help, but all I could do was to say back to her with all the gentleness in my heart, ‘I love you.’
And then I knelt by her bed and held her hand. And in a very short time her breathing became labored and then she breathed her last breath.
Tomorrow morning, another 13-year-old girl will start smoking. I love her, too. Three thousand young people in America will start smoking tomorrow. One thousand of them will die a death not unlike my sister’s. And that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.”
Did you expect Al Gore to be perfect. You’re not, I’m not — so why should he be?
Hi David A,
Many simply don’t want him to be worshipped! The obvious political machinery behind the Nobel Peace Prize, the marketing and promotion of “An Inconvenient Truth”, the structured and timed political craft behind the extensive media/political support and his obvious history of selecting WORLD SAVING causes and promoting solutions (i.e. tobacco regulations and CAP and TRADE)that just happen to align with his own personal financial interests leaves many cold. They rightly viewed his Messianic like act and his absorbed followers with skepticism.
As H. L. Mencken observed:
“The urge to save humanity is almost always a false front for the urge to rule.”
Have a great day!
And that is why, until I draw my last breath, I will pour my heart and soul into the cause of protecting our children from the dangers of smoking.
Maybe the fat bastard should protect himself from the dangers of overeating and excessive alcohol consumption. He’d lose a few pants sizes in the process.
Now if only Al Gore would just say that he has fixed global warming two years earlier than scheduled, then he can help the rest of us get to grips with some more pressing problems.
75% chance artic ice will be completely melted in summer in 5-7 years.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MsioIw4bvzI
Except that RADARSAT2’s raw data shows unequivocably that the arctic permanent sea ice has grown in area and thickness (volume) for the past 3 years and is continuing to grow.
If you want to review the data, send an ATIP request to Natural Resources Canada and they will provide it to you on a DVD.
here is a good visualization of the actual volume. https://sites.google.com/site/pettitclimategraphs/sea-ice-volume
Scary death spiral. BOO!
Dante comes to mind. Excuse me while I go change my underwear. Shiver me timbers!
Clear increase occurred from the previous, already the weaker solar cycle 23, in 2005.
http://iwantsomeproof.com/extimg/siv_annual_loss_by_percentage.png
Arctic climate because of geomagnetic field is closely related to the magnetic activity of the Sun.
http://www.solen.info/solar/polarfields/polar.html
In the solar cycle 24, little will change.
http://www.solen.info/solar/images/comparison_recent_cycles.png
Mark:
Compare what has happened now in the arctic to what also happened in the 1920’s. Same story, just different years (and back then they didn’t have the church of global warming).
New paper finds glaciers have been melting naturally at the same rate since 1850, no acceleration predicted
http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-paper-finds-glaciers-have-been.html
@Stevek… Astronomer Syun Akasofu, who did pioneer work on the solar wind, has claimed such melting is to be expected following a mini ice age, at about 0.05 C/decade. The Little Ice Age ended around 1850 and during the LIA, glaciers advanced significantly. One glacier near Chamonix, France, crossed a valley and wiped out a village.
Here’s an extension on his theory that has caused a furor:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/09/09/syun-akasofus-work-provokes-journal-resignation/
Here’s his home page:
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php
He’s an interesting guy, to say the least.
More proof for AGW. Everything that happens is proof for AGW these days including Ariel Sharon’s passing.
http://www.latimes.com/nation/shareitnow/la-sh-frozen-niagara-falls-photos-20140110,0,2659398.photogallery?index=la-sh-niagara-falls-partially-frozen-20140110-001
Anyone who predicts a man caused climate catastrophe at some future time, will be laughed at when that time arrives.
well you are being laughed at now
Howdy! I know this is kinda off topic however , I’d figured I’d ask. Would you be interested in trading links or maybe guest writing a blog post or vice-versa? My website addresses a lot of the same topics as yours and I feel we could greatly benefit from each other. If you’re interested feel free to shoot me an email. I look forward to hearing from you! Excellent blog by the way!|
click here http://school-admin-software.com/
Hiho,
Dr. Roy, never answers comments on his blog. I have much to dissagree with Dr.Roy. He is correct with mainstream science, but can nowhere demonstrate his science is correct, or even possibly physical.
To contact me use [email protected], my spam box. If you try to sell anything pobox will shift your message to the large dump out back, else I will get it! Guday mate -will-
Funny, if you have much to disagree with Roy about why post a statement without including a word about what it is? Perhaps yours is a mind only capable of snide, useless remarks. You also confusedly wrote:
“He is correct with mainstream science, but can nowhere demonstrate his science is correct, or even possibly physical.”
If Roy’s views are in fact science then by definition they would be correct. You need to slow down open a dictionary and begin to learn the meaning of the very words you use.
Have a great day!
Don’t worry about Gore. It’s shameless Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) who’s the danger now. He gives a misinformed speech a week on climate change in the US Senate and as he gains seniority will damage more of the economy than warming will.
All of these promoters of doom-and-gloom are protgs of Paul Erlich.
To rossbrisbane:
“data from multiple lines of sources”
Name one source that shows one correlation at p .05 between CO2 level trends and GW or any other “climate change” phenomenon you would like to pick.
Roy,
The satellites still look pretty good in comparing UAH and RSS after lifting the UAH midsection by 0.06 degrees and the RSS final part by 0.03 degrees:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/rss/to:2005.67/plot/rss/from:2005.67/offset:0.03/plot/uah/to:1992/offset:0.07/plot/uah/from:1992/to:2005.67/offset:0.13/plot/uah/from:2005.67/offset:0.07
Still nothing to consider looking into …?
You’ve got the errors backwards.
Explain.
Has it never occurred to you that maybe you should read the publications of the people who produce these data sets, to see if they really think “there is nothing to consider looking into”?
I mean honestly, my god what a silly statement.
So if you bother do read almost anything that John Christy has written about the UAH data in the last *several* years, you would know that:
UAH hypothesizes that a spurious shift occurred in RSS relative to UAH circa 1992-a shift *upwards* which, at the time, produced a warm bias. This error had it’s origin in the stitching together of satellite records and the differences in the groups diurnal corrections: because RSS’s corrections for diurnal drift appear to be excessive (as evidenced by the drift of RSS in more recent years, especially the AQUA period) You have dealt with this bias by shifting UAH to match RSS when the bias was in RSS too warm, artificially increasing the trend in UAH too warm.
RSS’s more recent drift is cool relative to UAH, which is also spurious.
You’ve seemingly chosen to interpret both as cool biases in alternating datasets, apparently with the goal in mind of increasing the warming trend.
Rather than, I don’t know bothering to know how the satellite records are produced and from their reasoning about what direction the actually errors would be in, to see that they are *opposite* errors, not compounding ones.
Andrew says, January 12, 2014 at 3:50 PM:
“So if you bother do read almost anything that John Christy has written about the UAH data in the last *several* years, you would know that:”
I have and I already know, thank you. That’s not the issue here …
“UAH hypothesizes that a spurious shift occurred in RSS relative to UAH circa 1992-a shift *upwards* which, at the time, produced a warm bias. This error had its origin in the stitching together of satellite records and the differences in the groups diurnal corrections:”
Well, we can be pretty sure that the people at RSS don’t agree. The people at UAH hypothesizing about something doesn’t immediately make it the truth, Andrew. Especially when they’re effectively saying: ‘See, we’re right and they’re wrong.’
And it’s not just the RSS data that don’t agree with the UAH hypothesis. All other global datasets agree that there is a definite upward shift in mean temperatures between the 80s and the 90s. RSS shows this very much in line with both global SST datasets and global land datasets. UAH on the other hand evidently looks distinctly sunken in after ~1992 when compared to all the other global datasets. It shows no clear upward shift until 1997/98.
UAH is the single outlier.
The same goes for the period 2001-2013. All global dataset trends are either flat or slightly negative. UAH is distinctly (and strangely) positive. I claim that RSS in this period is too negative. It should be adjusted a bit up post 2005/06. But UAH is way more off. I claim that its upward trend across this period is artificial and that the time series should be adjusted up significantly before 2005/06.
This is what I think the people at UAH (and RSS) should consider. Because these two simple adjustments would align the two global satellite datasets nearly perfectly.
And that would be a big plus for all. I’m not out to get anyone here. I think highly of all the people behind both the UAH and the RSS datasets. I just want things to be right. UAH and RSS both need to adjust.
You should check with available data, Andrew, rather than gullibly swallow everything your preferred ‘experts’ are claiming to be true.
Until UAH and RSS come into some level of agreement, it’s not clear either is correct, and both should be considered suspect.
I’m still wondering about
Po-Chedley, Stephen, Qiang Fu, 2012: A Bias in the Midtropospheric Channel Warm Target Factor on the NOAA-9 Microwave Sounding Unit. J. Atmos. Oceanic Technol., 29, 646652.
doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JTECH-D-11-00147.1
I still wonder how either of you manage to function without a working brain cell between the two of you.
“The people at UAH hypothesizing about something doesnt immediately make it the truth, Andrew.” No, the fact that this been confirmed when AQUA went up makes it the truth. I already said that but you chose to ignore it to protect yourself from the painful process called “learning.”
“And its not just the RSS data that dont agree with the UAH hypothesis.”
Dead wrong. The spurious shift of RSS relative to UAH is *confirmed* by other data sets. But it is evident you don’t actually have a damn clue what you are doing or the nature of the actual differences among datasets.
I do actually analyze the data. You on the other hand okay with it unintelligently until it gives the answer you want, without actually understanding the data you are playing with.
If you really care, truly care about the data being right maybe you should do something a little more sophisticated than playing with offsets until it “looks right.”
Andrew says, January 13, 2014 at 2:09 AM:
“Dead wrong. The spurious shift of RSS relative to UAH is *confirmed* by other data sets.”
Oh, is it? Precisely what datasets are you referring to? Can you show me how exactly they *confirm*? The spurious shift post 1992 is clearly the UAH one down. You can compare that to any other global dataset.
Sorry Andrew, but you come off as just another angry person with no substance to your arguments.
I’m looking at the actual global data out there. You clearly ain’t.
Further up you said the following: “Youve seemingly chosen to interpret both as cool biases in alternating datasets, apparently with the goal in mind of increasing the warming trend.”
This statement by itself tells me that you don’t understand at all what I’m talking about.
UAH is the one with an upward trend since 2001, not RSS. I want to adjust RSS slightly up post 2005/06 but UAH more up pre 2005/06. The result: a mean satellite trend closer to flat and more in line with all land-based datasets across that period.
Why you act so outright aggressive towards this pretty benign and sensible idea frankly baffles me. I’m not a warmist, Andrew …
Still wrong. Instead of trying to force a measure of the lower troposphere temp to match a measure of the near surface temp over 35 years, you could be focusing on the actual discontinuity itself. It’s clear that RSS warms relative to *every* dataset during the transition from NOAA 11 to NOAA 12. But it is clear you don’t even understand the data or the nature of their differences if you try to “correct” them the way you are.
And you could have fooled me, seeing as you are hell bent on getting things wrong.
Andrew says, January 13, 2014 at 10:03 AM:
“Still wrong. Instead of trying to force a measure of the lower troposphere temp to match a measure of the near surface temp over 35 years, you could be focusing on the actual discontinuity itself. Its clear that RSS warms relative to *every* dataset during the transition from NOAA 11 to NOAA 12. But it is clear you dont even understand the data or the nature of their differences if you try to correct them the way you are.
And you could have fooled me, seeing as you are hell bent on getting things wrong.”
Andrew, I’m still really interested to know exactly what group of datasets you are referring to. (Still not showing anything, just asserting.) Especially since you’re referring to them as *every*. Just above you seemingly discard the idea of comparing tlt datasets with surface datasets, so precisely what datasets are you using, then? And why do the surface datasets follow RSS post 1992 much closer than UAH (distinctly showing the step up in mean global temperatures from the 80s to the 90s)? Do they contain the same faulty discontinuity?
Since you don’t even seem to understand why this shift in global temperatures in the 90s occurred in the first place (being ‘hellbent’ on claiming that there is no step up, because UAH says so), there is no use engaging you further on this issue. (After all, I originally addressed Roy in the first place, not you.)
Here, an illustration just for you:
http://devoidofnulls.wordpress.com/2014/01/13/the-curious-case-of-noaa-12/
And yes, before you ask, the NOAA-12 shift occurs relative to Hadcrut, too. I occurs relative to every dataset.
You seem to be a moron who doesn’t understand the satellite data, hellbent on not understanding the actual areas where concerns arise, or you would not be just brainlessly comparing decadal averages of datasets that are unrelated.
I have literally wasted an entire morning writing up a damn post to *show* that you are wrong. How’s that for “just asserting.”
Now kindly go, and trouble me no more.
Andrew says, January 13, 2014 at 1:47 PM:
“I have literally wasted an entire morning writing up a damn post to *show* that you are wrong. Hows that for just asserting.
Now kindly go, and trouble me no more.”
Hahaha! Nice one. Andrew, it’s you that addressed me, not the other way around. I never asked for you to come crashing in with your vitriolic abuse (and not much more). So stop pretending you own this thread, that this is your discussion, and drop the hoity-toity attitude.
You still don’t understand what I’m talking about or what I base my argument on. You’re not addressing at all what I point to regarding the period of 1992-2005/6, how UAH clearly sinks in post 1992 compared to all other global datasets, while it similarly lifts up again post 2005/06 creating a significant upward trend 2001-2013 that is not found in any other global datasets. It’s in the data, Andrew, for everyone to see.
And also, you still don’t show the global datasets that presumably confirm that RSS is wrong and UAH is right about the 1992 shift. You’re simply rambling on about how I’m wrong and you’re right. Take it elsewhere.
Take note everyone. I showed exactly that other datasets show RSS shifts spuriously upwards at the time when NOAA-12 comes into the mix.
I *showed* this. I showed this specifically with a global dataset.
I understand exactly what you base your argument on, it’s this thing called ignorance. You set out to make all the datasets agree on their trends and play around as much as you can until you get it, instead of actually examining the underlying data with the way the datasets are constructed in mind. Not surprisingly, you get absolutely nonsensical results.
And you are the moronic troll attacking the UAH analysis, so yes, you are the one who should go away until you have educated yourself and ceased to be an ignorant moron.
My last comment.
Andrew’s last ‘comment’.
Q.E.D.
Non sequitur.
So Roy,
You should really consider why the UAH timeseries seem to sink in en bloc between ~1992 and 2005/06, thereby first almost erasing the very clear upward shift evident in all other global temperature datasets from the 80s to the 90s, and then later, when lifting back up post 2005/06, creating an artificial significant upward trend 2001/02-2013 not seen in any other global datasets.
It’s all very easy to see in the available data.
Andrew says, January 14, 2014 at 4:56 PM:
“Non sequitur.”
You’re nothing but a blinkered, screaming troll, Andrew, so this will be my last words to you. Now go away.
Says the brainless troll.
Roy ignores you because your criticisms are stupid and irrelevant. The only real problem is he permits you to confuse people and waste the time of his readership.
You are in fact the one who should go away.
Roy,
Here is what I’m talking about:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:1979/to:1998/compress:6/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:1998/compress:6/offset:0.12/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1979/to:1998/compress:6/offset:0.11/plot/rss/from:1979/to:1998/compress:6/offset/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1998/compress:6/offset:0.07
You see there’s a clear shift ‘down’ in UAH around 1992 compared to all the other datasets in that diagram. You would find the same discrepancy if you included other datasets.
I have not extended this beyond 1998, because there is something really disturbing happening at that time. Bob Tisdale among others have demonstrated how HadCRU artificially shifted their whole timeseries up in one jolt across the seam between two different SST data sources in the transition between 1997 and ’98.
This clear error in calibration has never been resolved or even addressed by UKMO, even when they changed from 3 to 4, when they really should’ve discovered it. Instead, it seems they did know about it, but rather chose to try and cover it up by lifting their series somewhat a few years before the shift in 1997/98 and leaving the actual shift more or less in place.
With the proper down-adjustment of the HadCRUt3 series, the comparison to RSS up until 2001 would look like this:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:1998/compress:6/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2001.5/compress:6/offset:-0.064/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2001.5/compress:6/offset:0.13
And with UAH:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:1998/compress:6/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/to:2001.5/compress:6/offset:-0.064/plot/uah/from:1979/to:2001.5/compress:6/offset:0.22
Remember, HadCRUt3 is the land+ocean dataset with the smallest trend over this period, especially with the adjustment down in 1998.
Now, what happens in the new millenium? UAH jumps back up again sometime in 2005, creating a distinct and significant upward trend since 2001 that is not seen in other datasets, not even in the highly adjusted GISTEMP LOTI dataset.
First, I’ve applied my upward adjustment (+0.03) post 2005 to RSS. Here’s the result:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/compress:6/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/compress:6/offset:0.13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/compress:6/offset:0.1/plot/rss/from:2001/to:2005.67/compress:6/plot/rss/from:2005.67/compress:6/offset:0.03
Then compare this to (the unadjusted) UAH:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2001/compress:6/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/compress:6/offset:0.13/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/compress:6/offset:0.1/plot/uah/from:2001/compress:6/offset:0.1
All this (both the distinctly lower trend before 2001 and the the significantly higher trend after 2001) originates in that UAH midsection (1992-2005) falling in. It can all be resolved by lifting this part en bloc by 0.06 degrees:
http://woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1979/to:1998/compress:6/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1998/compress:6/offset:-0.064/plot/uah/from:1979/to:1992/compress:6/offset:-0.2/plot/uah/from:1992/to:2005.67/compress:6/offset:-0.14/plot/uah/from:2005.67/compress:6/offset:-0.2/plot/rss/from:1979/to:2005.67/compress:6/offset:-0.27/plot/rss/from:2005.67/compress:6/offset:-0.24
Now you see the distinct steps in 1986-88 and 1997-98 and the flat plateaus in between … That’s all process-related.
ENSO.
Still a brainless troll spewing the same debunked nonsense.
Those are are not “errors”. They are all “engineering Aw Shits”. How else are the “engineers” ever sopposed to “learn”?
Follow the CO2 through its natural cycle. The only path that makes sense (in a mass-balance context) is that is converted to carbonate rock in seawater.
The quantity of ambient CO2 (392 parts per million) in the atmosphere is trivial. The 2012 increase was 8 ppm. That is 0.04% of human CO2 emissions, and 0.00013% of total human and natural emissions. That means that the earth re-absorbed 99.9987% of the CO2 emitted from all sources.
Where did it all go? Seawater is an obvious answer. But CO2 doesn’t remain in seawater long. Seawater is rich in CaO and MgO ions. Obviously, the CO2 combined with CaO and MgO to form carbonate rock.
This can take place directly as dissolved CO2 combines with dissolved Ca and Mg (as well as Na, K, Li, and other alkaline metals. It certainly occurs as molluscs and corals and other plants & animals utilize these chemicals to form shells and exoskeletons. This process is known to occur at massive rates.
There are no facts in this materials balance to support any “long” lead times. In fact the lead times appear to be extremely short; as does the residence time of CO2 in the ambient atmosphere..
Your CO2 math is seriously deficient.
Please, study harder.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/theroyalfamily/4952918/Prince-Charles-we-have-100-months-to-save-the-world.html
So, Price Charles’s forecast matures in June 2017; just over 3 years.
Actually, Jim, that article is dated March of 2009 so according to Prince Charles’ prediction, it’s already too late. Why are people not held to account for this crap? Since it’s too late to save the world, will they now shut up? Don’t bet on it. They’ll just change the goalposts and it will now be 2017 and then 2020 and then 2023.
Sorry, my bad Jim. After reviewing it further I realize he said 100 months from 2009 which, as you stated, would make it 2017. The rest of my statement still stands. I wonder why he chose 100 months? Was there any science behind that, or was it because it’s a nice round number?
It has been my experience that perfect round numbers are usually pulled OOTA.
Hot Potato, the problem lies with the Fifth Estate; the main stream media. In the UK the BBC and many other news presenters are solidly behind the CAGW scam. So they don’t check up on these sorts of wild predictions, and hold the original perpetrators to account. When it comes to June 2017, no-one will bother to point out that Prince Charles (maybe King Charles III by that time) was just plain wrong.
I agree.
And in the news I read that the BBC has rigged the opinion for many years.
WWF
Oct 2009
The world must start a “complete” shift to a low carbon economy by 2014 or risk making dangerous climate change almost inevitable, a report warned today.
That is why we only have until 2014 to set the wheels in motion. Beyond this, a war- footing may be the only option remaining, with no guarantee of success.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/oct/19/wwf-low-carbon-technologies
handjive:
Do me a favour and let WWF know that I have gone to the bank to withdraw all of my money and will personally hand deliver it to them so that they can start the shift to low carbon.
rossbrisbane says on January 10, 2014 at 5:27 PM:
How on earth can a Christian believer and scientist be so so entrenched in a conservative political system in the USA that looks more and more ridiculous as the years go on about climate denial.
= = = = = = = = = = = = =
Please explain your whole posting in general and the sentence reprinted above in in particular.
Funny how atheist leftists always think they know more about Christianity that do Christians. And they cannot figure out their fatal contradiction.
A progressive only ever reads the bible we they think it will be useful to find a gotcha against a conservative that believes in the bible.
So for example, I saw some leftist on Hannity on Fox the other week, the topic was unemployment benefits extension. The leftist quotes the bible to the effect that Jesus told the disciples to give up their wealth and give it to the poor.
Very good my leftist friend. You’ve proven you can read. Now read the entire bible. What does it say about unemployment benefits?
2 Thessalonians 3:10 “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.”
Hm, kinda sounds like God doesn’t want people to get endless unemployment benefits.
Which, kinda illustrates how stupid it was of her to try and use the bible to make her argument.
Not to mention; ‘giving wealth to the poor’ is entirely different & usually the exact opposite of ‘giving wealth to the government’
@Andrew “For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat.
That was said in a much simpler time, before governments run by the corporate mentality found that built-in unemployment worked best for them. The saying would have merit today if there were enough jobs to go around, but here in Canada we run an official unemployment rate between 5 and 10% which is estimated to be double that rate when those excluded unemployed are included.
Hey, I’m sympathetic to the unemployed. But extending unemployment benefits indefinitely doesn’t give them a job. And it doesn’t help people who aren’t counted in our unemployment numbers at all. They aren’t eligible, at least in America, because they have never worked and/or aren’t looking for work.
(BTW, yeah, I do the math very similarly here, if the labor force had continued to grow, instead of shrinking since May 2009, which has *never happened* since the labor force series began that I downloaded from the St Louis Fed website, there should be an additional 9.5 million people in the labor force today in the US that aren’t-and since none of those 9.5 million have a job, the *real* number jumps from 6.5% to 13.2%-and that number has been *growing* not shrinking since the “end” of the recession.)
Who there a better Christian, honest atheist, whether liar “orthodox”?
Dr. Spencer can be seen next blow polar vortex in the Great Lakes region.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat_a_f/gif_files/gfs_z70_nh_f120.gif
The conclusion I have come to is that Al Gore was pushing this Cap-n-Trade along with his Carbon Credits monopoly stock, knowing that the solar cycle predicted this minimum al along but he consistently dismissed any involvement in warming from the sun. Remember the analogies he used with the massive flood lights used at special events that light up the night sky and then he turned on a pen-light. Once Cap-N-Trade got approved, and once cap-n-tax was in place the solar cycle would kick in cooling the earth. However, he would continue to dismiss the Sun and show a decrease in CO2. he would remind us about all his blabber about the fact that it was the rate of change of CO2 that was causing the problem and since Cap-n-Tax reduced the rate of change he had fixed the problem. And get another Nobel Prize.
However, after writing all that out, I now think, no I know, that Al Gore is just not that smart, and it is and was a SCAM.
Roy Spencer wrote:
Oh, I know. All that extra energy, hundredths of a degree of it, could be hiding in the deep ocean.
I am surprised a climate scientist would write this.
Surely, Dr. Spencer should know thet the ocean’s heat capacity (mass * specific heat) is about 1000 times the atmosphere’s.
He would, I’m sure, never write what he did here in a scientific paper — it’d be laughed out of peer review.
So I wonder why he repeats it here, if it wouldn’t work there. Is that the purpose of this blog?
Better to look high up, so at 30 km.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/10hPa/orthographic=-33.27,86.59,1106
I am sure the sceptism is not related to the heat capacities of the atmosphere and the oceans, but rather relying on differences of a few hundreths of a degree in order to cling on to a theory that isn’t matching the reality.
If we had been told 10 years ago that our measured temperatures would stabilise and that the heat would go into the deep oceans, I would be fine with that explanation, but using that explanation in hindsight isn’t convincing to me.
It doesn’t take a lot of skill to measure temperature to a resolution of a thousandth of a degree.
Measuring temperature to an accuracy of a thousandth of a degree is an entirely different matter, and I suspect that this is what the sceptism is about, and given the extreme conditions that the instrument travels through, that sceptism seems reasonable to me.
Also given the scarcity of data points in the deep oceans.
What of the proven scientific fact that HEAT rises. Even the HEAT in your hot water heater RISES. Even heat in salt water RISES. In reality you ONLY have the MASS at the top few inches Centimeters of the ocean. HEAT RISES!
Any GOOD environmentalist knows this. Many solar domestic hot water heaters take advantage of this principle. You can wrap a tank with a coil of tubing at the bottom of the tank where the water is cold, circulate water warmed by the sun through the coil. and wala! the water in the tank is heated. Even on cloudy days when the water circulating through the coils is only 70 D F or 20 D C the water at the top of the tank can reach 100 D F or 40 D C or so. AND that is why you put the coil at the BOTTOM of the tank. So HOW does the heat HIDE in the DEPTHS of the ocean. PLEASE! Would one of the astute readers of this page explain that to me?
Err…
“So HOW does the heat HIDE in the DEPTHS of the ocean. PLEASE! Would one of the astute readers of this page explain that to me?”
Ok it seems someone has too…
Sea-water is salty as you stated, but this crucially alters the density of water – so creating a halocline.
Below from Wiki is a plot of temp & salinity vs depth in the Arctic ocean.
Note warmer water lying under the less salty ~200m depth of water at the surface, with the warmest water lying between ~200m and ~400m thence with a slow fall-off to the bottom – but still, at 0C, warmer than the surface ~100m of water by ~1.5C
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Arctic_sea_temperature_salinity_plot.svg
I can see that and as being an ex-submariner am aware of it. We used it to hid from other ships/subs.
That still does not explain to me how HEAT, or the water heated by either the geothermal vents, closeness to the core of the earth (like really deep mines are above several hundred degrees due to the heat of the core) or as the AGW group claims that the sun will heat the ocean and that HEAT will sink to the depths of the ocean. That defies physics. Hot air rises, hot water rises. If this halocline would trap the oceans heat it would be just as hot as a deep mine.
Something just does not compute. If this were the case, it could easily proved/disproved by taking a 100 foot tall tank, filling the bottom third with concentrated salt water, putting a coil of pipe/tubing at the very bottom and circulating water through the tank at just a few degrees above that of the water temperature at this level. I can not envision all of the heat staying in the salt water. I just can not imagine how that could possibly happen.
The concentrated salt water (CSW) at the bottom would get warmer, that heated CSW would rise to the top of the CSW, and there, at the interface, it would transfer to the less salty water above it.
These interfaces are almost like a mirror. Sonar pounces off of them like a solid surface. There has to be a transfer of the heat even if the water is not exchanged.
PS
The provided chart is for Artic sea, with a surface temp at 0 C. However I have seen Haloclines in the Pacific Ocean with surface Temps well above 70 degrees F, warm enough to swim in.
I will conceded to the fact that it is possible that due to the specific heat capacity of the concentrated salt water (CSW) due to both its level of salt and depth, and whatever those factors have on the capability of warmer CSW to rise and the speed at which it rises. I can imagine conditions in which it would slow down the transfer of heat from the earths core causing the temperature chart provided. As I was born on a farm and raised there, I am well aware of the fact that near, but above, the point of freezing water is denser and sinks, thus water freezes from the top down. Do not know how salt, depth, and pressure affect all of this.
@David A “…I wonder why he {Roy} repeats it here…”
Ever heard of tongue-in-cheek humour, David?
The alarmists are claiming the missing warming is hiding in the oceans. The so-called missing warming amounts to 0.01 C. Roy was obviously having a bit of fun by claiming the 0.01 C must be hidden in the ocean.
The longer global warming waits, the more difficult it’s going to be for it to ever show up.
Given the diminishing returns of added CO2 on the GH effect, much of the forcing our contribution can ever have is already in effect right now, alongside record shattering cold and flat global trends.
Of course the theory relies entirely on computer simulated H2O feedback loops to do what our added trace of CO2 never can, so the sensitivity of those simulations has to be ever increased to make up for the lack of actual observed direct forcing. Scientifically this makes the theory ever more tenuous. But what has science ever had to do with the global warming movement?
After the media/political reaction to the recent cold, does anybody doubt for a second- that if a new glacial period descended on us- global warming would be given full credit?
I didn’t read everyone’s post, but did anyone note how well off financially AlGore is due to some of his political games playing? If not, I’d say he has been very successful. Weather (note pun) or not he was accurate and truthful are different subjects.
True, wonder if his victims can sue for restitution?
he made 4100M on a radio station he started and then flipped. That is real money yet no one seems to mention this and you fantasize he made it in the lecture circuit. get the facts
It is clear that polar vortex is blocked in the stratosphere over Siberia.
http://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/isobaric/70hPa/orthographic=12.14,99.28,1106
Temperature jump in the upper stratosphere.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/stratosphere/strat-trop/gif_files/time_pres_TEMP_ANOM_JFM_NH_2014.gif
According to Microsoft Excel, the Jan 2006 – Dec 2013 linear trend in UAH v5.6 is 0.11 deg C per decade. A total warming of 0.09 deg C in 8 years. Not much, but over such a short period it’s sufficient to lend a noticeable up-slope to a linear trend line if added to the charted data.
It appears that Dr Spencer has base lined the series to January 2006. Fair enough, Jan 2006 is the start month and using it as the anomaly base doesn’t alter the trend. However, it makes the Jan 2006 value 0.00 instead of 0.20(C), which is the 1981-2010 UAH anomaly value for that month.
This means that the horizontal ‘zero line’, which is prominently displayed on the chart, runs more closely through the data series than would have been the case had the v5.6 UAH anomalies been used. There isn’t anything wrong with this, but in the absence of a linear trend line, I believe it enhances a false impression of flatness in chart. I trust this wasn’t done purposely.
The parameters of the graph are driven by the timing of Al Gore’s warning that we had ten years to fix the problem. Given that essentially nothing has been done to fix the problem — except several politically boondoogles that paid well for the politically connected but with significant negative unintended consequences — then the graph is appropriate to show what has happened to temperatures since that warning.
@Final Nail “According to Microsoft Excel, the Jan 2006 Dec 2013 linear trend in UAH v5.6 is 0.11 deg C per decade”.
Included in that range are extreme lows and highs in 2008 and 2010. It will take a while for such extremes to average out.
The IPCC admitted in AR5 that the trend from 1998 – 2013 is 0.05 C/decade and that 0.11 trend is in the middle of that range. Also, the 30 year UAH report indicates a true warming of about 0.09 C/decade.
That includes a sudden spurt of about 0.25 C in 2001 following the 1998 El Nino extreme that leveled off.
Your point is well taken. However, I would also note that in some graphs the PRESENCE of a linear trend line enhances a false impression of the significance of the trend.
Impact on the U.S. polar vortex on 17 January. The height of about 20 km.
http://oi44.tinypic.com/n37rkx.jpg
Perhaps I’m hearing him incorrectly but in the speech Al Gore says that a recent paper suggests that the polar ice could be gone in summer in 7 years….’could’ be gone..not will be gone.
In my world this is not a prediction.
Then what is the point of saying it?
“could be gone..not will be gone.
In my world this is not a prediction.”
Could be wrong, will be wrong. This is not a prediction:-)
To make such a statement of “could” is a call for action. “We must do what I prescribe to combat the problem because there is too much of a likelihood that it will happen for us to ignore it.”
Steve Mennie,
Hmmh! Perhaps you’re correct but then the statement becomes all the more ridiculous. An enormous meteor could strike the city of New York and wipe it off the map in the next 5 years. Clearly he doesn’t intend merely to generate random hypothetical comments. He implied that unless we acted immediately the northern polar ice cap could disappear in a few years. This proves simply delusional for several reasons.
1. The atmosphere currently holds ~400ppm (and growing) of CO2. Mona Loa data indicates the CO2 levels in the atmosphere have grown since measurements began in 1958 except for 2 years where levels remain approximately the same. CO2 levels in the 1880’s fell around 280ppm supposedly. CO2 levels have increased 2-3ppm/yr at least since the 1980’s and are not far from that rate now. If everyone reading this blog (and likely everyone in the country) could cease all activity including breathing the rate of CO2 increase will almost certainly remain at least unchanged. NO ONE HAS ANY CLUE HOW TO INDUCE THE EARTH’S 7 BILLION PEOPLE AND GROWING TO REDUCE THEIR ATMOSPHERIC CO2 CONTRIBUTION. Certainly not the IPCC. By all means if anyone has a secret scheme to reduce atmospheric CO2 levels please present it. Perhaps we should borrow even more money to fund another geo-engineering scheme to can give everyone a belly-laugh. Quick! Build many tall smokestacks and fill the sky with enough particulate debris to block the sun! Don’t be lazy get crackin!
2. If the northern polar ice cap, millions of square miles of tundra and permofrost remains after all the “green-house” gasses spewed by we humans for over a century, does it not seem a little odd that it will suddenly disappear in 5 years unless everyone stops driving their SUV’s? Oh! but burning the BTU’s whining on web pages about climate change won’t have any impact at all! All this leads me to…
3. WE’RE STILL IN AN ICE-AGE!!! The permafrost remains include untold millions of mammoths, mastadons, dyre wolves, tropical vegetation, etc. frozen in altitudes far too cold support such life now. Does anyone really believe IT IS NEVER SUPPOSED TO THAW?!!!!! If the polar ice caps did melt, why would that surprise anyone? Do you not think it’s more surprising that the ICE AGE should never end? Frankly, if we’ve been doing anything to speed up the warming process despite bizarrely feigned attempts to make everyone feel guilty about it for over 100 years doesn’t that tell you what people REALLY WANT despite all the politically driven opinion polls?
4. If the only thing that will SAVE the planet from leaving the ICE AGE is to adopt a CAP AND TRADE scheme to help Al and friends fund their carbon-rich lifestyles perhaps it’s time to buy Canadian farm-land. Of course the recent temp maps the climate weasles insist have nothing to do with climate proves it’s far too cold and the ICE AGE rages on! Hey maybe someone can direct those Russian petrol engineers through the STILL FROZEN ARCTIC!
Have a great day!
To whom (among the Warmist Community) it may concern,
For all those still imbibing the CAGW miasma you may find the following report from Norway interesting:
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/it-got-so-cold-so-quickly-in-this-norweigan-bay-that-it-froze-a-bunch-of-fish-swimming-in-it-232504960.html
As I’ve mentioned numerous times, in numerous ways on this blog site historically the cold kills far more people than excessive heat and WE’RE NOT OUT OF THE ICE AGE YET!!!
Have a great day!
Hello friends, how is the whole thing, and what you wish for to say about this piece of writing, in my view its really remarkable in support of me.|
http://meteomind.net/ http://meteomind.net/
Heya i am for the first time here. I found this board and I in finding It really helpful & it helped me out a lot. I hope to offer something back and aid others such as you aided me.|
http://www.thymome.com http://thymome.com/
Greetings from Idaho! I’m bored at work so I decided to browse your website on my iphone during lunch break. I love the information you provide here and can’t wait to take a look when I get home. I’m amazed at how quick your blog loaded on my cell phone .. I’m not even using WIFI, just 3G .. Anyhow, superb site!|
http://haberkral.com http://haberkral.com/
It’s going to be end of mine day, however before end I am reading this wonderful post to improve my knowledge.|
pendletoncenterumc.org/ http://pendletoncenterumc.org/
Great article! That is the kind of info that are meant to be shared across the internet. Disgrace on Google for no longer positioning this publish higher! Come on over and discuss with my site . Thanks =)|
2 futuro http://2futuro.org/
Howdy! I could have sworn I’ve been to this blog before but after reading through some of the post I realized it’s new to me. Anyways, I’m definitely happy I found it and I’ll be book-marking and checking back often!|
http://www.sabznameh.org/ http://sabznameh.org/
What’s up, I wish for to subscribe for this web site to take latest updates, therefore where can i do it please help.|
dict of travel http://www.dictoftravel.com/
Post writing is also a excitement, if you know then you can write if not it is complex to write.|
outdoor studio photography http://outdoorstudiophotography.com/
Fastidious replies in return of this matter with genuine arguments and explaining the whole thing on the topic of that.|
homepage http://scoutcard.net/
Write more, thats all I have to say. Literally, it seems as though you relied on the video to make your point. You obviously know what youre talking about, why waste your intelligence on just posting videos to your weblog when you could be giving us something informative to read?|
click here http://michelepirro.net/
I really like reading through a post that will make people think. Also, thanks for permitting me to comment!|
http://www.702mobilephoto.com http://702mobilephoto.com/
I every time spent my half an hour to read this webpage’s content all the time along with a mug of coffee.|
desparitalia http://desparitalia.net/
Currently it seems like Expression Engine is the top blogging platform available right now. (from what I’ve read) Is that what you’re using on your blog?|
click here http://sunnyplace4shadypeople.com/
WOW just what I was searching for. Came here by searching for %meta_keyword%|
denizyesiltepe.com http://denizyesiltepe.com/
Wow, this paragraph is nice, my sister is analyzing these things, so I am going to tell her.|
http://www.humoristonloan.com/ http://humoristonloan.com/
What happened to the hockey stick theory?
Tim Wells,
Apparently, the followers and possibly the creator have been hit in the head by the rapidly accelerating PUCK known as COLD HARD FACTS! Or perhaps they’ve been stuck in the ice! Remember the warmista’s stuck in the Antarctic and of course recently…
http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/oddnews/it-got-so-cold-so-quickly-in-this-norweigan-bay-that-it-froze-a-bunch-of-fish-swimming-in-it-232504960.html
Have a great day!
The hockey stick data is still there and recently the original author has sued for libel those who say it is a fraud. so if you want a piece of that legal action you too can be sued for spreading libel. It is a well established fact.
B Parson,
Enjoyed your fascinatingly delusional comment! From what I understand, the hockey stick THEORY is a PRESUMED reconstruction of global temps going back hundreds & thousands of years. Since satellites capable of measuring global temperatures only existed since 1979, what “established fact” are you referring too? Proxy data is CURRENT DATA that modelers use to infer or make claims, based on numerous assumptions, about past conditions and/or events. Proxy data is not measurement of past conditions and/or events! You have only established one clear fact. That you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Oh! BTW if you truly wish to see individuals sued or perhaps imprisoned for believing the hockey stick theory to be a fraud that states better than anything else can that you should seek counseling and should stay away from sharp objects! Btw, do you really believe everyone who said the hockey stick theory is a fraud is being sued?!!!
Have a great day!
Since when is challenging a “scientific” theory libelous? Your
viewpoint reflects a disturbingly totalitarian state of mind.
Hiho, this is a public, and a polite question for any, but directed to Dr. Spencer! Do you or anyone have any measurements of “any thermal radiative flux from anywhere on the surface of the Earth? All seems to be some theoretical fantasy! Where were such measurements of outgoing thermal radiative “flux”, not trhe so called “radiance” ever measured?
At what wavelength interval? I will accept 8-13.6 microns. What was the source and destination temperatures? What was the emissivity of the source, absorbtivity of the destination, and what was the temperature and transmissivity of the intervening absorptive matter? Without such measured data, nothing can ever be accepted, even on a theoretical basis. Can you show even one sloppy demonstration of what you claim as Earth surfaceradiation?
Suppose another 20 years go by with no warming and there is even cooling.
And this cooling is not caused by mankind or by the sun.
Then will there be inquires into the global warming scare ? Will the media hold the scientists screaming warming accountable ? Will there be apologies ? Will textbooks be written on how science made such a mistake ?
Well it’s been 15 already.. what happened when the global cooling scare failed to materialize?
Blaming bad weather on humans angering the weather Gods is the most ancient superstition of mankind- I doubt that will ever change.
if it is a hundred years that heat is still going to come back out because some of the turn over times for water in the ocean are hundreds of years. Don’t worry, something has been started here that will have consequences for centuries and in the future they will marvel that non scientists were so convinced they were right, and wonder why they ignored all the real scientists while the Kochs go from being worth tens of billions to hundreds of billions, and you guys think Gore is getting rich off a scam and you ignore the real scam right under your noses. You look like fools now and to your grandchildren you are going to look criminally insane
Dr. Spencer, it appears a bunch of ‘bots’ have ‘attacked’ this page – check out the last 30 or so posts. Maybe you could ‘close it ‘ to comments. Especially to David Appell . . I’ve seen his tripe elsehwhere . . . ! 🙂 🙂 🙂
David, if you read this and reply, I don’t care . .have fun, and get over yourself .
Can anybody give me Al Gores Carbon footprint, versus the average persons. I assume people like Al Gore and Prince Charles aren’t practicing what they preach. Not that I believe man is that responsible for the warming, it is the Sun.
Tim W,
Al’s Sasquach footprint Size falls somewhere near 100+ triple D.
Have a great day!
Actually, to correct my previous post the footprint should be 1000+ triple C (for carbon).
Have a great day!
Godzilla
Will Janoschka says:
January 16, 2014 at 8:41 PM
Do you or anyone have any measurements of any thermal radiative flux from anywhere on the surface of the Earth?…. not the so called radiance
The question is worrying as phrased. What do you think is the difference between radiance and what you confusingly call thermal radiative flux. For example, what units are they expressed in.
There are many measurements of radiation from the surface of the earth, made by satellites and some made just a few metres above the ground. You can easily find those for yourself, but I suspect that you have confused yourself somehow into thinking thermal radiation is different from other electromagnetic radiation. Is that the problem?
All electromagnetic radiation transports energy at the speed of light by means of self-propagating electric and magnetic fields. Heat is simply a form of energy.
Or did you mean radiation incident on the earths surface, rather than coming from it? Same thing, loads of actual measurements.
Hi MikeB.
It’s a long time that I continue to ask for the very same proof of how much energy enters (easier to do) and how much energy exits the globe (harder to do).
Just for limiting the question to the LWIR outgoing energy, there is very difference between the normal transmittance (the one measured by satellites and simulated by models) and the diffused transmittance, AFIK never measured till today.
The first is just the measurement of how much the atmosphere leaves the LWIR pass through unchanged, while the second (the diffused one, never measured) is the true measurement of the outgoing energy in the LWIR window.
AFIK the satellites lose all the radiation outgoing form the atmosphere by emission which has angle different by the nadir, their FOV is usually fractions of degrees.
All that atmospheric scattered radiation has a complementary spectrum if compared to the one seen at the nadir (the one with the famous pit at 650cm-1 that anybody well know).
The only way to measure the whole effective outgoing radiation is to place an integrative sphere in front of the satellite spectrometer slit, so that the satellite could see the whole dish of the Earth when it passes over any singular point of the globe surface and integrating all those measurements we will have the true outgoing energy spectrum.
I really don’t know if the 650cm-1 pit could be still there in that “true outgoing energy graph”, if yes it should be far more less evident than the one shown by the normal transmittance we seen until today.
The whole above applies for the global re-emitted SWIR too and any other radiation outgoing from a quasi-spherical radiating body covered by any electromagnetic active gas which bends the radiation from the barycenter of the quasi-spherical body.
Maybe I’m wrong of course, I’m just an electronic engineer, but I would like that a scientist tell me where I wrong in that.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
I just remembered that in English the right names are “regular transmittance” (not “normal”) and “diffuse transmittance” (not “diffused”).
I’m Italian and sometimes I use the wrong words.
Massimo
The difference is flux has the units of power/unit-area. radiance has the units of power/(unit-area x steradian) radiance is energy independeant of all three dimensions and time. It is a potential vector (poynting vector). The only thermal radiative flux generated is proportional to the vector summation of all poynting vectors at that location. this is the meaning the two t^4 terms inside the parentheses of the S-B equation. A difference in opposing radiative potentials. Flux is always uni-directional. In the measurements only apparant radiance is measured never flux. The amount of thermal radiant flux to and from the earths surface has never been measured.
What a load of confusing tosh.
Steradians are dimensionless and so there is no real difference between radiance and what you call flux. One is fixed proportion of the other and so, if you measure one, you have ameasure of the other.
Radiance is energy independent of all there dimensions and time. Nonsense. Radiance is measure of Power, which is energy per unit time, and so radiance is obviously not independent of either.
.some confusing irrelevant nonsense about Poynting vectors follows Forget them. Learn the basics first
this is the meaning the two t^4 terms inside the parentheses of the S-B equation. There are not two t^4 terms in the S-B equation, only one. Look it up and try to understand it. The S-B equation says how much POWER a warm body will radiate. It depends only on the bodys own temperature (not that of its surroundings) and the bodys emissivity.
You have clearly become very confused. If you want help to understand the basics, I suggest reading http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/
And that goes for anyone else similarly confused.
Hi MikeB.
You wrote:
“Steradians are dimensionless and so there is no real difference between radiance and what you call flux. One is fixed proportion of the other and so, if you measure one, you have ameasure of the other.”
Hummmm… Are you sure about that?
The simple fact that steradians are dimensionless no way means that you can conclude that flux and radiance are the same things.
You are right if, and only if, the flux is homogeneous in any directions, but look what happens at about 34km of altitude if you move the spectrometer field of view form nadir to the so called “limb view”:
http://www.atmos-chem-phys.net/6/5025/2006/acp-6-5025-2006.pdf
See upper graph of figure 3 on page 5027.
From your point of view, what’s the radiance that passed through that balloon?
Is it equal to the vertical or the limb flux?
Note that the nadir flux is almost complementary to the “limb view”, and since the atmosphere is almost spherical that radiation should be outgoing the planet indeed.
For this reason I’m still not convinced that men ever measured the outgoing effective LWIR radiation just looking the nadir views of the satellites.
But I could be wrong of course, still waiting for an explanation.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Interesting and valuable way of considering the partially emitting atmosphere. Thank you I must think about that.
Thinking of what you say. Even more interesting is your question, “From your point of view, whats the radiance that passed through that balloon?”.
Radiance is an intensive property of a surface temperature, as decreased by surface emissivity at that temperature. It does not increase or vary with increasing surface area. Radiance is but a potential that can never be passed through any surface. Radiative flux can be passed through an orthagonal area. Flux is a directional vector it can only pass “through” an orthagonal surface in one orthagonal direction, never in opposing directuons This is not physics but only proper mathematics. If you shitcan proper mathematics, you also shitcan all of physics! And thinking, perhaps all of science!
MikeB says: “What a load of confusing tosh.
Steradians are dimensionless and so there is no real difference between radiance and what you call flux. One is fixed proportion of the other and so, if you measure one, you have a measure of the other.”
So you claim that all angles are dimensionless. Wrong! Angles have the dmension of “radian” (lengh/distance), not scalar => limit 2PI radians. (A 2D circle). Solid angle, has the dimension of “steradian” (area/distance^2), not scalar => limit 4PI steradians (A whole 3D sphere of solid angle). That is the difference between “radiance” and “potential flux “to” near zero Kelvin”. I suggest You contact someone that has learned high school Geometry and Trignometry!
WillJ says; Radiance is energy independent of all three dimensions and time.
MikeB says:MikeB says:”Nonsense. Radiance is measure of Power, which is energy per unit time, and so radiance is obviously not independent of either.”
Wrong! Power is energy/time, normalizing “time” Flux is Power/area,
normalizing two orthognal linear lengths, per by steradians normalizes distance. The Sun with a consant thermal “energy” measured through non absorptive media (vacuum) has exactly the same “radiance” nomatter where you are including distance from.
MikeB says: .some confusing irrelevant nonsense about Poynting vectors follows Forget them. Learn the basics first
WillJ says; this is the meaning the two t^4 terms inside the parentheses of the S-B equation.
MikeB says:”There are not two t^4 terms in the S-B equation, only one. Look it up and try to understand it. The S-B equation says how much POWER a warm body will radiate. It depends only on the bodys own temperature (not that of its surroundings) and the bodys emissivity.”
There are indeed two t^4 terms inside the parentheses of the S-B equation. Look it up and try to understand it. Please get somone that understands mathematics and the true meaning of parentheses in a proper mathematical equations. The parentheses demand evaluating the contents as one thermal radiative potential difference. Never to be evaluated as two opposing potentials with respect to near absolute zero.
MikeB says: You have clearly become very confused. If you want help to understand the basics, I suggest reading http://scienceofdoom.com/roadmap/confusion-over-the-basics/
And that goes for anyone else similarly confused.
You have clearly become very confused. If you want help to understand, I suggest you buy a beer for, a ME that understands thermodynanics, a EE that understands electromagnetic radiation, and a mathmatician that understands the math used in both. Three near orthognal POVs. Listen carefully to how they present their POV to each other, when someone else is buying the beer!! Keep your mouth shut or you will learn nothing. No one can learn while they are speaking. Take what you may tentatively learn and verify it in your own terms.
Have you looked in a mirror recently?
Hi WillJ,
“Radiance is an intensive property of a surface temperature, as decreased by surface emissivity at that temperature. It does not increase or vary with increasing surface area. Radiance is but a potential that can never be passed through any surface.”
Of course Will. Maybe I used the bad words, what I meant there is that (without any power source inside the object of the surface considered) in an equilibrium state the radiance (which is the quantity of radiation that is emitted from a surface at a certain temperature) must equals the incoming radiance. I used “that passed through” meaning “that impinges the surface and is re-emitted”.
Sorry I’m just an engineer, not a scientist and I know that sometimes I use bad wording.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
OK, youve done enough to prove that you dont understand anything; you can stop now.
You should realise that wilful ignorance does not help the sceptic cause. It only demonstrates to Alarmists that sceptics are indeed quite stupid and scientifically illiterate. Please desist.
Angles are dimensionless. Dont you realise that length and distance are essentially the same thing. Both are measured in metres and so when you divide one by the other you get a dimensionless result? Similarly for solid angle, applying dimensional analysis we have area (square metres) divided by metres times metres. Again dimensionless. So, you prove to the world that you dont understand basic mathematics either.
As for the Stefan-Boltzmann equation you could easily have looked that up because that is the way you learn – but you didnt, preferring ignorance to knowledge.
I am always willing to help someone who is temporarily confused but I have no time to waste arguing with a fool for, as Mark Twain says,
Never argue with a fool, onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.
bye
Without getting into all the technical details, what is the proper temperature for earth? Would there be as big a panic by alarmists should the temperature trend be BELOW what is considered “normal”? Why is warming considered only to produce disaster when it HAS been warmer than now by a good bit and civilization thrived (medieval warming period and Roman warming period)? How does taxation stop the climate from warming? What is considered to be the natural variation of the climate?
Simple fact is that computer models are created by humans and therefore are flawed. They produce what those who built them want them to produce. In fact, many models have been tested with COOLING numbers and found to still predict warming. How can that happen?
MikeB
I have been reading your heated debate and unneeded name calling and belittlement of Will Janoschka. I looked up the Stefan-Boltzmann equation.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/thermo/stefan.html
There are two terms in the equation. You need the temperature of the radiating body and the temp of its surroundings to find the net radiated power.
Civil discussion is much better for learing. If someone is wrong the attack is not needed. Attacks are what low-self esteem people need to do in order to prove they are superior to those around them. If someone is wrong in their understanding explain why then we all learn something. The emotional part of your posts is not the best way to teach.
Tell me Norman, how many fools do I have to deal with at one time? If you follow your own link you will see that the S-B equation has just one T^4 term. The Stephan-Boltzmann law is simply
Power = sigma * T^ 4.
Unfortunately for you, the page you link to also has an equation for heat loss, which has two T^4 terms, but this is NOT the Stephan-Boltzmann Law, which is given at the top of the page. This has misled you. or you are being deliberately obtuse? My advice is – if you dont understand what you are talking about, like poor Will Janoschka dont!!!!
If someone is wrong in their understanding explain why then we all learn something that I agree with, but I tried that and it didnt work.
Having been pointed in the right direction there is no excuse for creative ignorance. Do I sound exasperated? Damn right.
Mike B,
Some people require time and patience to communicate with because they may or may not possess your level of understanding. If you don’t have the time, don’t make the effort.
You curiously claimed:
“I am always willing to help someone who is temporarily confused but I have no time to waste arguing with a fool for, as Mark Twain says,
Never argue with a fool, onlookers might not be able to tell the difference.”
and later:
“If someone is wrong in their understanding explain why then we all learn something that I agree with, but I tried that and it didnt work. Having been pointed in the right direction there is no excuse for creative ignorance.”
This only means you their ignorance apparently exceeds your willingness to correct. However, you belie this claim by continually trying to correct them. Why frustrate yourself?
“Anger is an acid that can do more harm to the vessel in which it is stored than to anything on which it is poured.”
Mark Twain
A paragraph above should read:
This only means their ignorance apparently exceeds your willingness to correct. However, you belie this claim by continually trying to correct them. Why frustrate yourself?
Correction note:
Hi MikeB.
I’m not a scientist, so you don’t have to believe that I’m supposing to be smarter than you. I know that surely your knowledge in this field is better than mine, but maybe you missed the point that WillJ was talking about the Earth surface.
In fact, into his initial post he wrote:
“Do you or anyone have any measurements of any thermal radiative flux from anywhere on the surface of the Earth?
That “surface of the Earth” implies that there is an atmosphere surrounding that surface, so S-B must be applied for compute the heat loss, that is with the two temperatures as WillJ and Norman stated.
I would you answer my previous questions instead:
From your point of view, whats the radiance that that balloon received from the whole atmosphere below it?
Is it equal to the vertical or the limb flux (or what else)?
Take care, those are not rhetoric questions, I’m really asking you how do you deal with them from your point of view where “Steradians are dimensionless and so there is no real difference between radiance and what you call flux”.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
P.S.
Take the life easily, science is the search for truth and truth is one not many. If you are right, one day you’ll know it for sure, independently by the number of skeptics like me you “fought” against.
Hi Massimo PORZIO,
My last two posts “dissapeared”. Perhaps Dr. Roy Spencer does not like what I write! Anyhow you are very correct searching an answer to “your” questions To adversaries, that will give you no answer, no opinion, only quotations from their Bible. Ask that same question, perhaps elsewhere, to those who also admit “they do not know”. Those folk have better answers than those that claim “they know”!!!
No, Will.
I don’t believe Dr.Spencer deleted your posts, he is a good scientist. It’s since he started this site that I read and post here and AFIK he always left dissenting minds tell their point of view.
Yesterday it seems that he got some problem with his web-site provider because I was unable access the site, so it could be that your posts were lost in the web-site server.
More, maybe that you put into your posts too many links to some web sites, and the anti-spam put your posts in moderation. In this case the posts could show up in next hours or a day, it depends on the time Dr.Spencer has to read them.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo, I am a sceptic myself. Thats why I dont like to see this garbage and pseudo-science being promulgated in the name of scepticism. It gives us a bad name.
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies how much radiation will be emitted (per square metre) from a blackbody with an absolute temperature T. I believe I said before that this is independent of the bodys surroundings. i.e. It does not depend on whether the body is in the vacuum of space at absolute zero or surrounded by a container which is much hotter. It does not matter if the surface of the earth is losing heat by convection or by evaporation or receiving radiation from somewhere else – its radiation is determined solely by its own surface temperature at that point. This is fundamental to understanding so I will repeat; it does not matter if the surface of the earth is losing heat by convection or by evaporation or receiving radiation from somewhere else.
We can easily determine how much radiation it will emit by knowing its temperature. Stefans Law (1859) states that the energy radiated every second by a blackbody is proportional to the 4th power of its temperature. Since energy per second’ is a measure of Power this is often written as:
Power emitted per square metre of blackbody surface = sigma * T^4
Note that there is only one T^4 term in this equation. Equations with more than one such term are dealing with something else!!!!
If the body is not a blackbody then then this becomes
Power = emissivity * sigma * T^4.
The value of the constant sigma is 5.67 * 10-8 (this is an easy constant to remember because the significant digits go in sequence, 5,6,7,8 ). The power of the radiation emitted is variously called the emissive power, radiant power, radiant exitance or radiant emittance. Per solid angle it is called Radiance.
I do not know what you want me to say about the paper that you referred to. Do you have a particular point to make? What is your take on it. Although I am a physicist this is not my field. However, I will tell you what I do know. At high altitudes CO2 acts to cool the atmosphere. The most common gases are unable to radiate at these wavelengths. CO2, picks up energy from the other air molecules via collisions and (being a radiatively active gas) loses this energy by emitting radiation at wavelengths around 15 microns. Of course this radiation goes in all directions and so you would expect to see it in the limb view as well as other directions. What you see in Figure 3 is a spike in radiation at 15 microns (the fingerprint of CO2).There is also some very low level radiation from water vapour (not much at high altitude) and from ozone. This is what you would expect NO ?
Much more MikeB nonsense,
“The Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies how much radiation will be emitted (per square metre) from a blackbody with an absolute temperature T. I believe I said before that this is independent of the bodys surroundings. i.e. It does not depend on whether the body is in the vacuum of space at absolute zero or surrounded by a container which is much hotter. It does not matter if the surface of the earth is losing heat by convection or by evaporation or receiving radiation from somewhere else its radiation is determined solely by its own surface temperature at that point. This is fundamental to understanding so I will repeat; it does not matter if the surface of the earth is losing heat by convection or by evaporation or receiving radiation from somewhere else.”
What total academic nonsense!
Hi MikeB,
nice to read you again.
Please excuse me if I could be not clear in some sentences, but I’m Italian and maybe I use the wrong words.
About the S-B applied to the Earth surface, for what it worth (as said, I’m not a scientist), I don’t believe it should be used at the wavelengths where IR active gases absorb the EM radiation.
That is, IMHO, for those WL it is important to know the temperature of the gases which radiate back to the ground to know the real outgoing flux. So as you said, since those gases are heated not only by radiation, but mostly by convection (near the surface of course), I’m not convinced that using the S-B at the surface we really know the effective outgoing radiation at the TOA, which is the only place where we should looking for an energy equilibrium between the incoming and outgoing radiation of the Earth thermodynamic system.
But at the same time I don’t believe that GHGs work so differently than non GHGs in keeping the surface warmer.
About your:
“CO2, picks up energy from the other air molecules via collisions and (being a radiatively active gas) loses this energy by emitting radiation at wavelengths around 15 microns.”
I tend to consider CO2 much as an EM absorbent which redistribute energy with the surroundings molecules via collisions than vice verse. Because when the molecule is at rest (unlike WV), it’s not polarized (the three atoms are aligned), so it needs three simultaneous collisions to bend the molecule, while once it has been bent by an LWIR photon, suffice two collisions to share the energy to the surrounding molecules.
For this, I believe (it’s just a believing of course) that the pit at 15um in part it could be due to the photon conversion operated by the absorption of the CO2 molecules and the re-emission of the WV which spread the photon on a wider band over the LWIR spectrum.
My point about the “ballon paper” is that satellites should look at the whole Earth dish plus the atmospheric ring to get the whole outgoing radiation, not only the very little FOV at the nadir as they do until today.
They should integrate those measurements for the whole globe TOA area.
In an another thread I posted a link to a research done using Meteosat geostationary satellites, that computing the temperature of the Atlantic dish view of the Earth, lead to the conclusion that the sea and the land surfaces have cooled, not warmed at all in last years. That research used (in a smarter way IMHO) the LWRI narrow band radiometer at 10-12.5um to avoid the CO2 and WV absorption bands to use the S-B and compute the surface temperature anomaly.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
What toMuch more MikeB nonsense,
The Stefan-Boltzmann Law specifies how much radiation will be emitted (per square metre) from a blackbody with an absolute temperature T. I believe I said before that this is independent of the bodys surroundings. i.e. It does not depend on whether the body is in the vacuum of space at absolute zero or surrounded by a container which is much hotter. It does not matter if the surface of the earth is losing heat by convection or by evaporation or receiving radiation from somewhere else its radiation is determined solely by its own surface temperature at that point. This is fundamental to understanding so I will repeat; it does not matter if the surface of the earth is losing heat by convection or by evaporation or receiving radiation from somewhere else.
What fake academic nonsense! Only the term radiance is independant of surroundings. That is because “radiance” is bot a potential and a vector (that is what per steradian means) it is a potential in one direction only. doing vector addition, the potential vector fron the colder temperature is subtracted giving a difference in potential.
this difference in potential is the only thing that produces any thermal radiative flux. Your deliberate misinterpretation of the S-B
matematical equation (never a Law) with two different temperature flat infinate parallel surfaces, where each unit area transfers power to the lower temperature plate through exactly PI steradians. Please go to some community college and try to learn some Optics this will give you some idea of the meaning of steradian. Our Sun radiates into 68 micro-steradians to this Earth as observed from this Earth. that is lessened by the radiance of this earth as radiance is independent of size or distance. Radiance is only a vector potential referenced to absolute zero. There is never any flux from any real temperature to absolute zero. In our universe the flux can go to near zero, but never arrives to transfer energy. All radiative flux is only the shedding of local entropy. That stored entropy at the lowest local temperature is now gone. Perhaps not if the universe starts shrinking. So much for your fake CAGW.
This is the big CAGW scam. No person knows how to determine that difference in potential that will generate such flux. On this Earth
there is an atmosphere that decreases with altitude in density (absorbtivity/emissivity), and in temperature (in the troposphere), but an increase in transmissivity with altitude. Calculation of such radiative flux is impossible. Other heat transfer methods make the temperature of any part of the troposphere independant of radiative flux. At all altitudes the atmosphere is in local thermodynamic equilibrium. This means that all thermal flux passes through unimpeded else the local temperature must increase, thus defeating local thermodynamic equilibrium. Your weak radiative flux on its way to cold (little opposite potential) never changes the local thermodynamic equilibrium.
MikeB you claim radiation pressure (radiance) Is the same as flux with many many so called photons flying about in all directions, Then you further claim that flux with a magnitude equal the that “radiance” transfers energy ‘to’ absolute zero This is a mathematical impossibility for many reasons. You further claim magically that zero gives part of that energy back to the intermediate temperature object, Then that objects generates flux proportional to its own radiance, But that flux is not directed toward absolute zero, but instead to the higher temperature object. You have created a horror story beyond belief.
Please go to some community college and try to learn some thermodynamics. It has been correct for 400 years!
my anagram sums this up nicely:
“GLOBAL WARMING THEORY” = “A LIB MYTH; AL GORE WRONG”
Massimo
CO2 works both ways. It absorbs radiation with wavelength of 15 microns and emits radiation at 15 microns (within a few milliseconds of absorption). However, because the mean time between collisions with other air molecules is much less it is more likely to pass its energy on to those molecules. When that happens it can no longer emit. But the process is reversible. CO2 can gain energy from collisions and move into a higher vibrational state from which it can emit. The proportion of CO2 molecules in an excited state is in equilibrium depending on the local temperature.
The S-B equation can be used anywhere it is universal. It dictates how much a surface will radiate which depends only its own temperature and emissivity (do I remember saying that before?) It applies only to radiation and is entirely independent of other heat transfer mechanisms such as conduction, convection etc.
You are right that the radiation balance only applies at the top of the atmosphere. Beyond that point convection and conduction are impossible and energy out must equal energy-in. But at the surface, in spite of other heat transfers, the radiation component is still given by the S-B law.
The most common gases in the atmosphere do not absorb or emit within the earths spectrum and so do not have any warming effect whatsoever. They are transparent to the earths outgoing radiation which would pass directly to space except for the radiatively active gases such as CO2, water vapour, methane etc., which we call greenhouse gases. These gases can intercept the outgoing radiation, oxygen and nitrogen can not.
when the molecule is at rest (unlike WV), its not polarized (the three atoms are aligned), so it needs three simultaneous collisions to bend the molecule, while once it has been bent by an LWIR photon, suffice two collisions to share the energy to the surrounding molecules.
As far as I understand what you trying to say, that is wrong, sorry.
If we look down from high altitude we see radiation coming up from the earth. See diagram.
http://scienceofdoom.files.wordpress.com/2011/04/petty-2-upward-and-downward-radiation-p223.png
The top diagram is very informative because it superimposes some sample blackbody curves on the radiation spectrum. Notice that for most of plot, the radiation detected follows very closely the blackbody profile for 260K. When we get to 15 microns (the CO2 absorption region) we see a big bite out of the spectrum and the curve follows the 230K blackbody.
If you read the accompanying article Petty asks the following questions:
a) what is the approximate temperature of the surface of the surface and how do you know?
b) what is the approximate temperature of the near-surface air, and how do you know?
c) what is the approximate temperature of the air at the aircrafts flight altitude of 20km, and how do you know?
d) identify the feature seen between 9 10 μm in both spectra
Can you answer those questions? If not I would seriously recommend reading the article to understand the answers.
http://scienceofdoom.com/2011/04/03/understanding-atmospheric-radiation-and-the-%E2%80%9Cgreenhouse%E2%80%9D-effect-%E2%80%93-part-ten/
Hi MikeB.
“CO2 works both ways. It absorbs radiation with wavelength of 15 microns and emits radiation at 15 microns (within a few milliseconds of absorption). However, because the mean time between collisions with other air molecules is much less it is more likely to pass its energy on to those molecules. When that happens it can no longer emit. But the process is reversible. CO2 can gain energy from collisions and move into a higher vibrational state from which it can emit. The proportion of CO2 molecules in an excited state is in equilibrium depending on the local temperature.”
I’m sorry, but I’m not convinced of that.
It’s unequivocal that to bend (to excite) a linear molecule such as CO2, it needs three contemporaneous collisions, one against any atom of the molecule. While it’s more probable that an already bent molecule (excited) suffices 2 collisions to discharge its energy to the 2 surrounding molecules and converting it to their KE.
I agree that after absorbing a 15μm photon, CO2 having a relaxation time of about 10μs and that the time between collisions at atmospheric pressure is 0.27 ns, it makes about 370000 times more probable the energy sharing by collisions than by photon emission, but if the CO2 molecule was polarized at rest, it should have more probability to be excited by the collisions, its just simple mechanics.
In fact the re-emission of CO2 is visible (the peak in the middle of the big “bite”) doing the simulation only above 20km where pressure is very low:
climatemodels.uchicago.edu/modtran/
Anyways, I’m still not convinced that those graphs represent the effective outgoing radiation,
Thank you for the links, specially for the second one.
I never seen the TOA radiation of the Antarctic Ice Sheet.
I have to think about that graph because what intrigue me is that the CO2 emission are far more higher than the ice below, IMHO that’s could be due to the stratospheric horizontal radiation spread out by the CO2 there.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo
Im glad you have found the MODTRAN model. When I worked in the 70s we used its predecessor LOTRAN ( and now weve got HITRAN). But do you understand what you are looking at? All of the bite is due to CO2. The radiation from the ground (which I can surmise to be about 290K in your link) cannot penetrate the CO2 fog which is active around 15 microns (Wave Number 666). So instead the radiation from that region is coming from a higher altitude (at a temperature of 220K) where the air is more rarefied and thus allows radiation to escape from the CO2 fog. The little blip in the middle of the bite is because that is coming from the stratosphere, where CO2 is still managing to block radiation at the central wavelength of 15 micron. And the stratosphere is, surprisingly, warmer than the tropopause beneath it so the blip indicates 250K.
From the graphs referenced you say what intrigue me is that the CO2 emission are far more higher than the ice below. No they are not. If you mean are coming from a higher temperature , the CO2 emission is coming from something at 225K looking down and 268K looking up (which coincides with the surface temperature). If you mean that the intensity of radiation from the CO2 band is higher than from the ice then remember that the ice is radiating over the whole spectral region, matching the profile of a 268K blackbody curve. However, in the CO2 absorption band this radiation is being blocked by CO2, which gives rise to the bite. So, in fact, we see less radiation in this band than we would if the CO2 was not there.
Its unequivocal that to bend (to excite) a linear molecule such as CO2, it needs three contemporaneous collisions, one against any atom of the molecule. Do you have any links or evidence for this sweeping statement? It is certainly not unequivocal because no one else says it.
From Pierrehumberts paper , Infrared Radiation and Planetary Temperatures
CO2 transitions are most significant in the thermal IR, the lifetimes tend to range from a few milliseconds to a few tenths of a second. In contrast , the typical time between collisions for, say a nitrogen dominated atmosphereis well under 10^-7 seconds. Therefore the energy of the photon will almost always be assimilated by collisions in to the general energy pool and establish a new Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution at a slightly higher temperature. According to the equipartition principle, molecular collisions maintain an equilibrium distribution of molecules in higher vibrational states.
Nice talking to you, lets wrap it up there.
Hi Mike,
first of all, thank you for your time spent here with me.
“All of the bite is due to CO2. ”
Yes I agree, but what I don’t agree is that that graph shows the whole outgoing energy, because IMHO it just show the outgoing flux as seen by a detector looking to its nadir.
I try to explain my thought.
Well, since you have a good experience with spectroscopy, you surely know how the input slit of any spectrometer allows the spectrum analysis only of the incoming radiation flux perpendicular to the slit itself.
The more the incoming rays are parallel, the more is the frequency resolution of the monochromator (no matter if it’s a conventional grating mirror based or a Michelson interferometer based monochromator).
For this reason a simple spectrometer mounted on a satellite analyze only the fluxes incoming from it’s small field of view. All the outgoing radiation outside the FOV is missed and not measured.
The demonstration that this problem is real is given by the fact that in laboratory gases spectrometry, which goal is to measure the diffuse trasmittance is done by placing an integrative sphere in front of the spectrometer slit, (otherwise they measure the regular transmittance only).
Do you remember the link to the 34km spectra from the balloon?
The so called “limb” spectrum is missed by the satellites measurements and many other intermediary spectra of angles between the nadir and the atmospheric tangent of the satellite view are not measured too.
My point is that an unknown quantity of energy is exiting the atmosphere with very different spectra compared to the nadir one. And since the atmospheric tangent spectrum viewed by a satellite should be similar to that “limb” spectrum of the “ballon”, the “bite” could be quiet smaller than we see today from the satellites view.
Note that (if I’m right, of course), because that energy exits the TOA there around the 666cm-1 wave number itis surely directly proportional to the CO2 concentration, while increasing the concentration of CO2 the nadir outgoing flux reduces, that atmospheric tangent flux should increase, it’s a negative feedback for the CO2 GHG capability.
I hope I’ve been clear, excuse me but I’m not a scientist and I’ve a limited knowledge of English too.
“The little blip in the middle of the bite is because that is coming from the stratosphere, where CO2 is still managing to block radiation at the central wavelength of 15 micron. And the stratosphere is, surprisingly, warmer than the tropopause beneath it so the blip indicates 250K.”
Ok, I get your point and I agree. I missed that the temperature vs altitude graph changes it’s slope exactly at the altitude where the simulation starts to refill the “bite”. Thank you.
“From the graphs referenced you say what intrigue me is that the CO2 emission are far more higher than the ice below. No they are not. If you mean are coming from a higher temperature , the CO2 emission is coming from something at 225K looking down and 268K looking up (which coincides with the surface temperature). If you mean that the intensity of radiation from the CO2 band is higher than from the ice then remember that the ice is radiating over the whole spectral region, matching the profile of a 268K blackbody curve. However, in the CO2 absorption band this radiation is being blocked by CO2, which gives rise to the bite. So, in fact, we see less radiation in this band than we would if the CO2 was not there.”
Uhmm… I was thinking about higher temperature of course , but here I don’t understand what you mean, evidently because I’m not trained in this field and I miss something.
Tell me if I understood:
The CO2 there has higher temperature because the stratosphere has higher temperature over there (looking up). Am I right?
I don’t understand what surface you refer when you wrote that it “coincides with the surface temperature”, the ground surface? Isn’t it at 180K?
Ok, I understand now, I was referring to the 4th graph, while you were referring to the first two! 🙂
No, my former post argument was about that 4th graph where the temperature of the CO2 “ceiling” at 20km is higher that the one at ground zero over the ice sheet.
My self questioning was about where the stratosphere gets all the kinetic energy to be warmer than the ground there. Considering that -93C, I guess it was winter, so the Sun shouldn’t shine there that time.
“Its unequivocal that to bend (to excite) a linear molecule such as CO2, it needs three contemporaneous collisions, one against any atom of the molecule. Do you have any links or evidence for this sweeping statement? It is certainly not unequivocal because no one else says it.”
No, that’s just a consideration of mine, I never read anything about that.
But since the CO2 is a linear molecule, I think that the rules of classic mechanic should work to that microscopic world too. If you want to bend a straight harmonic steel wire you need three points of force, while if it’s V shaped at rest you can charge it with two points of applied force only.
This could be the reason that CO2 is more efficient than WV in absorbing and converting LWIR to kinetic energy. In fact (even if I’m right), being the WV molecule V shaped at rest, it is continuously pre-charged by collision at the very same rate it is discharged (pre-charged molecule by collisions can’t absorb any photon until it has discharged), while the CO2 has more probability to discharge into the KE path after having charged by the EM path, than do the contrary. Don’t you think?
“lifetimes tend to range from a few milliseconds to a few tenths of a second. In contrast , the typical time between collisions for, say a nitrogen dominated atmosphereis well under 10^-7 seconds.”
Not sure where Pierrehumbert get those values.
I found the 10us and 0.27ns somewhere in the Internet, we should investigate this because ms and tenths of seconds sounds a little too much to me.
Just to say.
Now is snowing here, I hope the snow doesn’t last to the ground too much, tomorrow morning I’ve to drive my car for 40km to go to office 🙁
Now I go to sleep, it’s half an hour after midnight here in Italy.
I’m very busy these days, yesterday I went to bed at 2 AM.
Thank you again for the nice discussion.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Hi Massimo,
Your concerns about the solid area that the “atmospgere” is a well placed one. Since the atmosphere has no surface only a cross sectional
area it can radiate into well over PI steradians to space. Have you looked at the work of F. Miskolczi or Darko Butino? They both have articles on no radiation from the surface except from the 8-13.5 band into < 1 steradian, because of all the cloud cover. All other outward flux originates an atmospheric temperature mediated by convection and latent heat condensing producing more sensible heat With our unstable atmosphere causinga turbulent an increase in the integrated "radiated flux" all the way out to 200 kM. They seem to integrate that flux inti a small soilid angle in the direction of zenith. Integrating tht vertical flux into the whole 4PI steradian sphere should solve any problems with limb flux. I can help with sources if you wish! -will-
Hi Will,
I heard of Miskolczi but I never read his work.
As said I’m an electronic engineer and this for me is more a way to keep me informed about the climate research than a way to do research by myself (which honestly, I’m not entitled to do indeed, I’ve not the degree).
Sometime I just say my opinion about some things I find not clear, at least by my intuitive point of view, nothing more.
I’m very busy these days; for example, now I’m at office during the coffee break, and this is one of the few moments during the day I can dedicate for this field (I don’t like coffee so much indeed, so I prefer write here 🙂 ), maybe one of the next days I will follow your suggestion about Miskolczi work.
I also read your previous post about radiance and flux and for what it’s worth I agree.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Hi Will.
By the way,
this is the link to the Meteosat based analysis that using the narrow band 10.5-12.5um LWIR radiometer (in the middle of the very same Miskolczi 8-13.5um band), showed up a global cooling instead of a global warming between 1982 and 2006.
ears.nl/user_files/04-Rosema_b.pdf
In effect IMHO, using that narrow band radiometer to determine the surface temperature (in no way the whole outgoing radiation at TOA) it’s a smart way to establish the surface temperature anomaly. That because even the radiometer measures a very small area of the Planck’s BB, the ratio of that area respect to the whole area remain constant for the few degrees of changing which pertain the the temperature anomaly, so it can be calibrated to return the real surface temperature.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo,
I can see that you are a EE with, much experiance–.good work! I used to be that but now I am only an old fart. Somewhere I did realize that the more I learn, the less I know. I did learn, there is that the vast quantity of what is unknowable, is rapidly growing. in at least four dimensions
Any how. Be careful of the two papers of Miskolczi. They seem correct, but are such a mishmash of theoritical.mathematics that mear mortals cannot understand the language. Do not go there!
There are three interpretations of the Miskolczi work. The clearist (to me) is that of Noors Van Andel. Even reading that, I wanted to jump into the spetic tank. His clearist example is one log flux (W/m^2) vs log altitude. (has no temperature)
I thought that an log log graphs, always has but only a stright line. Not this one! Two almost matching very curves and one straight but almost orthagonal plot. This took me six weeks to be able to express to myself what all three curves represented. I still cannot express the meaning to others.
Another analysis of the papers hase nothing to do with meaning, but only the beauty of F. Miskolczi ability to throw 65 complex math equations to the sky then pick out, from the fell back, the only one that made any sense.
Facinating stuff, but not for the faint hearted! I am very glad I now are an old fart, hiding behind the berry bushes, peering out, and saying wodja lookat that! Followed by “Who is buying the next round?” -grin-
Will
“Two almost matching very curves and one straight but almost orthagonal plot. This took me six weeks to be able to express to myself what all three curves represented. I still cannot express the meaning to others.”
Uhmmm… Intriguing, I really never take a look but maybe I’ll do it just to see what you anticipated to me.
I’m not a pure statistical method enthusiast as may climatologist seems to be. So I hope he doesn’t used pure stats for that plots. I always thought that the statistical analysis is the better way to demonstrate all and it’s contrary at the very same time. Not really scientific in my point of view.
Have a great weekend.
Massimo
Massimo,
I think Miskolczi is a good mathematician. He does use some averaging but only to discover, never to flavor. His data is that of many weather balloon soundings giving pressure, temperature, and relative humidity. (the later ones also have true radar altitude).
His premise was one of Kirchoff’s laws (in an isolated system radiative flux in equals radiative flus out to produce equilibrium). Dr. Roy critizises Miskolczi for that premise as the Earth and its atmosphere are never at equlibrium. This is true but the Earth is thermally close coupled to the atmosphere in “all” thermodynamic couplings. Those “all” are trying to achive thermodynamic equilibrium the best “each” of the all can.
Perhaps this is close enough to preserve (in an isolated system radiative flux in equals radiative flus out to produce equilibrium), that radiatively iosolated system, The earth “and its atmosphere”.
Please look at the Noors van Andel graph. Perhaps we can come to some “understanding” where each of us “can” explain that graph to others.
Have a feeling of contentment, while still strugiling to understand!
i.e. I am peddling as fast as I can! -will-
.
Hi will,
I’m curious, could you give me a link to the Noors van Andel graph?
Thank you.
Massimo
@MikeB.
Hi, maybe I’ve the answer for the discrepancy between the “10us relaxation time” and the Prof. Pierrehumbert’s “lifetimes tend to range from a few milliseconds to a few tenths of a second”.
I guess that his “lifetimes” are the probabilistic times in which the CO2 molecule remains excited because of the continuous energy charge/discharge due to the collisions, until a photon can be finally emitted. While the relaxation time is the time a photon can be held by the molecule in an adiabatic system, that is without any energy exchange to the surrounding other than the photonic EM path.
In fact Prof. Pierrehumbert’s is not a value but a wide range of possible values.
Have a nice day.
Massimo
Massimo PORZIO says:
February 3, 2014 at 4:09 PM
“Hi will,
Im curious, could you give me a link to the Noors van Andel graph?
Thank you. Massimo”
Hi Massmo,
The article is called NOTE ON THE MISKOLCZI THEORY now paywalled.
searcg Google for [Miskolczi Noor van Andel]. The paywall is #7.
#8 from http://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/ still has a pdf of the whole issue,
contaning many articles,Energy and environment Vol 21 number 4 2010 download that. The note starts at page 277 The graph that intregued me is Fig 4 page 280
To see an explanation of Miskolczi’s mataamatical tour de force see:
“The saturated greenhouse effect theory of Ferenc Miskolczi”
Presented by Mikls Zgoni. Still publishes all over the net.
Have a feeling of contentment, while still strugiling to understand!
-will-
Ok Will,
as I’ll get the time I take a look to it.
Thank you.
Have a great day.
Massimo
There has NEVER BEEN statistically significant global warming observed over a period of just 8 years. Thus
is as good a strawman as you will find anywhere.
It’s a shame you don’t have a donate button! I’d certainly donate to this brilliant blog!
I guess for now i’ll settle for book-marking and adding your RSS feed to my Google account.
I look forward to brand new updates and will talk about this website with my Facebook group.
Talk soon!