Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
- From: don@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Don Klipstein)
- Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 07:58:59 +0000 (UTC)
In article <aqh5o4td0trqnat33rb4eoi9vvuv54bp2d@xxxxxxx>, Raveninghorde wrote:
On Thu, 29 Jan 2009 09:34:40 -0800 (PST), bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx wrote:
I thought you would benefit from an overview I put together for my
younger daughter. Her school are opposing Kyoto in a UK youth
parliament debate. I've already posted many of the links for you in
previous posts.
Has CO2 increased or is this just natural variation?
Summary:
http://www.biokurs.de/treibhaus/180CO2/bayreuth/bayreuth1e.htm
detail:
http://www.biomind.de/nogreenhouse/daten/EE%2018-2_Beck.pdf
The CO2 data that the AGW denialists and skeptics like, as in well above
300 ppmv before the 1950's, comes from air samples close to ground over
land. A lot of the time those run high in CO2, due to frequent times of
lack of sunlight (plants do less to no removal of CO2 emitted by animals,
bacteria, molds, fungi, yeasts, etc.) combined with lack of convection
(which usually runs lower when sunlight is absent).
Check out the story that CO2 measurements from the Wisconsin Tower
tells for a time of year when plants are active there, even as opposed to
Wisconsin in winter!
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
How reliable are current measurements:
CO2 has been measured at Mauna Loa Observatory Hawaii since 1959.
Mauna Loa is the world's largest active volcano and emits CO2.
http://www.mlo.noaa.gov/programs/esrl/volcanicco2/volcanicco2.html
/quote
A volcanic component can be estimated by taking the difference in
concentration between periods when the plume is present and periods
immediately before and after that exhibit baseline conditions.
Right after the 1984 eruption, Mauna Loa emitted as much CO2 as an
American city of 40,000 people. By 2005, these emissions had fallen by
a factor of about 100.
/end quote
Mauna Loa does not erupt much, and the people at the observatory do take
care to exclude eruptions. Notice the Mauna Loa observatory record to
have a few gaps. They have sufficient accuracy to discern seasonal
variations of a couple ppmv through most years since 1958 despite the
volcano.
http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/about/co2_measurements.html
The data before 1959 is taken from Law Dome ice core samples.
http://cdiac.ornl.gov/trends/co2/lawdome.html
Note that the air is actually 40 to 80 years younger than the ice it
is trapped in. Or is it? Has the information been massaged to give the
right answer?
/quote
The enclosed air at any depth in the ice has a mean age, (aa), that is
younger than the age of the host ice layer (ai), from which the air is
extracted.
/end quote
Can you cite something to support this claim other than highly
questionable stuff that likely uses highly questionable sources (such as
CO2 determinations at low altitude over land having life forms and failing
to exclude the there-localized spikes that the Wisconsin Tower exposes)?
Of course the air trapped in the ice is at least as old as the ice!
What is the temperature increase?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
That article does try to make NASA GISS and HadCRUT-3V determinations
look very different from each other, while they actually fairly-well
agree!
Have a look at each, most recent published version, directly:
HadCRUT-3V, link supplied by the "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/climon/data/themi/g17.htm
NASA's GISS:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
(I actually got to there from the "A Tale of Two Thermometers" article
with a little bit of extra work)
The main differences:
1. NASA GISS runs about .1 degree warmer "anomaly" due to using 1951-1980
average as a baseline, while HadCRUT uses 1961-1990 average as a baseline.
2. NASA GISS runs about .01 degree/decade more-warming than HadCRUT due
to including the fast-warming Arctic (with heavy reliance on interpolation
between far-spaced surface measurements) and "insufficiently-covered"
areas including much of the Arctic are excluded by the other records.
3. HadCRUT senses El Ninos more than the GISS and NCDC determinations do,
and as a result has its hottest year so far being 1998.
Dr Roy Spencer is responsible for the UAH satellite temperature record.
Along with Christy. Latest trend determination for UAH is warming by
..13 degree C per decade, probably by using "least squares best fit
straight line" (my words), according to:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_record
I do think that "placing a straight line where RMS deviation is
minimized" overweights the 1984 La Nina and the 1998 El Nino a bit -
placing a straight line to minimize average deviation I expect to show
more like .115 degree C per decade.
UAH, One of the 4 temperature records.
The UAH determination of lower troposphere temperature trend is the
least-warming-showing of what looks to me to be the "Big 5" major
determinations of temperature trend at the surface and/or lower
troposphere.
/quote
Roy W. Spencer <"edit-for-space in-my-words" impressive credentials>
/end quote
Temperature appears to have been dropping since 2003:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/latest-global-temperatures/
Hide the most recent 1.5 years, and it looks like unending warming. The
very recent dip was from what is largely regarded as the strongest La Nina
in 20 years. Let's see what this looks like in another couple years, or
even after both one more El Nino and one more La Nina.
How does NASA, James Hansen, measure temperature? GISS, One of the 4
temperature records and the highest.
NASA, National Aeronautics and Space Administration measures on the
ground using surface stations.
So does HadCRUT, used by The Register to argue against Hansen in their
"A Tale of Two Thermometers" article.
Many of the US stations have been checked and found wanting:
www.surfacestations.org
58% have errors between 2C and 5C 11% have errors over 5C
The surface station record is prone to errors due to urban heat
islands (towns are warmer than the country side) and massive station
drop out
www.icecap.us/images/uploads/DataIntegrity.doc
How do surface stations measure temperature? With maximum/minimum
thermometers, then the 2 readings are averaged. So 2.4 hours at 20C
and 21.6 hours at 0C gives 10C average, the same as 21.6 hours at 20C
and 2.4 Hours at 0C. The arctic and antarctic are estimated, not
enough readings.
The global distribution of surface stations is nearly useless:
We still have the UAH and RSS determinations from the satellite data.
NASA GISS also uses satellite determinations of surface temperature and
trends thereof to develop and modify correction factors for surface
station data.
http://www.cao-rhms.ru/krut/OAO2007_12E_03.pdf section 2.
OK, I dared to visit a .ru website...
Fig. 4: Of the 4 plots in the graph, 2 are coin-flipping results. The
caption under the graph does say in part "and results of random variation
of global temperature with an annual step of .066 K". The graph covers
1855-2005.
I have trouble believing that annual step of .066 K/C degree over 150
years results from an average honest set of coin tosses.
Which came first the temperature or the CO2? The historical record
shows CO2 increase lags temperature by 800 years.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/CO2,Temperaturesandiceages-f.pdf
Since the Industrial Revolution, temperature has lagged CO2 by a few
years according to the "Big 3" global surface temperature trend
determinations since 1880, the Mauna Loa data and the ice core data.
Note that 800 years ago was the latter part of the medieval warm
period. So warming then causes CO2 increase now?
While currently nature is actually removing CO2 from the atmosphere?
So if CO2 hasn't caused global warming what has?
Keep in mind that nature is currently removing CO2 from the atmosphere
and has been doing so in recent decades. The "Great Global Warming
Swindle" movie and the "mhieb" website have bad numbers (72.7% low, ratio
is 12/44) for CO2 emissions from fossil fuel burning and cement
production.
Annual CO2 contribution from fossil fuel burning and cement production
in "PgC" (gigatons of carbon) are well-searchable. Multiply by 44/12 for
gigatons of CO2. It is not that hard to calculate how much that should
annually change atmospheric concentration in ppmv, and the Mauna Loa
record indicates less year-in year-out pretty-much-every-year and every
5-decade period since at least sometime in the 1990's, probably close to
true for entire history of CO2 measurements at Mauna Loa.
The sun.
Little ice age coincides with the Maunder minimum:
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=7122
Medieval warm period coincides with the medieval maximum:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_variation
And Napoleon's army was (partly) destroyed by the cold of the Dalton
minimum:
http://dwb.unl.edu/Teacher/NSF/C10/C10Links/chemistry.about.com/library/
weekly/aa040300a.htm
Temperature goes with solar cycle length:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/sunspot-cycle-length-temp.JPG
(I ackowledge there is an error at the very end of the curve)
The curve also ends in the early 1980's - I suspect due to the
correlation not existing in the 25 years since.
And the world is now cooling:
http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/
Solar_Cycles_24_and_25_and_Predicted_Climate_Response_22nd_October.pdf
That is a prediction based on a prediction of solar activity without
consideration to increase of greenhouse gases.
To the extent we do anything warmer than the predicted cooling by 1.5
degrees C from early 2000's warmth to 2020, we have a global warming
effect that will be added to the rebound from the predicted solar minimum.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/08/
the-new-nasa-solar-goalpost-cycle-24-maybe-not-so-big/
More stuff on prediction of the sun dimming for the next couple decades.
Watch out if the globe manages to warm anyway, even if more slowly than
in the 1979 to mid-2000's stretch.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/17/the-pain-in-maine/
A tentative alltime low for the USA State of Maine.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/01/24/snow-in-united-arab-emirates/
Every couple to few years over the past couple decades I hear people
saying that it snowed somewhere or somewhere else in a desert Middle East
location. Israel or Iran - I heard of those getting
worst-snow-in-3-decades sometime just several years ago. Last winter it
was China.
Seems like every couple years I hear about some big or record-setting
snowstorm somewhere or another, pretty much starting with what Buffalo and
other western NY State locations such as Sears Pond endured in the cold
winter of 1976-1977...
Then Boston setting a snowstorm record in January 1978, to be broken in
February 1978. In between, some of Ohio had new snowstorm records from
close to the most intense extratropical low pressure system to have been
measured in the United States. Philadelphia falls .4 inch short of
entire-winter snowfall record that winter...
Then Baltimore gets about 20 inches of snow in about 8 hours (though not
a record) in a February 1979 storm...
Then the winter of 1979-1980 is spectacularly record-setting with
snowfall in southern Virginia (including Richmond and Norfolk) and
northeastern/eastern North Carolina (as far south as Cape Hatteras and the
"Triangle")...
A couple or a few years later Chicago gets a record 23-incher (possibly
only record since a move of "official weather station" in 1962)...
Philadelphia sets a new single-storm record in February 1983...
A year or two later El Paso gets a biggie around a foot or 20 inches
or whatever...
Close to then or not long afterwards I hear about a 4-footer or so in
the Black Hills of South Dakota...
A few years after that San Antonio gets a spectacular biggie, IIRC about
10 inches...
Then there was the March 12-13 "Blizzard of 1993", setting new records
of snowfall at many locations at least from Birmingham Alabama (10
inches) to Syracuse NY (42 or 43 inches, breaking previous record from
Blizzard of 1888).
The winter of 1993-1994 set new snowfall records for a whole winter from
SW to east-central PA and also in Boston, along with an alltime record low
temperature in Harrisburg PA, and spectacular ice storms in Detroit and
from NYC to SE PA to Wash-Balt area and some nearby parts of Virginia.
Philadelphia had its 1983 single-storm snowfall record broken by a large
margin in a January 1996 storm. Philadelphia also had a new entire-winter
snowfall record set in 1995-1996.
Not too many years ago Buffalo and other western NY areas had a bad
snowy winter close to as bad as that of 1976-1977, by a small margin worse
in many western NY locations.
I think it was about 3 years ago when a blizzard broke Boston's 1978
record for single-storm, as part of that winter breaking the
entire-winter-record set in 1993-1994.
Next year NYC set a new single-storm record.
Winter after that it's China, Toronto and Ottawa and now it's UAE.
Meanwhile, so far this winter Philadelphia has had about half its
average snowfall, despite temperature for the winter running on the low
side. (Winter being colder is more often the case in Philadelphia when
both El Nino and La Nina are lacking. Previous winter was on the warm
side in Philadelphia due to a La Nina that cooled most of the world.)
I see low correlation between local and regional single-storm and
single-winter snowfall events and global temperature trends.
- Don Klipstein (don@xxxxxxxxx)
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
- From: Raveninghorde
- Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
- Prev by Date: Re: Blast from the past... Z80!
- Next by Date: Re: Blast from the past... Z80!
- Previous by thread: Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
- Next by thread: Re: OT - Hansen acknowledges solar forcing
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
