text:
UAH Global Temperature Anomaly for June 09 ~ ZERO
Anthony Watts / July 3, 2009
[Updated] UAH, straight from the source, Dr. Roy Spencer who announced it on his blog today.
The was a lot of speculation last year that our global temperature would recover from the huge drops last spring. While there has been some recovery, the overall global temperature trend since 1999 has been the subject of much debate. What is not debatable is that the current global temperature anomaly, as determined by a leading authority on global satellite temperature measurements, says we have no departure from "normal" this month. Given the U.S. Senate is about to vote upon the most complex and costly plan to regulate greenhouse gases, while the EPA suppresses earlier versions of the chart shown below from a senior analyst, this should give some pause to those who are rational thinkers. For those that see only dogma, I expect this will be greeted with jeers. – Anthony
June 2009 Global Temperature Anomaly Update: 0.00 deg. C
YR MON GLOBE NH SH TROPICS
2009 1 0.304 0.443 0.165 -0.036
2009 2 0.347 0.678 0.016 0.051
2009 6 0.001 0.032 -0.030 -0.003
1979-2009 Graph (Spencer)
June 2009 saw another — albeit small — drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.04 deg. C in May to 0.00 deg. C in June, with the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C) in the Tropics. The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade.
NOTE: A reminder for those who are monitoring the daily progress of global-average temperatures here:
(1) Only use channel 5 ("ch05″), which is what we use for the lower troposphere and middle troposphere temperature products.
(2) Compare the current month to the same calendar month from the previous year (which is already plotted for you).
(3) The progress of daily temperatures (the current month versus the same calendar month from one year ago) should only be used as a rough guide for how the current month is shaping up because they come from the AMSU instrument on the NOAA-15 satellite, which has a substantial diurnal drift in the local time of the orbit. Our 'official' results presented above, in contrast, are from AMSU on NASA's Aqua satellite, which carries extra fuel to keep it in a stable orbit. Therefore, there is no diurnal drift adjustment needed in our official product.
Sponsored IT training links:
Sign up for 642-384 products including latest 642-661 dumps to pass 642-691 exams even on limited time.
July 3, 2009 in Climate data, Climate_change.
Global Temperature Report: October 2019
'Hidden' NOAA temperature data reveals that 6 of the last 9 months were below normal in the USA – and NOAA can't even get June right
First ICESat-2 Global Data Released: Ice, Forests and More
← Spencer on Waxman-Markey's Cap and Trade
Apollo moonwalker Dr. Buzz Aldrin announces his climate skepticism →
197 thoughts on "UAH Global Temperature Anomaly for June 09 ~ ZERO"
grayuk says:
I'm sure this will translate into something with the words "faster than expected" in it at Copenhagen.
timetochooseagain says:
An important note:
Generally, people seem to refer to the UAH data here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/uahncdc.lt
However, you will notice that Roy always reports in 3 digits, rather than two. For consistency (not that it makes a difference) these numbers should be used:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
They are directly comparable (this is where Spencer's values eventually show up) and they also match the digits used by RSS (3)
But it's a minor point.
Dennis Wingo says:
Here is a question.
What is used to determine the height of a temperature measurement on the satellites?
Not much warming to show for 30 years of rising CO2.
Mickey Langan says:
1998 was the poster child for the AGW crowd. Now they want to minimize it. Somehow they want to have it emphasized to show 20th century warming, but minimized to discount the recent cooling.
It is almost fun to watch, except that I know that global cooling will cause a lot more pain than global warming ever did.
Ron de Haan says:
Can't wait for the July data.
IanH says:
As our Prime [minister] Gordon Brown would point out, that's still a temperature increase of 0.0
Neat work, Anthony. You sure do stay on top of the latest and most accurate findings. And thanks to Dr. Roy Spencer.
So the catastrophic global warming that furrows the sweated brow of our politicians in the House and soon in the Senate is cooking right along at…0. Yessir, Mr. Malarkey, we must do something to stop this runaway train screaming past us on the way to carbon Armageddon at the speed of…0. I predict the cap and trade system will just make tons of money at a market interest rate of…0. I have got to buy me some of these! No one can pass up that interest rate. Why, it beats the hell out of our current -25% all to hell and gone! Why, with the $1000 I lost last year in my retirement account, I will be directing my financial advisor in invest in stocks with an interest rate of…0. Finally, anyone who votes for any scheme even remotely related to such a bright future based on runaway global warming of…0, should receive exactly…0 votes in his or her next election.
Kum Dollison says:
Good job, Pamela. I needed a good smile this morning.
Steven Hill says:
darn it…
no sun spots
the ice is melting too slow
the temp is not dropping
the hell with it, we are going to tax you anyway
Zer0th says:
'Click for larger image' <- not working
FIXED – A
From the above, it looks like "the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C)" was in the Southern Hemisphere (SH?), not the Tropics, which was only -0.003 deg. C
M White says:
In the UK we've just had a couple of hot summery weeks (looks like its coming to an end now). Given the met offices' recent predictions for 2080 I do not believe this will make an appearance in any MSN publication.
Dennis Wingo (11:55:06) :
Good question. I found this the other day:
http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=DcXZF9vogtkC&pg=PA123&lpg=PA123&dq=sea+level+altimetry&source=bl&ots=Ygfn1anHnM&sig=fx_C7fFySsx1XGOUNAfKmLb_jKM&hl=en&ei=-6dMSr_zNs-TjAeKo6yzBQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=6
All sorts of things have to be allowed for to get correct heights.
Does anyone else think John Christy and Dr Roy Spencer are being playful here?
0.001C
Maybe the calc came out at -0.001C but they don't want us hopping and hooting just yet. perhaps it's more fun to hear the warmista saying "it's still positive".
Wonder what next month will bring. And what RSS will say.
Either way, not many signs of Joe Romm and Jim Hansen's super el nino yet.
Aron predicts the UK summer will be mostly a wash out like it was last year.
STAFFAN LINDSTROEM says:
M White… (12:28:00) So you mean everything above 20C is hot??? Note: Luton N of London
never "hotter" than 28C (SMALL airport…) Heathrow W outskirts dito, 30-31C (big AIRPORT…)[4 consecutive days] August 2003 is just a memory now….SO
since the 1930's and 1940's, all that asphalting of the planet has made heatwave
max temps to drop 5-6C, WHEREAS average temps are up 1C…The warmest
anomalies seem to be at 500m up to 3000m ASL…
The data is obviousy nonsense. Temperatures are soaring in the UK where we have just experienced our warmest June in the UK since…errr… 2007
Hu McCulloch says:
What's the base period for this anomaly? I followed the link to Spencer's page, but it didn't say either.
Here is the follow up documents of the meeting between Senator Fielding and the Minister for the Climate Change and Water, Penny Wong.
http://joannenova.com.au/global-warming/the-wong-fielding-meeting-on-global-warming-documents/
Looks like the AGWers don't know or just can't answer simple questions anymore…
Cue the Talking Heading music … "I'm on the road to nowhere"
Hu McCulloch (13:12:02) : WAY Down at the bottom here:
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.17Apr2009
It says 1979-1998
Dan Lee says:
This reminded me of that Nature article from last year:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v453/n7191/full/453043a.html
"Climate change is often viewed as a phenomenon that will develop in the coming century. But its effects are already being seen, and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change recently projected that, even in the next 20 years, the global climate will warm by around 0."
'Warm by around zero', got it. I don't recall the IPCC projecting any such thing, but they must have, because its happening already! Its warming by around zero sooner than anyone expected…
Squidly says:
You sure this is right? It's like a sultry 83F out by my pool (Nashville)! The Earth is burning up! I just know it … [/sarcoff]
David S says:
The article states; "The decadal temperature trend for the period December 1978 through June 2009 remains at +0.13 deg. C per decade."
I don't like applying straight lines to data that obviously doesn't follow straight lines. But when I look at the MSU temperature data I see a step function at the El Nino year 1998. Prior to that the anomaly is zero. After that it is about .3C. And at the end the temp seems to be ramping downward. Its as if the El Nino drove the temperature temporarily to a higher plateau and now it is returning to pre-1998 levels.
Wait a minute!
YR…. MON GLOBE NH……. SH TROPICS
If TROPICS is included in NH + SH the total anomaly is 0.002
If TROPICS isn't included in NH + SH the total anomaly is – 0.001!
WUWT?
RE my 13:12 post, it appears from http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/t2lt/readme.17Apr2009 that the base period is 1979-98, unless there has been a subsequent change buried in this readme file. That looks about right relative to the graph.
Why do I feel like some far-left wing nut will make a connection between this and Sarah Palin's announcement today?
rbateman says:
Take note of coincidence here: The rises are slow & painful, the drops are quick & merciful.
Just like the behavior of the Ice Ages, only in microcosm.
Reminds me of the repeating patterns found by boring down on the edges of the Mandelbrot set. Very natural like.
Two can play this game:
The global temps are falling faster than our graphs predicted.
The Deep Solar Minimum is lasting longer than expected.
Dive! Dive! Bow planes at 80 degrees.
Adam from Kansas says:
Considering the peaks and valleys I would expect it go up somewhat again now, the temps. seem like they never will go down for over 4 consecutive months in most cases, if it drops for pretty much a 5th month that would be a surprise, it will then depend on when it goes up, then goes back down enough to continue the current downtrend.
Curiousgeorge (14:01:13) :
Sarah is preparing for the fallout from Cap & Crash.
She'll be telling everyone "See, I told you so, you bet'cha".
Hey, what do you get when you mix falling global temps with AGW?
A Green Energy Slushy.
Sam the Skeptic says:
David S (13:47:17)
I'm with you! Since what we DO know about climate is infinitesimal compared with what we DON'T know there seems no reason why that observation re the 1998 El Nino shouldn't be correct.
Added to which we know we are coming off the back of a 30-year warming and that 30 years appears to be about the length of the cycle. So it would look very much as if the next twist is going to be downwards.
If I were a climatologist (as opposed to doom-monger with an agenda) I would at least be factoring that possibility into my calculations and suggesting to the politicians that we might just have been over-hyping the AGW+CO2 bit and perhaps it would be a good idea to hold off on doing things that are likely to make you look totally stoopid in five years time.
Curiousgeorge (14:01:13) : Would they really be able to contend that effect came before cause? Oh wait…
MikeW says:
Interesting article today in American Thinker titled 'Journalists protest Global Warming spin cycle'. It notes 'Controversy erupted this week at the World Conference of Science Journalists over the National Science Foundation's "underwriting" of media projects.'
If only this could catch on more… Full article is at:
http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/07/journalists_protest_global_war.html
Ok… we can say that for June the temperature has been average !!!
What is the level of CO2 for June? Has it been rising still? Obviously, the rise of CO2 is related to climate change but is certainly not the driver.
Jeff Id says:
No anomaly on cap and trade month, how funny is god?
I just fired up the grill, that ought to give some back.
P Walker says:
Pamela Gray
Does carbon armageddon = carbongeddon ?
ohioholic says:
tallbloke (13:47:37) :
I think you got some wires crossed. Either way, I would round it too. 1/1000 is really nothing.
Ray pointed top this selection of documents, and the most useful should be widel;y distributed:
http://joannenova.com.au/globalwarming/wong-fielding/7-carter-evans-franks-kininmonth-due-diligence-on-wong.pdf
It makes every rational point in a thoroughly methodical way. Send it to your Senators, Yanks.
Ray, It is above average for, oh … say … 1678. Get with the progrom!!! Mind you, I bel;ieve there was local warming in London in 1666
Skeptic Tank says:
Because what else could it be?
Aron, Lancashire (UK) weather was back to its summer norm today – torrential downpour. I suspect that we've just experienced our "barbecue" summer. All three days of it. All courtesy of AGW of course… ;D
Ray (14:14:35) :
Follow ESRL:
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/
Still rising, but the rate at which it does so is modulated by how fast and in what direction the sea surface temperature is changing. The rise itself is emission related, at least mostly. I was working on a simple way to relate these factors but I abandoned the project way back when. Maybe I'll get back to it one day.
I would also add that while I agree it is not "the" driver, I think it plays some role (a minor, less than alarming one).
VG says:
I think the big one here, if it happens….is a continuous drop or flatlining with a concurrent Nino for the rest of the year. It will become intolerable for the warmistas
Shr_Nfr says:
To Dennis Wingo: This is what is known as the inversion process in estimation of temperature from microwave (or infra-red) satellites in general. There are a number of approaches to the problem to retrieve the vertical temperature profile from a set of observations. I will not go into the details, but I worked with the pioneering group at MIT who had microwave instruments on the Nimbus E and Nimbus F satellites in the 1970s. The real take home though is that the total brightness temperature of the TLT channel is the integral of the temperature in the atmosphere multiplied by the weighting function + the total microwave energy hitting the surface times the reflectivity of the surface and then reduced by the total opacity of the path from the surface + the temperature of the surface times (1-reflectivity) of the surface. In a quasi window channel like the TLT you are seeing the bottom of the atmosphere and the surface temperature. If the global surface and lower troposphere were to be get warmer, you would see it as you see it in the El Nino peak of the late 90s.
conradg says:
I have an off-topic question someone might be able to find me with. I remember reading an article, perhaps an interview, with James Hansen, in which he admited that the models were unreliable, and that we should refer to the observational data. He said he predicted a .15-.18C/decade rise in temperatures over the next century, I believe. He also mentioned that he took seriously the lack of new temperature highs during the last decade, and that if this doesn't change soon it will mean a further revision of the models. Does anyone know of this article, where the source might be? I think I read it here, but it might be at some other site. Any help locating this would be helpful.
VG (14:41:49) : Nah, they will just say "This El Nino is similar, but different":
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=6464
P Walker (14:29:58) :
Karmageddon. As in,
"Sorry mate, my Karma just ran over your Dogma.
Adam Soereg says:
The global anomaly is calculated by averaging the hemispheric values. NH and SH include the northern and southern half of the Tropics.
ohioholic (14:30:57) :
Err, umm, ….
No, you've lost me, sorry.
Anyway, I agree, what's a couple of thousandths of a celsius between friends?
For those unfamiliar with the reason for Robert Wood's cryptic comment on local warming in London, go here
http://www.pepys.info/fire.html
June 1666 CET 15.0 C 2009 June CET 14.8 C
Jeff Larson says:
Wait a minute! If temperatures are falling now due to the lower than projected CO2 emissions due to the economic crisis, that says the atmosphere is EXTREMELY sensitive to CO2 levels and we must at ALL COSTS prevent further increases in CO2 levels.
VG (14:41:49) :
It'll be crueler than that for them. UAH and RSS will bounce back up for a few months to get them all excited about super el nino arriving, then topospheric temps will dive big style.
Archibald will get his -0.3C this coming winter. That's my guess anyway.
Ozzie John says:
June 2009 saw another — albeit small — drop in the global average temperature anomaly, from +0.04 deg. C in May to 0.00 deg. C in June, with the coolest anomaly (-0.03 deg. C) in the Tropics.
– Just looking at the data above I think there might be a small typo here Anthony.? The total looks all fine, but the coolest anomoly is in the SH of – 0.03 and not the tropics as you report
REPLY: That is written by Dr. Spencer, not me. I won't change his wording unless he gives the go-ahead. – Anthony
If you take the earth in its globality, we can be certain that it is carbon neutral.
According to Le Chatelier's Principle; "If a chemical system at equilibrium experiences a change in concentration, temperature, volume, or partial pressure, then the equilibrium shifts to counter-act the imposed change.", how can such a small change of a trace gas could ever induce a major change in the other parameters?
Karl B. says:
I know this is a measurement of temperature, but where does the heat go?
1998 was high due to the El Nino. But after 1998, where did the heat go? The anomaly dropped from ~ 0.7 to ~ -2.0 within 2 years after 1998. You would think CO2 would dampen the loss of heat. I think you would see a decrease in the temperature variance as CO2 increased, if you believe C02 is delaying/preventing outgoing radiation.
Either the measurements are not that accurate or the system can dump heat fairly easily. I do believe the satellite measurements over thermometer measurements.
Assuming we can believe the measurements, the heat must remain in the system, or radiated to space. Measurements show that the system isn't retaining the heat. That leaves the measurements are too variable, or the heat is being radiated to space, and CO2 isn't preventing it.
timetochooseagain (14:41:18) :
I know about the Mauna Loa Observatory but never really understood why they measure CO2 there, when you have permanent active volcanos in that area of the world.
Tallbloke – my karmageddon lousy mileage 'cause of your ethanol . Maybe ?
Frank Lansner says:
The present low temperature level appears over 1 year after the last real La Nina ended. What would happend if a real La Nina started from this temperature level?
So far it seems that a El Nino is on going.. So we will probably see som temperature rise in the next half year, but… The next La Nina.. !!
imapopulist says:
With each passing month, the message is growing louder that it would be prudent to not make drastic changes until climate change is better understood.
Particularly once it is explained to the public that the cap and trade bill will increase the costs of nearly everything that is consumed by the middle class, including their food.
pkatt says:
Hmm no La Nina, in fact that has been running a bit positive for this season, Im betting AMJ sports a plus number, and yet temps are not rising out of control. Wasnt it the La Nina that has stalled global warming? What is their excuse now?? .. they may have to start blaming the sun soon .. hahahahahah.
Robert Wood (14:32:41) :
I was reading Appendix G – Giving Earth the benefit of the doubt:
Shouldn't we apply the precautionary principle?
It is totally true that the precautionary principle is a societal phenomenon and not one based on sound science… it's like if we should all get radio and chemo therapy in case one day we get a cancer. We could, but it would do more harm to your health and surely cost the society a whole lot of money and at the end, cancers won't be irradicated.
Jeff Larson (14:58:45) :
Except that, CO2 is still rising at expected rates. I see no change or slowdown in the CO2 rise … do you?
henrychance says:
<<<<<<<<<Say it ain't so Joe. don't go writing new scriptures for the green bible on this data. Don't tell us your models predicted this.
Why not measure from the high of 1998? Clearly that was the year when, if AGW theory is correct, all heck broke loose. The 'definite signature etc.
If there is anything in AGW, surely the signature should not evaporate in just one year.
AGW promoters pick the start points to suit their predictions for dramatic effect, why not skeptics?
Per Strandberg says:
Climatologist Prof. Richard Lindzen at MIT has now stopped being a global warming skeptic.
Just listened to an interview with him.
http://audio.wrko.com/m/audio/24111309/richard-lindzen-global-warming-denier.htm?q=lindzen
He is now a committed Global Warming DENIER!.
Allen63 says:
AGW is an excuse to tax — AGW does not have to actually exist.
A couple years after cap & trade passes, they WILL note that temperature is going down. They will credit cap & trade and make the rules even more costly — see its working, we need MORE of the same.
They will get away with it because the news media is complicit.
Karmageddon. If you want a winter blizzard, invite Algore to come preech fire and brimstone.
What did the finest models from the "science is in" group predict for June? In accounting we like variance reports. detail comparison between projections and actual figures.
What will make CarbaGeddonists happy:
When your car inhales C02 and exhales 02.
The engine will run backwards, we have the PolyTechNology.
Polly want a CarbonCreditCracker?
'Except that, CO2 is still rising at expected rates. I see no change or slowdown in the CO2 rise … do you?'
I don't see no slowdown in CO2 rise.
It's rising like a Swiss watch keeps time.
A real Steady Eddy, that one.
John Finn says:
I hate to be a party pooper but the low May-Jun-Jul satellite anomalies were expected. The lag between ENSO events and surface temperatures is less than that of the satellites. Earlier in the year, GISS and Hadley had much lower anomalies relative to RSS and UAH. GISS and Hadley are now refelecting the warmer SST. UAH and RSS should follow suit in the next month or two.
evanmjones says:
Lose the first "n" and I think you may have something.
Bill Illis says:
The preliminary estimate for CO2 in 2008 is that emissions still grew. It just grew at a lower rate than previously (1.7% versus 3.5%).
You could think of it in terms of the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere would have grown by 1.98 ppm but it only grew at 1.96 ppm.
The best phrase uis THERMAGEDDON
John Finn,
Are you suggesting that this summer's low global temps are as expected by global warming theory?
Paul R says:
Wow a whopping 0.00, It just goes to show how brilliant the political leadership of the US is. The Malarkey bill has stopped global warming dead in it's tracks and Obama only used the Congress critters on it.
Maybe the prophet should use the magic incantations of the house to hold back the rise of unemployment, before there's no one to tax and before the water gets too deep.
"Having one in five US workers either out of work or not getting enough work and living in homes worth 40 per cent less than they once did does not bode well for a consumer spending recovery, and may not bode well for Obama's political longevity.
The President's popularity remains high but ultimately his fate may depend on how deep the water is when he can no longer walk on it."
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/business/story/0,28124,25729743-30538,00.html
Ray (15:19:57) : They measure it at a lot of places. If you scroll down, you'll find the global product.
TallDave says:
Attention WUWT Commentariat!
Who wants to do a fun and exciting graph that contrasts the doomsday graph (you know, the one that combines the cherrypicked proxies with James "Death Trains" Hansen's GISS dataset) with the UAH graph?
Slope comparisons will earn you linkage, gratitude, and the eternal blessing of empiricists from Galileo to Newton!
Several commenters have asked about the heat associated with the 1998 El Nino – where it went and when? Bob Tisdale has several posts regarding this episode and the multi-year dissipation of the heat. Maybe someone can alert him to this current go round and either he or WUWT can find the appropriate links. I'm not even keeping up with the things I need to do, so can't spend the hour doing what Bob or maybe Anthony can do in a moment. Or just search for the topic on WUWT or on Bob Tisdale's site.
Pamela Gray (12:09:54) :
we must do something to stop this runaway train screaming past us on the way to carbon Armageddon at the speed of…0.
Got my vote for quote of the week.
The theory isn't sticking, is it?
John Finn (16:54:07) :
The goalpost is a tad bit harder to move when it's frozen in everyone's mind.
It cannot be retrieved.
Bob Tisdale says:
Ron de Haan: You wrote, "Can't wait for the July data."
The July 2009 TLT anomalies should begin to reflect the start of the El Nino that's forming this year. So TLT anomalies should rise. Refer to my preliminary Global and NINO3.4 SST anomaly update for June. The blurb before the charts explains why they are preliminary.
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/well-there-ya-have-it-oiv2-sst-data.html
The models are right. It's just that damn data that keeps getting in the way.
OT – I see from SOHO that that high lat, SH plage region has finally erupted into a mighty, ah, speck. This is the region that Catania caught a couple of transient specks a couple days ago. Looks like NOAA's going to finally give it a number.
And right on the curve from around Month 250-254, which peaked around Month 300 and is symmetrical for now.
It's the turn of the Pacific Decadal Oscillation, I think.
Well, duh. But the shape is truth and beauty. Who could ask for anything more?
I've a question for skeptic and alarmist alike. What was the need of the system for the great spike in 1998?
2009 can still make a run at 2008. 2008 increased significantly in the 2nd half. Looks like 2009 is decreasing significantly, as June is the lowest anomaly of the year.
Should be a tight race, but I think 2009 will be a little warmer than 2008. But no where near a record….
Is it contrapunda Pinatubo?
Ian Adnams says:
When looking at the graph, my non-scientific mind asks the question "what happened in 1998 to cause a spike? Extrapolating data from a something so unusual is like someone running a fever for two days and suggesting it will only go up in the future.
Dr. David Archibald…in Brazil Arquibaldo
Bill…congrats (winds, AAM and lunar & solar ….)
0,001ºC or 0,001K
Tom in Texas says:
OT: 3 or 4 cycle 24 sunspots have formed.
tokyoboy says:
The 2004-09 temp trend contradicts the AGW therry in a thrustful manner, since the period has witnessed a booooosting CO2 emission especially from China.
Sorry for typo: therry –> theory
Per Strandberg (15:58:52) :
A good interview. He just dismisses the whole nonsense and all its followers. I expect it will be picked up on RC at some stage (unless they try to deny it happened).
Thank you for the link! This is a good interview. I have a great deal of respect for Dr. Lindzen. He takes things so lightly and calm, it is refreshing to listen to him.
rbateman (16:26:42) :
Yup, that's my point! CO2 is rising like clockwork, meanwhile, temperatures are declining! Doesn't look to me like the two are connected at all…
I should also add, this didn't take a rocket scientist to figure out either (I am not a rocket scientist, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn Express last night!)
Paul R (17:32:31) :
I predict that Obama will eventually wake up realizing he is in very deep doodoo, he is already WAY over his head in so many areas (especially foreign policy). At some point, when he finally realizes what he has done, and that the US will never recover from his agenda's, he will wake in a very cold sweat. Unfortunately, at that point his policies will have already done irreversible and devastating harm. Keep watching, it's coming…
Bob Tisdale (18:10:27) :
Bob, please forgive my ignorance on this topic, but, what makes you believe the SST will continue to rise? Could it be possible for the SST to dip down again at a timely near point? I am ignorant of what causes SST to bump up and down. There must be a reason why you think the rise will continue to a pre-determined point in time. Care to share?
Tom in Texas (19:15:23) :
Please forgive, perhaps I am in need of those glasses now, but I see no such spots. I see something in the SH that *could* be a spot perhaps, but isn't that cycle 23? Its in the SH, and it's polarity is opposite that of 24 cycle spots. These dang spots, ummm specks, can never tell if they are on the sun or my monitor.
Tom Mahany says:
All well and good, but carbon is only part of the coming Thermageddon. After all, carbon is only ~27% of Carbon Dioxide. The Dear Leader and His minions must also get going, regulating the major component of CO2 — Oxygen ! No O2, no CO2. It's that simple. If they really want to cut CO2, they must stop their thoughtless, automatic Oxygen conversion to CO2.
Man, oh Man. Great Interview with Richard Lindzen. How I'd love to "tip a few" with that guy.
Thanks so much for the link.
"Shr_Nfr"
Thanks. Do you know of any measurement means whereby they use the width of an individual absorption line to determine the altitude of the measurement?
Walter Dnes says:
Exercising my spreadsheet-fu…
* RSS monthly data Feb 1997 to May 2009; trendline slope is negative
* Hadley monthly data Mar 1997 to May 2009; trendline slope is negative
* UAH monthly data May 1997 to June 2009; trendline slope is negative
* GISS monthly data Dec 2000 to May 2009; trendline slope is negative
Can somebody confirm that I'm not badly wrong?
It certainly can be done, here's an example:
http://www.lpi.usra.edu/meetings/lpsc2003/pdf/1647.pdf
David Ball says:
Just wanted to say that the only thing that is "happening faster than they expected" is the realization in the public's mind that CAGW is a failed theory.
As I look at that graph from mid 1979 to mid 2009 it looks like the are both on the zero line. So since "climate" is defined at the 30 year weather cycle, can't we say that the 30 year climate change is zero?
FWIW, in the world of stocks (another chaotic semi-random dataset…) this would be called a typical "blow off top" 1998 followed by a "failure to advance" in 2004-2006 or so with 2007 now being the "lower high" with 2008 being the "lower low". This would be cause to "short the stock" because it's headed down. Probably very hard. No idea if the analysis method transfers, but it sure looks like what I've seen a thousand times before followed by a drop.
Oh, and for everyone holding their breath for the tomato report…
I finally have tomatoes! Many green ones (set fruit a few weeks back) and even harvested a few red ones off the "4th of July" that was planted back in April… This is a 45 day variety and it was planted from a gallon sized pot. Ought to have given fruit by late May or early June, not 4 weeks later… Being under The Big Blue Blob has not been kind to the garden. I'm also getting green beans (only on my Royal Purple pod, though – the cool tolerant ones… The Kentucky Wonders are slow to grow but have flowers, at last… A friend 20 miles away has Blue Lake producing nicely, again a few weeks late. He has only one or two tomatoes ripened so far.) We've been clearly running about 10F lower than recent years for many of the highs of the day. Oh, and Argentina is talking about shutting off wheat exports…
What I like most about this cooling trend, post PDO flip, is that the AGW Advocates are stuck in one heck of a bind. They can pass Cap and Tax, really get everyone P.O'd and they will then have a choice:
1) Admit that it's gotten darned cold in a couple of years and that CO2 had nothing to do with it and they have wasted a few $Trillion of national treasure. Or…
2) Try to claim credit for the cooling despite CO2 continuing to rise from China, India, Russia, et.al. and face the incredible wrath of cold, hungry, unemployed voters demanding that they set the temperature back up some.
3) Attempt to pedal the notion that it's not really colder with several feet of snow where it ought not to be and crop failures throughout the world. One year can be talked down as a fluke, but not two… To the average person, One is a fluke, Two is a Trend, Three is a movement…
I don't envy them their "victory" in the short run. By 2010 there will be opponents running who will say AGW is bunk (unlike last time when there was no real choice…) They now "own" the setting of the thermostat, and it isn't hooked up to the heater… I, for one, intend to frequently send letters complaining that they set it too low and my garden is too cold (and Argentine wheat is too dry and Canadian Barley is being planted in the snow and…)
Plans for the 4th include a memorial WUWT BBQ with BOTH propane AND charcoal ! Grill to be located within 10 feet of the patio thermometer, of course! Volumes of carbonated beverages to have their CO2 set free to boot…
XKCD has a nice comment about graphical extrapolation… http://www.xkcd.com/
However, I know how to deal with this pesky anomaly. It must be a volcano adding extra particles to the air. No, we can't fund an expedition to discover which one – don't you know that expeditions are costly things and generate lots of extra CO2…?
In fact its mostly the periods around 1985 and 1993 thats colder than today. Both these periods where influented by vulcanoes, El Chicon and Pinatubo respectively. Right now we have no Volcanoes or La Nina.
Squidly: You asked, "what makes you believe the SST will continue to rise?"
For ENSO, most of the predictions posted by NOAA call for a moderate El Nino. Refer to page 28 of the following weekly CPC report:
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/lanina/enso_evolution-status-fcsts-web.pdf
The European Centre for Medium-Range Weather Forecasts (ECMWF) is also predicting a moderate El Nino:
http://www.ecmwf.int/products/forecasts/d/charts/seasonal/forecast/seasonal_range_forecast/nino_plumes_public_s3!3.4!200906!/
Global temperatures lag El Nino and La Nina events by 3 to 6 months. Depending on the variable (surface temperature, SST, or TLT), the global temperature response can be as much as 0.09 deg C for every 1 deg C variation in NINO3.4 SST anomalies. And depending on the type of El Nino and how the El Nino distributes that heat, the temperatures can remain elevated for a number of years. Refer to:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/06/rss-msu-tlt-time-latitude-plots.html
David S: You wrote, "But when I look at the MSU temperature data I see a step function at the El Nino year 1998. Prior to that the anomaly is zero."
Sam the Skeptic, you responded to the comment by David S, so this might be of interest to you.
The step change following the 1997/98 El Nino is caused the poleward heat transport and the lingering of the heat. That amount of heat doesn't dissipate in one year, as many like to believe, and apparently as GCMs suggest. The lingering heat can be seen in the RSS MSU Time-Latitude Plots in the following post:
In fact, Figure 11 shows the upward step change in the Northern Mid-to-High Latitude TLT anomalies after the 1997/98 El Nino. I also used that illustration in another post that Anthony ran here at WUWT:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/06/06/another-look-at-polar-amplification/
Frank Lansner (15:23:31) :
Ok. You might recall a few months back WUWT posted an article which suggested that La Nina was back. In fact, an 'official' La Nina never developed because SST did not remain below the La Nina threshold for the required number of overlapping quarters. There was a fair bit of discussion on this.
However, although there wasn't an 'official' La Nina, ocean temperatures reflected La Nina conditions. This showed up in the GISS/Hadley data earlier in the year – probably because the surface records 'see' the SST effect immediately. Anyway, the cooler SST from a few months back, are showing up in the satellite records now.
No-one can really predict future ENSO events, so we can't really say how things will pan out in the longer term, but in the immediate short term, satellite temperatures look set to rise. And if an El Nino should develop then that rise could be substantial. Note with zero NINO anomalies RSS and UAH had anomalies of +0.3 deg C.
See Bob Tisdale's (18:10:27) for a more sober assessment of the situation.
Allan M R MacRae says:
Correct Ray.
There has been no global warming since the satellites were launched in 1979.
And there was slight global cooling from 1940 to 1979.
So there has been no global warming since 1940, despite an increase of ~800% in humanmade CO2 emissions. See the first graph at:
http://www.iberica2000.org/Es/Articulo.asp?Id=3774
In it we are seeing ~one full PDO Cycle. The alarmists like to portray only the warming half of the last PDO cycle, and then project it infinitely into the future. This is, of course, nonsense.
One could argue that the Surface Temperature data should be adjusted for Urban Heat Island effect, This would suggest approx. 0.3C GLOBAL COOLING since 1940.
Ironically, it would be easier to suggest that increased atmospheric CO2 causes global cooling, not global warming, but don't tell the alarmists that – it could be their next "very scary" fundraising campaign.
Atmospheric CO2 continues to climb from 315ppm in 1958 to more than ~380 ppm today. I haven't examined it lately because it doesn't matter. Why? Because CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales. So the warmists are claiming that the future causes the past. I don't like their logic. See
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/joes-blog/carbon_dioxide_in_not_the_primary_cause_of_global_warming_the_future_can_no/
E.M.Smith
So pleased to hear about your tomatoes! your earlier post re Siberian and Arctic varieties led me to research and locate seeds available here in Scotland which my wife intends to cultivate next year. This year's crop of English varieties looks promising, but the previous 2 years were total failures, despite the CET for 2007 and 2008 ramping up hotter and hotter. It takes very little research to discover that the CET series is not in fact a true series, having been changed in it's locations and it's readings adjusted, for reasons that seem dubious to a layman like me.
@ Tom Mahany (21:23:13) :
" All well and good, but carbon is only part of the coming Thermageddon. After all, carbon is only ~27% of Carbon Dioxide. The Dear Leader and His minions must also get going, regulating the major component of CO2 — Oxygen ! No O2, no CO2. It's that simple. If they really want to cut CO2, they must stop their thoughtless, automatic Oxygen conversion to CO2.
Tom "
Not only that, but O2 is far deadlier. It is an "Oxyidizer"!. Which means it supports "Combustion" ! OMG! We must save the forests from O2! And, and it makes stuff "Rust"! We must save everything from the deadly "Rust!" I call for a ban on all O2!
nofreewind says:
To the comment above about El Nino driving seeming to drive temperature.
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/GlobalElNino.htm
Specially when doing the sampling the "scientists" then take 82% of the collected data and reject it in favor of the18% that fits the bill…..
http://australianclimatemadness.blogspot.com/2009/05/australian-michael-ashley-reviews-ian.html
Seems people have been trying to frame CO2 for a crime it has never committed, for quite awhile now?
Interesting comment in the Lindzen interview.
Observing that there is "an element of religion" in the global warming movement", the two gentlemen mentioned the following phrase:
"When people stop believing in God, they don't believe in nothing — they believe in anything."
This quotation has been attributed to both GK Chesterton and Emile Cammaerts.
Certainly the warming alarmists I have met have a religious fervor unmatched by most modern religions. And they want to burn me at the stake for disagreeing with them, until I point out that this would only cause more warming.
Roger Carr says:
What does use of the swung dash " ~ " signify?
I have a simple question. I am not really familiar with the whole global warming stuff. To trendy for my taste. But why do you show the data only from 1979. Isn't it a statement of the supporters of global warming theory that the temperature is rising since 200 years or so?
Would be pleased if you answer me.
Roger Carr (04:48:45),
I think it means "approximately," or "about."
Mike Bryant says:
"The Earth has a fever and just like when your child has a fever, maybe that's a warning of something seriously wrong," -Al Gore
"If your baby has a fever, you go to the doctor." Al Gore
"Mr. Gore, your baby earth is ok now, please get out of my office, go home and live your life." -the doctor
Smokey (05:44:58) … thanks, pal.
I am not sure if anyone has answered where does the heat go after the 1998 El Nino.
Ocean currents appear to move heat around causing temperature spikes recorded by surface thermometers and satellites.
Heat can't be created out of nothing. It must be in the system (Earth) to begin with, or added/removed from the system.
Which means since ocean are within the system, they can't explain the loss of heat from the system like the reduction of temperature after 1998. Unless you can't use temperature readings as a measure of the systems heat content. If you can't, then temperature readings are useless because you really want to know if heat is going up or down.
We know the Sun adds heat to the system (Earth) and there are mechanisms that slow the removal of heat from the system. CO2 is what the alarmists are saying that is slowing the removal of heat from the system.
But, looking at the 1998-2000 temperatures, it appears that heat can leave the system pretty quickly, regardless of the increased [C02]. The caveat again is if the temperature isn't a good measure of heat in the system, and the heat is remaining constant, even though temperature dropped.
Again, where did the heat go quickly?
But, we should be measuring heat of the system. D
Graeme Rodaughan says:
This unprecendented rise of 0.001 degrees Celsius in 30 years is a clear demonstration that man's willful refusal to curb CO2 emissions will cause a Catastrophic rise of 2 degrees Celsius by the year 62,009 AD…
I kid you not.
(No really – 62,009 years…)
You have been warned – stop burning fossil fuels!
Rainer (05:15:32) wrote: "I have a simple question. I am not really familiar with the whole global warming stuff. To trendy for my taste."
"Trendy" on the web: in accord with the latest fad; "trendy ideas"; "trendy clothes"; "voguish terminology" and based on that I suggest your dismissal of this subject so lightly indicates you have failed to realise the implications of this juggernaut to your own future, let alone to the future of mankind. Even a cursory glance at the agenda of those promoting AGW will show there is a malign intent towards freedom and comfort come hell, high-water, or even steady as she goes.
I believe every adult on earth has, at a bare minimum, a duty to at least make themselves familiar of the stakes involved.
Karl B. (15:15:05) :
Karl, I guess this is the question all non-AGW/ RC scientists are trying to answer. As an engineer (non-climate scientist) I can only ponder the same question.
I know that several people that post here (eg: Bill Illis) believe that the ocean currents are significant drivers of temperature variations. I think that the '98 El Nino is proof of this. The heat generated from this event was first captured by the earth and then released back out as IR radiation to space.
Perhaps the earth's radiation budget can be considered like this ?. The summer facing hemisphere gains more heat than it releases, thus it makes sense that more cloud will help cool this hemisphere, and less cloud means more heat. For the winter facing hemisphere more heat is being lost as IR into space than it receives from direct sunlight, thus less cloud means more loss of IR and more cooling and more cloud means more heat retention. If ENSO affects the cloud distribution in a seasonal manner then this could be a contributing factor ? Of course the system is more complex than this and the rate of heat transportation to the poles (eg: from hadley cell velocity) to a region of less water vapour where it can radiate more effectively back into space is probably another key factor in the ENSO mechanism.
Maybe GCR theory is connected as well ? I guess the summer facing hemisphere gets more GCR's than the dark winter facing pole ?.
I'm sure the eventual & globally agreed upon climate control mechanism will be first discussed here on WUWT.
I am of the opinion that man starts too many forrest fires. Last year we read of massive fires. The amazon had a lot of fires to defoliate the forests. That also means we lost hundreds of thousands of acres that absorb CO2. After the fires, we have ash and rot of the remaining wood that gives off CO2. In a few years, weeds 3 feet high do not absorb much CO2 nor give off much oxygen. I see no correlation between taxing me and reduction of arson. Double my taxes and it won't reduce pyromania.
Rainer (05:15:32) :
And there is a simple answer, Ranier. That's when measurement of the earth's temperature with satellites began. This is a satellite measurement. There are global surface measurements, that go back to 1880 or 1850, and they do show temperature rising since then. However, that doesn't really help the "supporters of global warming theory" since their theory is that warming in the second half of the 20th Century accelerated because of rising CO2 from fossil fuel use, something that wasn't happening on the scale it is now back in the 19th Century.
So the satellite data is problematic for the anthropogenic (man made) global warming theory.
Not to mention, a signature issue of this blog is our host's project to show that the surface temperature record has serious quality issues, so that there are real questions about how much global warming has occurred in the past 200 years.
Welcome, stick around, and we'll give you the scoop on this trendy stuff. 🙂
I've been thinking about this. Professor Lindzen sounded like a weight had been lifted off his shoulders when he said "I'm a DENIER!"
Well, I always thought I was a skeptic. But I have decided to come out. I too, am a DENIER. And I am proud of it! They can call me denier to my face – I don't care. They can call me a flat earther – I don't care! They can call me an oil company shill!!! I DON"T CARE!!!!
I AM A DENIER AND I AM PROUD OF IT!!!!!!
I'm going to shout it from the rooftops: "I AM A DENIER!!!!!"
Arn Riewe says:
Quick answer to your question; 1979 is chosen because that's when the sattelite era of temperature monitoring began. There's little dispute that temperatures have been rising for 150 years. The question is why?
Roger Carr gives some good advice. This is too important to ignore. You cannot afford (literally) to not understand. You need to bone up. Here's a quick summary that can get you started:
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Challenge.htm
Enduser says:
" But why do you show the data only from 1979. Isn't it a statement of the supporters of global warming theory that the temperature is rising since 200 years or so?"
Because the satellite data set only goes back to 1979. Anything before that is surface temperature readings, and surface temperatures are very unreliable (for various reasons) for estimating a global temperature.
brianmcl says:
Arn Riewe
Just a small point of correction instead of
"There's little dispute that temperatures have been rising for 150 years."
I think that it would be more accurate to say something like
"There is evidence to suggest that temperatures have risen over the last 150 years."
The difference between the 2 statements is that yours could be interpreted by those without the time to study these things more closely as meaning that temperatures have been continuing to rise for 150 years whereas there is evidence (such as the graph above) that seems to suggest that any warming may not be linear process and may even have stopped some time ago.
J. Bob says:
Comparing FFT Convolution & Recursive Filtering Methods and Long Term Temperature Data
This started as a conversation with my neighbor (ham radio operator) on solar radio interference, sun spots, and finally temperature. Initial analysis was in long term sun spot data and temperature. To evaluate "climatic" data, one would like to take the longest and best data sets available. Two of the oldest are the Central England Temperature from 1659-2008
http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcet/cetml1659on.dat
or the Stockholm data STOCKH-GML 1755-2005
http://www.rimfrost.no/
While the English data reflects more of western and the Atlantic effects, Stockholm reflects more of the Eurasian climate. In fact the Stockholm shows considerable less temperature change, especially in the last 50 or so years.
The first step was to do a least squares linear trend, and note how the data grouped about the trend. The trend was about 3 deg./century, and the data was with a few exceptions, within +-1.5 deg. of the trend, indicating no major departures from the trend. This includes the last 150 years. The actual temperature is T_act, and the linear estimation temperature T_linear, is defined below:
T_linear = 8.69 + 0.003*( Yr – 1659) Yr from 1659 to 2008
Both raw and linear estimated temperature (T_linear) are shown in Figure T_est_20, referenced below.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_20-1Vznq.gif
The error between the actual and linear estimation becomes the basis of filtering and comparison of filtering methods. From figure T_est_20, significant shorter term fluctuations are seen. What we were looking for were the longer term trends buried in this seeming chaotic signal. However it took a turn into "global warming", after he heard one of A. Gore's comments via the amateur band.
The primary analysis method used in known as Fourier Convolution. This method was selected to initially correlate sun spot an temperature fluctuations. As a "ham", he could understand what I was doing. This method takes the input signal, transforms it into the frequency domain, via the Fast Fourier Transform (FFT). In the frequency domain, the various frequencies can be modified (generally attenuated or cut off). However for the "global warming" topic, frequencies above 0.025 cycle/yr ( 40 year periods) are removed to look at the longer term, or lower frequency signals. The filtered frequencies were then transformed back into the time domain for evaluation, minus the higher frequency "noise". That is all signals with periods of less then 40 years were removed.
For this analysis, the error between the actual and trend was used. This trend line was modified to reduce errors in the FFT convolution. The new trend line was:
T_linear = 8.83 + 0.00325*( Yr – 1659)
so as to pass through both end points, shown in Fig. T_est_21. Fig. T_est_22 shows the resultant error.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_21-Gnm7m.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_22-0gPyI.gif
Figure T_est_23 shows the filtered error superimposed on the original error.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_23-aBkN0.gif
There one can see smoother longer term changes in the temperature, including an apparent downturn in recent years.
Two other analysis methods were used for comparison, a moving average filter (40 year average), and a 4 pole Chebushev filter, with a cut off frequency of 0.025 cycles/year. The figure T_est_24, below shows the comparison of the three methods.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_24-vco3s.gif
The disadvantage of the moving average filter, is that it cuts off prior to the last 20 years. The Chebushev filter, shows a pattern similar to the FFT method, but is extended, or distorted in time due to the phase lag, or time delay associated with these filters. That is, consider a 4 pole filter, a bandwidth of 0.025 cycles/year. With a input signal in the 40 cycle/year range, the output would be delayed 180 degrees or 4 times 45 degrees (1/2 a 40 year cycle). This results in a delay of about 20 years in time. So if one shifts the Chebushev filtered output back 20 years in time, it shows a very close proximity to the FFT filter results, shown below in Fig T_est_25.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_25-avCpP.gif
These two curves are also plotted against the actual data set by adding the trend line values back in. These are shown below in Fig. T_est_26 and 28.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_26-kT1s8.gif
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_28-vwReN.gif
So we have a case where two different filters indicate a peaking, and possible downward trend in the latest 5-8 years. Is there a basis for this recent downward trend? Looking at the composite global temperature, put out by http://www.climate4you.com/
shown in fig. t_est_15.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_15-nrLTG.gif
Superimposing the filtered curves, on the climate4you data, we got the plot shown in Fig T_est_27, below. It would appear all three curves are very close. This is important in that it is a composite of both surface and remote sensing systems such as GISS, RSS, UAH, etc. While they vary, they seem to follow the same trend.
http://www.imagenerd.com/uploads/t_est_27-qvBaC.gif
I'll leave it up to the reader to evaluate how close the above analysis comes to the above shown composite global temperature. More to the point:
From this one data set, can one make the assumption that man(CO2) is causing global temperatures to go up? And if so, why is the temperature, looks like it's stabilized, in spite of the continued CO2 increases?
Jack Simmons says:
I remember how hard it was for me to get to within a half of a degree in my college chemistry class on temperature readings. It was more than adequate for our purposes.
Just how many people have ever measured any temperature to within 1/1,000 of a degree?
For that matter, how many people can accurately read a regular thermometer?
Great, the tropospheres temperature is not increasing… that is a good argument to spew more co2 in the air. Why is measuring one part of the atmosphere a clinical argument. There is more than one part to the atmosphere.
Dont worry about the stratosphere and the ice sheets, the troposphere graph will fix it. The ice (our ignorance parachute) is pretending to melt. Bring back CFCs.
Changing the structure of the air is a great idea. 10 million years to stabilize the air and we can change that is 50. Civilization at it best.
Roger Carr (04:48:45) : "What does use of the swung dash " ~ " signify?"
Smokey's answer above was "approximately".
I'd add that it means "approximately equal to" for people that can't find ≈ on their key board.
Jason (10:04:07) : Wow, that's incredibly stupid. Let me make this simple for you:
CO2 and other Greenhouse gases would, by increasing in concentration, cause the troposphere to warm, all else being equal. The stratosphere would cool. And the troposphere matters because that's where we (and all terrestrial organisms) live! (not to mention your "ice sheets")
CFC's have nothing to do with AGW really, so your comment is as pointless as arguing about SO2 being a reason to cut CO2 (actually, BTW, that nasty SO2 pollution cools the Earth)
And the atmosphere of the Earth has never been stable, and never will be. The amount of CO2 was declining for hundreds of millions of years before we came along. Much longer and it may have disastrously depleted (Plants, incidentally, were probably responsible for the decline-talking about suicidal tendencies in species…no civilization needed). Life goes on, it might have even survived the next hundred million years without us saving it from it's tendency to drain CO2 from the atmosphere…but it frankly doesn't care what we do.
Mark Bowlin says:
Jimmy Haigh, while shouting "I am a Denier" from the rooftop, you might find it convenient time to paint it white. Has that been mandated yet??
So when will the Ice caps recover then?
Gerry (11:45:46) : Huh? which ice caps and from what? Be specific man! But more to the point, nobody knows the answer to that question. predicting such things is very difficult if not impossible.
What is the baseline for this anomaly? If you add in a colder 2008 to the baseline, then it is easier to get a 0.
Karl B. (05:50:11): You wrote, "I am not sure if anyone has answered where does the heat go after the 1998 El Nino."
It's not an easy answer, especially since I don't know how familiar you are with the processes that take place during an El Nino.
An El Nino does not create heat. It rearranges warm water in the tropical Pacific. During the 1997/98 El Nino, water along the equatorial Pacific sloshed from west to east. Since the water in the western Pacific is warmer than in the east, that simple rearrangement caused SST anomalies to rise in the eastern equatorial Pacific (and drop in the west). Some of the water that sloshed east had been collected over years and decades in the Pacific Warm Pool, at depths up to 300 meters. As it moved east, it rose to the surface. That's a simple but overlooked point. During an ENSO-neutral period, that warm water was below the surface and not included in the sea SURFACE temperature record. During the El Nino, the warm subsurface water rose to the surface where it was included in the sea SURFACE temperature record. Also during the El Nino, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes transport some of the heat poleward, raising lower troposphere temperatures around the globe.
As the El Nino relaxed, the warm water that had travelled east during the El Nino simply sloshed back to the west and collected again in the Pacific Warm Pool. (And it again disappeared from the SURFACE temperature record.) As tropical Pacific ocean-atmosphere processes attempted to return to "normal", they overshot the mark–tropical Pacific trade winds rose above normal, more water than normal ENSO-neutral years was driven west, and this exposed cooler subsurface water in the eastern tropical Pacific. That's the La Nina of 1998/99/00. Again, coupled ocean-atmosphere processes reduced lower troposphere temperatures.
More info on EL Nino/La Nina processes can be found at Bill Kessler's (NOAA) FAQ webpage. He does a great job of explaining them:
http://faculty.washington.edu/kessler/occasionally-asked-questions.html
The 1997/98 El Nino was so strong that some of the subsurface water from the Pacific Warm Pool was picked up by ocean currents and transported west to the Eastern Indian and Western Pacific Oceans. This caused an upward step change in the SST for those portions of the global oceans. The heat lingered, subsided below the surface, and reappeared in winters in a process called reemergence, as currents carried it around the globe for the next few years. Before that heat from the 1997/98 El Nino could dissipate fully, the 2002/03, 2004/05, and 2006/07 El Nino events rearranged more tropical Pacific heat. This kept the global ocean temperatures elevated.
I discussed this additional El Nino process in a two-part post that Anthony also posted here at WUWT:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2009/01/can-el-nino-events-explain-all-of_11.html
hunter (15:57:18) :
Because like any honest skeptic, I don't want to use the same tools as the AGW crowd uses. Circular reasoning, misinformation, ad hominem, ad nauseam (the list is very long)… I would like to talk about facts and real data, and calling for open debate.
If you are going to criticize someone or a group of people for some reason, behaviour similar to theirs is not adviceable.
Titanium Dragon says:
FYI, the total temperature anomaly over the next hundred years is expected to be only between 2 and 11 F, which means you'd expect an increase of between 0.2 and 1.1 degrees F per decade in the 21st century. The temperature data for the first decade of the 21st century is directly in line with that – you're looking at an increase of about 0.2 to 0.3 degrees.
So really, this graph supports the conclusions of the scientists.
Heat – the simple answer: Earth processes move the heat pole-ward where there is a deficit from the Equatorial/tropical areas where there is a surplus. From the high latitudes it is radiated to space – the polar areas cool off and ice forms. The details are complicated. Note Bob Tisdale's answer @ (14:42:48) and read the various reports he has done on this topic. They are clearly written and up-to-date. I don't think you can find better explanations for the parts of the processes he covers.
Jason (10:04:07) : Great, …
I'd respond to you except I'm not sure of what meaning you have tried to convey. Try being simple and direct.
Tom, Roger, Smokey ~ versus ≈
The former is on my keyboard, the second one is not. I have to do a symbol insert. So while I know the difference, and know how to make it appear, it is still extra work. What sort of keyboard has ≈?
Tom in Texas (10:11:21) adds to Smokey's answer that the swung dash means "approximately equal to".
Thanks, Tom — and I can't find that classy dash over dash on my keyboard, either. Just the humble = which does not do the trick… however, John F. Hultquist (18:11:25) adds a note of mystery for me, so I will try this from the source code to see if I get the dash over dash ( ≈? ), then proceed on with thanks to you all and approximation in my mind…
MikeN (12:47:30) : That was discussed near the beginning of the thread. The base period is 1979-98 inclusive.
Titanium Dragon (17:33:31) :
Well, here is the rub. 2-11 degrees F over a century is a rather large range. It is akin to betting on black on the roulette wheel. They are saying temperature will go up. That is a rather safe bet, given the current trend. If they are wrong, of course, the wheels fall off the wagon. If not, then we have a theory.
Roger Carr (19:29:45) : a note of mystery
I have a horse named Mystery and she knows about ^s (spelling not the same) but not about ≈.
I use MS-Word to compose comments and the software has an insert command under which I can choose a symbol table and therein find a number of things not on the keyboard. ≈ is one of them.
Mark Bowlin (11:30:28) :
Good point! Maybe white can be our colour! We can all dress in white and take to the rooftops, paint them white and all shout proudly that :"WE ARE DENIERS!!!"
We've all been in the closet too long – it's time to fight back against those that think of us some sort of criminal. (Krugman springs to mind as an example.)
John F. Hultquist (20:39:55) I herewith try your MSWord tip to write ≈ and note Word calls it as "almost equal to".
Then I copy to Notepad to rid it of any extraneous formatting, and hope…
(Noting that I no longer have any horses at all and miss them… give Mystery a run for me, huh?)
Steve Keohane says:
John F. Hultquist (20:39:55) You and Roger piqued my interest, I used to use, and be more familiar with, ALT+four digits, to get alternative characters. In XP, I just discovered, from START>>All Programs>>Accessories>>System Tools>>Character Map is available outside of a program. This omega 'Ω' is a test to check that it indeed works, used Times Roman font to copy the character into the comment section. I was taught, ≤1960, the tilde over a straight bar was "approx. equal to", don't recall I ever saw the double tilde used in notation.
@ Jimmy Haigh (21:08:05) :
" Jimmy Haigh, while shouting "I am a Denier" from the rooftop, you might find it convenient time to paint it white. Has that been mandated yet??
We've all been in the closet too long – it's time to fight back against those that think of us some sort of criminal. (Krugman springs to mind as an example.) "
Might want to be careful about that. More likely you'd be identified with the KKK ( White sheets ), and targeted by various Govt' agencies as homegrown terrorists.
Alan Millar says:
"The temperature data for the first decade of the 21st century is directly in line with that – you're looking at an increase of about 0.2 to 0.3 degrees."
Were do you get that from?
When I count to a hundred I start at one and end at 100. I don't start at zero and end at 99!
Here is the 21st century data to date showing a clear cooling trend.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010/trend/plot/uah/from:2001/to:2010
received from SEPP
DUE DILIGENCE ON GLOBAL WARMING SCIENCE IN AUSTRALIA
By Prof. Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks, Bill Kininmonth
You will have heard on the news over the last 3 weeks of the activities of Senator Steve Fielding in Australia. He is an independent cross-bench senator who holds a casting vote over the passage of the
Australian ETS (Emission Trading Scheme, termed the Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme).
After attending the Heartland-3 climate conference in Washington in early June this year, he returned to Australia and asked Climate Minister Penny Wong three simple questions about climate change. The Minister replied, first in a meeting at which her Chief Scientist (Penny Sackett) and departmental science adviser (Will Steffen) presented a briefing paper, and secondly in writing.
Senator Fielding then asked his advisory scientists Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks and Bill Kininmonth to perform an audit of the Minister's replies to his questions. Copies of Senator Fielding's original questions, Minister Wong's written reply, and other papers relevant to the matter are available for download from:
And Senator Fielding's summary of the results of his discussions with Minister Wong can be found here:
http://www.stevefielding.com.au/climate_change/.
The Due Diligence Paper has been released publicly by Senator Fielding's office today (July 3). It shows, first, that the Minister and her Department have largely been unable to answer the questions that they were asked. And, second, that the Australian Department of Climate Change has little capacity to assess the science of global warming in an expert, knowledgeable and independent way.
We believe that this is the first time recently that a member of a western parliament has released a public document that makes an independent science assessment of the danger of human-caused global warming (as promulgated by the IPCC), thereby demonstrating (i) the lack of empirical evidence that carbon dioxide emissions are damaging to the environment, and (ii) that ETS are unnecessary.
However, though raising the issue in parliamentary context may be new, our general conclusions are most certainly not. For many other qualified scientists have reached them too; for example, the two independent assessments that have been provided recently by Craig Idso and Fred Singer (NIPCC)
http://www.nipccreport.org/,
and Alan Carlin (EPA):
Given the large costs and the industrial and social disruption that established ETS are already causing – for example in Europe — and which will be added to greatly should similar bills pass parliament in Canada,
Australia, N.Z., USA and elsewhere — we ask for your help in giving our Due Diligence document wide promulgation.
The major conclusions of the science audit team were:
·Global temperatures have remained steady since 1998, despite a 5% increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide
·No strong evidence exists that human carbon dioxide emissions are causing, or are likely to cause, dangerous warming on top of natural trends
·No scientific consensus exists
"The 'Independent Due Diligence Report' highlights a number questions which needed to be answered before Australia should think about voting on an emission trading scheme," Senator Fielding said.
The full 'Independent Due Diligence Report' can be seen at http://www.stevefielding.com.au/climate_change/
Due Diligence on Minister Wong's Climate Answers
Prof. Bob Carter, David Evans, Stewart Franks & Bill Kininmonth
Open Letter, sent today to
Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper, and my MP Lee Richardson
Gentlemen:
Australian Senator Steve Fielding is a Parliamentarian who is doing his job on Climate Change.
Those who parrot imbeciles like Obama and Gore will find that history is not kind to them.
Allan M.R. MacRae
You could be right – maybe white isn't the colour.
Seriously though, why should there be a stigma attached to what most of us contributing to this blog passionately believe to be the truth, i.e., that AGW is just plain 100% wrong?
And as for calling us flat earthers and deniers (with its holocaust connotations), there are very important differences here: The earth is not flat and the holocaust happened.
Jimmy Haigh (21:08:05) : Another problem with white roofs-in places where it snows, they tend to have dark roofs for the simple reason that they are trying to get the snow to melt off and not build up and put to much strain of the roof making it collapse.
Here's an idea for a color: Blue. As in Vaclav Klaus' Blue, not a Green, Planet.
OK – blue sounds OK. Who would have thought that choosing a colour would be so difficult?!
I was never good with colours… Ask the wife!
This is a good short course:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_psychology
The entry for blue is:
"The best color to wear to an interview is blue. Blue is non-threatening, yet confident and stable. Many police uniforms are blue because the color says confidence and security, while being non-threatening. Weightlifters have proven to lift heavier weights in blue rooms[citation needed]. With the good, there's the bad. Blue can also signify depression. You've got the blues is a nod to this attribute.
Blue can symbolize seas, men, productive, interior, skies, peace, unity, harmony, tranquility, calmness, trust, coolness, confidence, conservatism, water, ice, loyalty, dependability, cleanliness, technology, winter, depression, coldness, idealism, air, wisdom, royalty, nobility, Earth (planet), Virgo (light blue), Pisces (pale blue) and Aquarius (dark blue, star sign), strength, steadfastness, light, friendliness, peace, mourning (Iran),[citation needed] truthfulness, love, liberalism (US politics), and conservatism (UK, Canadian & European politics). In many diverse cultures, blue is significant in religious beliefs. It is held to keep the bad spirits, stupidity and misfortune away."
I've emphasized the parts I think are most relevant. (As a note, all colors have political implications. However, by curious accident, the implications are generally opposite in the US than elsewhere. Ordinarily Red is the color of Left-wing politics (especially communism) and Blue more the color of the Right but The Republicans-general center-right-got labeled with red, and Democrats-center-left-got blue-this is an interesting story as to how this happened, but when I picked blue I was hardly thinking of politics (apart from the connection to Klaus) because in my own country blue would signify the opposite of my political orientation).
Cerise?
Hm, well, I guess that would fall under red.
"Red strikes a chord with more cultures than many other colors because of its intensity, passion and invocation of an inherent physiological response. Red is the color of celebration and good luck (China), purity and integrity (India), mourning (South Africa) and communism. When used with a wide brush, red typically makes whatever it's painted on look larger, whether it's a torso or wingback chair. The color is bold and audacious, so it usually dilutes the colors around it. For this reason it's used to accent and highlight objects of importance.
Studies show that red can have a physical effect, including increasing the rate of respiration, raising blood pressure and thus making the heart beat faster. Red is also said to make people hungry (McDonald's, Burgerville, corner cafés). The red ruby is the traditional 40th wedding anniversary gift. Red is also the color of the devil in modern Western culture.
Red typically symbolizes passion, strength, energy, fire, sex, love, romance, excitement, speed, heat, arrogance, ambition, leadership, masculinity, power, danger, gaudiness, blood, war, anger, revolution, radicalism, Communism, aggression, respect, martyrs, the Holy Spirit, conservatism (US politics), Liberalism (Canadian politics), wealth (China) and marriage (India)."
If you ask me, there are a lot of negative associations and it just seems less fitting than blue.
Patrick Davis says:
Some interesting reading in the Sydney Morning Herald, Australia.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/energy-smart/bright-idea-puts-paid-to-power-bills-20090704-d8e9.html
AU$30,000 (Minus AU$8000 from a Govn't grant, which of course costs taxpayers much more than that) doesn't sound like a good investment to me. Also, many more people in Australia live in "Strata" apartment blocks. The roof is "common property" and, therefore, out of bounds for residents. I see "Strata" companies imposing this sort of thing on all residents, for a fee of course.
And then this…
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/see-you-later-winter–brisbane-climes-ahead-for-sydney-20090705-d98u.html
I wish. We've had a cool summer and winter has been cold too with early snow in the hills.
There's no warming Mr Gore, please stay in the US.
http://www.smh.com.au/environment/global-warming/al-gore-mines-a-new-source-of-climatechange-messengers-20090705-d98t.html
I mentioned cerise – I never knew what colour cerise was ubtil now. I got the idea from an old Abbot and Costello movie which introduced the late great – the greatest, IMHO – singer of all time, Ella Fitzgerald. She was singing about loosing her little yellow basket.
"Has anybody seen that itty little basket of mine,
that little yellow basket was a joy of mine".
Bud Abbot put his head up outside the back window and asked if it was cerise.
But we stray off topic…
Blue is fine by me!
Patrick Davis (18:27:32) :
I bet these guys that Gore is using are the same guys that go round telling us all how to be positive. A company I worked for once put us on a day's course with one of these affirmative action guys. What a crock that was. I cringe now as I write of the very memory of it.
O/T Interesting uptick on the DMI Arctic temperatures graph;
http://ocean.dmi.dk/arctic/meant80n.uk.php
Is this indicative of the "Watts Effect"? Doesn't seem to show up here;
http://psc.apl.washington.edu/northpole/
Well, no less a person than SIR David King, who it was revealed, this morning in the London Times, to have grown up and attended university in that citadel of fair-minded democracy, apartheid South Africa, has strong views on what needs to be achieved at Copenhagen.
Thoughtfully, the article revealed that he played a major role in the Govt's 'handling' of the MMR 'crisis', which might point to him simply saying: 'What does GSK want and give it to them!' on the basis of the contempt for human engagement with worriers and doubters, which is the reason for dropping levels of vaccination, I'm sorry to say…….
So I'm sure you'll find him engaging analytically, respectfully and in a fair-minded way at that very important summit…..
Won't you?
Has anyone coorelated undersea volcanic erruptions to temp levels and ice melting?
We are fixing up some used mobile homes for resale and covered the roofs with "Snowcoat", which is very WHITE.
Speaking of a arctic temp up tick and volcanoes, the arctic ice graph just took a hit. It was nicely mid-range, but is definately sliding lower. Could still follow the 2006 curve, but be ready to hear about the ice taking a "faster than originally forecasted" dive in the MSM.
Another question (for those living in the British Isles): do they still have commercial wineries there like they did in Chaucer's times (the 1300's)? Or is it too cold now?
A couple years ago I was going through my mother's old Nat'l Geogrphics (1998 or 1999) and remember reading an article about life there 10,000 years ago. They talked about hippos swimming in the Thames near the present site of London.
I wonder, did man cause those periods of warming? Did man cause Greenland to be "green" the way it used to be?
Klockarman says:
As I do each month to Al Gore's chagrin, I've embellished Dr. Spencers UAH monthly graph…
http://algorelied.com/?p=2429
""" John Finn (16:54:07) :
I hate to be a party pooper but the low May-Jun-Jul satellite anomalies were expected. The lag between ENSO events and surface temperatures is less than that of the satellites. Earlier in the year, GISS and Hadley had much lower anomalies relative to RSS and UAH. GISS and Hadley are now refelecting the warmer SST. UAH and RSS should follow suit in the next month or two. """
So what, if they were expected; the CO2 still went up didn't it ? The values is what they is; whether they were expected or not.
On the otherhand, absolutely none of what Hansen predicted in 1988 has actually happened whether it was expected or not; oh I forgot it was a projection not a prediction. So are both projections and predictions expected; or just the projections.
By the way; weren't we told back last month that they were expecting -113 Fat Vostok, or at that Aussie station; that's about -80 deg C and the troops in Iraq are seeing +130 F, that's about 54C, so we had a range of around 134 deg C last month, out of which the "mean" seems to have hanged by 0.001, or is it 0.003 deg C.
And people actually believe this is significant; whether it goes up or down.
The instrumentation is even that good.
And how many of Hansen's owl boxes were affected by the summer barbecues last month, anyway.
Yeah this is real science alright; it's not even 4-H club science; but hey, it IS peer reviewed.
PS what was the standard deviation on that latest anomaly reading ? And what about the trend; what would you say that is ?
""" J. Bob (09:31:26) :
Comparing FFT Convolution & Recursive Filtering Methods and Long Term Temperature Data """
So JBob; why don't you try running your Stereo system through some four
pole Tchebychev filter; and tell us if you like the trash that comes out of
your loudspeakers in lieu of music.
You take highly unpredictable time varying function; FFT it to try and get some sort of valid frequency domain representation, and then you filter it through a highly non- linear phase filter and then convert it back to the time domain, and surprise, it rings like a bell at around the cutoff frequency of the filter.
So just what were you expecting; some sort of faithful reproduction of the data. Even a four pole Butterworth Filter would have more than 10% overshoot, and a four pole tchebychev even with only 0.01 dB passband ripple would have over 12% overshoot.
Why didn't you use a filter more like a Bessel, or even Gaussian Filter, if you wanted to get a truer time domain response that is low pass filtered. Try using a Cauer filter if you want to really muck things up royally.
I prefer to see the real data as it comes straight from the instrumentation; I don't see any point in throwing away real data for some ersatz phony representation of it.
""" Ozzie John (06:09:12) :
Perhaps the earth's radiation budget can be considered like this ?. The summer facing hemisphere gains more heat than it releases, thus it makes sense that more cloud will help cool this hemisphere, and less cloud means more heat. For the winter facing hemisphere more heat is being lost as IR into space than it receives from direct sunlight, thus less cloud means more loss of IR and more cooling and more cloud means more heat retention. If ENSO affects the cloud distribution in a seasonal manner then this could be a contributing factor ? Of course the system is more complex than this and the rate of heat transportation to the poles (eg: from hadley cell velocity) to a region of less water vapour where it can radiate more effectively back into space is probably another key factor in the ENSO mechanism. """
Surely you jest Ozzie ? Heat is transported to the poles where it can radiate more effectively back into space ? Time to bone up on some black body radiation theory. Most people believe that thermal radiation emittance varies as the fourth power of temperature, and as a result the emittance in the hottest tropical deserts in the mid-day heat is over 12 times higher than at the coldest polar winter midnights. So much for the polar regions radiating more effectively.
Then there is that little matetr of the Wien Displacement Law. At the mean surface temperature of around +15 deg C, the IR emittance peaks at around 10.1 microns; whereas the CO2 absorption spectrum is centered at around 15 microns, so it is somewhat down on the long wavelength tail of the emission spectrum. In the hottest desert temperatures; up to +60 deg C (surfgace), the emission spectrum peak moves down to around 8.8 microns (Wien), so CO2 becomes even less effective in trapping the outgoing radiation.
On the other hand at those colder polar temperatures, where the emittance is pitifully low, the emission spectrum has now moved up to the 15 micron wavelength; right where CO2 does its best trapping. So much for your notion that radiative cooling loss is more efficient at the polar regions.
And if the surface emissivity at the poles is an order of magnitude smaller than at the tropical desert daytime highs, so m,ust be the radiative "forcing" (hate that word) due to CO2 green house effect. Don't go looking for any 1.5 to 5 deg C "climate sensitivity" values in those cold polar regions; there simply isn't enough emitted radiation to raise temperatures much at all, even if the CO2 grabbed it all.
Leaving out all politics, I like red.
The color of warmth and passion. Some other words that warmth brings to mind:
affable, affectionate, amiable, amorous, ardent, cheerful, compassionate, cordial, fervent, genial, gracious, happy, heartfelt, hearty, hospitable, kindhearted, kindly, loving, pleasant, responsive, sincere, softhearted, sympathetic, tender, warmhearted, wholehearted, empathetic…
While blue always makes me think of frigidity and cold. Other words that cold brings to my mind are:
arctic, biting, bitter, bleak, brisk, chill, cool, crisp, cutting, frigid, frosty, frozen, glacial, icy, inclement, penetrating, polar, raw, severe, sharp, snappy, snowy, stinging, wintry, Siberian, algid, benumbed, chilled, icebox, iced, numbed, shivery, sleety…
Now can someone remind why we want the earth even colder?
http://www.iceagenow.com/Record_low_temperatures_in_46_states_during_June.htm
timetochooseagain (13:03:31)
Mike Bryant (18:17:56) :
I've got it! Maroon!
With a hat-tip to Bugs Bunny: "What a bunch of maroons!"
Maroon then it is! the color of the Texas Aggies is good enough for me. I may be wrong but it seems to contain more red than blue…
Roger (03:19:07) : E.M.Smith So pleased to hear about your tomatoes! your earlier post re Siberian and Arctic varieties led me to research and locate seeds available here in Scotland which my wife intends to cultivate next year. This year's crop of English varieties looks promising, but the previous 2 years were total failures, despite the CET for 2007 and 2008 ramping up hotter and hotter. It takes very little research to discover that the CET series is not in fact a true series, having been changed in it's locations and it's readings adjusted, for reasons that seem dubious to a layman like me.
The plants don't lie and have no agenda …
FWIW, these folks claim to have a tomato that works in Scotland:
http://www.seedfest.co.uk/about/about.html#highland
Mike Bryant (18:17:56) : Now can someone remind why we want the earth even colder?
Ian B says:
With regard to UK vineyards, there are an increasing number and of course this is widely attributed to global warming, although also should be attributed to changes in the drinking behaviour of the British middle classes – I wonder how many of the vineyards are on sites where hops used to be grown. Most are in southern England although there is one just down the road from my sister (slightly north of Birmingham), and I understand the furthest north is in South Yorkshire.
Now, there is little doubt that the UK has tended to warmer summers and (more particularly) milder winters over the last 25 years, but it is a big stretch to prove that the climate of a fairly small island on the edge of a large ocean bears much relation to the rest of the world. The recent weather though has been more conducive to growing some varieties of grape, especially with the development of types that are more resistant to cold.
I understand (although am no expert on the issue) that the UK can produce some very good sparkling wines based on the same grape varieties as traditionally used in the Champagne region (which of course isn't that far away from the south east of England).
Kevin Leddy says:
Awww shucks, only a 0 degree increase, hoping for more – Alaskans for Global Warming.
Robert A Cook PE says:
Jason (10:04:07) :
Let's address each of your (incorrect and misleading) comments in turn.
You: Great, the tropospheres temperature is not increasing… that is a good argument to spew more co2 in the air. Why is measuring one part of the atmosphere a clinical argument. There is more than one part to the atmosphere.
Reply: Surface temperatures have been corrupted by unexplained and unjustified and incorrect and biased "correction factors" by Hansen's GISS and the NOAA such that more than 85% of the ENTIRE "global warming" temperature between 1900 and 2000 is "correction factors. Worse, the single most significant known "correction" that does actually INCREASE the apparent measured temperatures is NOT corrected in the NOAA/GISS plots – thus corrupting the evidence even more against your assumed AGW. Unbiased, un-corrupted raw data showing a decline in truly global temperatures uncorrupted by local heat islands, false measurement stations, and human influences IS the most reliable measurement possible.
Further, GISS, the IPCC, and the UK's staff "climatologists" have been shown numerous times to have lied and propagandized their data, their studies, and their messages – so their claims need be checked by more reliable sources.
Local surface temperatures – in the "best measured" country in the world have been found to have fewer than 12% of the stations accurately sited and safe from local heat biases. The rest of the world is even worse. What measurements do you want to trust your 1.6 trillion dollar boondoggle to?
You: Dont worry about the stratosphere and the ice sheets, the troposphere graph will fix it. The ice (our ignorance parachute) is pretending to melt. Bring back CFCs.
Reply: AGW theory REQUIRES that the upper troposphere be warming much more rapidly than the surface temperatures, and even more rapidly than the oceans and arctic areas. It is not so warming – but is declining. This proves that Hansen's and Gore's THEORY of CO2 effects on temperature – with the constants they have ASSUMED and the math that they have APPROXIMATED in the computer ESTIMATES and PROJECTIONS is false. If the data prove your computer is false over a 30 year period, you CANNOT make your theory correct by lying about the effects prdicted
100 years, 200 years, or 400 years in the future.
Arctic sea ice extents were measured (not guessed, not assumed, not "corrected" or corrupted but actually measured this spring in 2009 at their record highest-ever extent. Antarctic ice mass is now also at its highest ever recorded value. What is melting, and where? Sea levels are NOT rising faster than ever before, but at the same consistent 2 to 3 mm/year rate they've always been rising since the last Ice Age.
You: Changing the structure of the air is a great idea. 10 million years to stabilize the air and we can change that is 50. Civilization at it best.
Reply: Yes, increasing CO2 has led to 12% to 27% MORE food, fuel, fodder, feed, and seeds as plants grow faster, stronger, and more drought resistant. Name ANY real world harm done by increasing CO2 from today's levels to say 1000 ppm or 1500 ppm. Name ANY real danger from an increase in temperature by 2 degrees – while noting that right now, we are cooling off globally at a 2 degree per century rate..
The atmosphere has NEVER been "stable" and is part of a natural world that we can only marvel at. Destroying the world and increasing poverty RUINS more ecologies and KILLS more people than improving people's economic conditions so THEY can live safer, more productive, healthier lives. Or do you really want more people to die? Colder winter weather kills 4 to 6 times more people per year than warmer, more productive, healthier and safer hot, more summer-like temperatures.
Robert A Cook PE (18:09:30) :
How about we address some of yours?
Arctic sea ice extents were measured (not guessed, not assumed, not "corrected" or corrupted but actually measured this spring in 2009 at their record highest-ever extent.
Not true: http://www.ijis.iarc.uaf.edu/en/home/seaice_extent.htm
Antarctic ice mass is now also at its highest ever recorded value. What is melting, and where?
Name ANY real danger from an increase in temperature by 2 degrees – while noting that right now, we are cooling off globally at a 2 degree per century rate..
Again not true.
Phil.,
Don't you understand? This is your argument: "…what's important is the trend".
For instance, here is a trend that you can see. Or not.
[OK, I guess under current IPCC rules it isn't fair to introduce actual facts.]
Finally, a response of "again not true" presupposes a complete understanding of that question — which is doubtful. Read the question(s) again. I'll admit that it can't be answered with a simple "not true."
"Again not true." Emotion, me boy. It's in everyone's downfall.
Did I seriously see Phil. 'address' issues with nothing more than the comments: "Not true" and "Again not true"? Wow, how much arrogance does THAT take!
CoBEn2000 says:
I'm sure evryone is looking at the same data here but interpreting it differently depending on your understanding of the whole picture. I see a slight but upward trend over many yrs, the latest dip is but a statistical ANOMALY. Anomaly hunting is not way to make an absolute statement and to make one is to show a clear lack of critical thinking.
CoBEn2000 (07:23:26) :
I'm sure evryone is looking at the same data here but interpreting it differently depending on your understanding of the whole picture. I see a slight but upward trend over many yrs, the latest dip is but a statistical ANOMALY.
Yes. Temperatures have been steadily rising since the mid-1600's. A LONG ways before any so-called CO2-induced global warming.
Fact remains, for all but 25 years of the past 230 years, CO2 has been flat while temperatures have risen, CO2 has been increasing while temperatures have fallen, and CO2 has been increasing while temperatures have stayed the same. Now, just what IS the relationship between CO2 and temperature that we are spending 9 trillion dollars on?
can't we just say the evidence is in….There is none.
The new report shows that the IPCC has failed to provide any empirical evidence that shows that dangerous human-caused global warming is occurring. In particular:
•	The 20th century was not the warmest in the last 1,000 years;
•	No evidence exists that any measurable amount of the rise in global temperature over the last 50 years is a result of human influence;
•	Current rates of ice/glacier melt are not unusual;
•	Current weather (including tropical storms, droughts and floods) is not unusual;
•	Current sea-level change is occurring at rates typical of recent times;
•	No correlation has been demonstrated between increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide and dangerous temperature rise.
The NIPCC report is available for purchase or free download, at http://www.nipccreport.org/
If possible could someone please explain the discrepancy between these two different readings? Basically the following report says that the June 2009 anamoly was a +0.62 C. What am I missing? Is the difference due to a different starting point? Thanks for helping to educate me.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2009/jun/global.html#temp
GISS and HADCRUT need to keep that trend line pointing upwards otherwise all hell will break loose. Their agenda is:-
1. While an extended solar minimum exists we cannot show that the Sun has a major impact on Climate and that man has nothing to do with it.
2, We must retain our tax payer funded jobs at all costs.
3. Our governments love the idea to impose an extra tax.
4. We must ensure Al keeps his prize.
Paul Silverman says:
Hello. I'm wondering whether I can post on old threads.


Today's consumer is more sophisticated than ever, demanding fruit that eats better, looks better, and lasts longer. At Kingsburg Orchards, we have accepted this challenge by investing heavily in our own exclusive nursery program – a program that focuses on creating new proprietary varieties, perfecting plant husbandry and improving orchard management. The result? A future that looks very bright, indeed, as we strive to grow consistently great eating, superior looking, long-lasting fruit. It's more than a goal, it's a commitment. From Kingsburg Orchards to you.
We have searched the world over, looking for the most flavorful and unique fruit varieties we could find. We began this search decades ago and it has only been in the last few years that we have been able to reward our customers with the volume we have worked hard to develop. In the past, once we found, researched, tested, planted, waited 3 1/2 years to see volume, marketed and delivered, we had our competitors waiting to jump on our coattails the very next year!
Though many have tried to deliver our quality and consistency of product, most tend to chase price instead of the consumer longevity that is generated by the eating experience we deliver. What happens when there are farmers and marketers that will pick and sell too early? The fruit is still sour or immature. It doesn't last as long on the shelf, has less nutrient content and very little flavor… but they fly off the shelf because people have been trained that fruit that looks like ours should taste like ours. When it doesn't, consumers think that the next time they purchase, it will also be a bad purchase. Research shows a bad flavor experience means that customer won't be purchasing stone fruit again for at least 10 days.
After seeing this play out to everyone's detriment, we decided to do something drastic that would change the industry forever. No longer should the consumer suffer or be misled by looks that can't live up to their expectations! When we found a variety that was so special and unique, we partnered with the man who developed it, and closed the door behind us. Once we had control of the individual variety, we could grow it, nurture it, and harvest it exactly how we wanted in order to deliver the absolute best to our buyers and their consumers. Year in and year out, we can now deliver consistency and people will make repeat purchases because of our superior quality. Our fruit delivers the flavor and shelf life our consumers are looking for, and we won't let that be destroyed by uncontrolled or impatient hands. Our growers are family, with the same goals and farming practices handed down from generation to generation, and that is something we don't plan on changing.


text:
Glendalough Upper Lake (irl. An Loch Uachtair) – jezioro polodowcowe w pobliżu Glendalough w hrabstwie Wicklow we wschodniej Irlandii.

Geografia

Jezioro jest położone w górach Wicklow na zachód od wczesnośredniowiecznej osady klasztornej w Glendalough. W pobliżu południowego brzegu stoi mały, prostokątny kościół znany jako Temple-na-Skellig, do którego dotrzeć można tylko łodzią, a później, z nabrzeża, po schodach. W pobliskim klifie znajduje się jaskinia St. Kevin's bed, będąca przypuszczalnie schronieniem św. Kewina, a później Wawrzyńca z Dublina.

Geologia
Jezioro jest sklasyfikowane jako jezioro rynnowe. Glendalough Upper Lake jak i Lower Lake stanowiły niegdyś całość, ale jedna z rzek wpływających do niego naniosła tyle osadów, że pierwotne jezioro zostały rozdzielone na dwie części.

Turystyka
W pobliżu wschodniego krańca jeziora przechodzi długodystansowy, oznakowany szlak turystyczny Wicklow Way, zaczynający się na północy w Rathfarnham i biegnący w kierunku południowym do Clonegal.

Ochrona przyrody

Upper Lake jest częścią Parku Narodowego Wicklow Mountains. Wśród roślin wodnych rosnących przy brzegu można wymienić grzybienie białe i rdestnice pływające. Część brzegu zajmuje bagno ze skrzypem, turzycą dzióbkowatą i trzciną pospolitą, które jest dogodnym miejscem do obserwacji ważek.

Przypisy

Jeziora w Irlandii

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia