Just Temperature

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 03:19 PM GMT die 25o March, anno 2012

Share this Blog
16
+

Just Temperature:

The U.S. has just experienced an intense heat event with many records falling in the eastern half of the U.S. Here is Chris Burt’s post on the historic event. There is an excellent discussion of this event and its relation to a warming climate by Andrew Freedman at Climate Central. (Global Warming May Have Fueled March Heat Odds) I have a talk to give next week, and I am sure that the heat will contribute to questions. A question that has been put to me frequently in the past weeks is that should we expect such high temperatures in the future?

Usually when I talk about evidence of a warming, I talk about coherent and convergent evidence. That is, one can’t just look at the global surface temperature data and state that the planet has warmed. But if you look at the surface temperature data along with many other sources of data, then one finds that the evidence of warming is overwhelming. If you add the impacts of this warming to ecosystems, for example, the observations that spring is coming earlier over most of the land area in the Northern Hemisphere, then the evidence becomes smothering. For me and many others this evidence of warming is convincing, but it relies on pulling together information from many sources, explaining their relationships, and presentation of the information. So as people have asked me about the heat in Michigan and Maine this past week, I have thought of what I could do with just temperature. Here is the thread that I put together.

The last month when the global mean monthly average was below the 20th century average was February 1985. Here is a picture of the difference from the 100 year average of temperature data from each February. It has been 324 months since there was a month below the global average temperature. (Not 324 Februarys, 324 consecutive months.) Looking at the graph, the Southern Hemisphere, which is dominated by the ocean, goes back into the 1970s. There have been Februarys in the Northern Hemisphere with little blips below average.



Figure 1: February monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Februarys. From the National Climatic Data Center.

The average in this figure is based on the entire 20th century. Therefore, if you look at the record during the 20th century, there is a balance between the warm and the cold months. This fact comes directly from the definition of calculating the differences from an average. There is a famous 1930s warm period. This warm period is present in the February time series, but compared with a later span centered around 1960, this period in not as intense. A prominent characteristic of the graph is that on the left, in the first part of the 20th century, it is cooler than the average and on the right, the here and now, it is warmer.

To go along with the February graph, I have placed the graph from August 2011. The main part of the story, that in 1900 it was cooler than in 2000 remains the same. Here, in the Northern Hemisphere summer, the 1930s warm period is more prominent and more global than in February. In is easy to conclude from this figure that the spatial extent and the temporal persistent of the current warming are both far larger than in the spurt of warmth of the 1930s.



Figure 2: August monthly difference from a 20th century average of all Augusts. From the National Climatic Data Center.


I started this article with the question is the current heat event in the U.S. what we can expect in the future? Taking this simple argument, looking at the average for the past, almost 30 years, it seems reasonable to expect it be warm. And given, the relentless increase of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, we should expect it to be warmer in the future. To expect otherwise would be betting against the average.

Betting against the average – the next plot, Figure 3, is adapted from a 2009 paper by Jerry Meehl and a host of other authors. (Original Paper, Paper Discussion from NCAR ) What this figure shows, for the U.S., is the number of new record highs divided by the number of record lows – the ratio of highs to lows. In a simplistic, intuitive way, if the average temperature where staying the same, then one would expect the number of new record highs and the number of new record lows to be about the same. What is seen in the figure is as we go from the 1980s to the 1990s to the 2000s, there is trend of record highs out numbering record lows by a factor of 2 to 1. Comparing this with Figures 1 and 2, this evolution of new record highs outpacing new record lows occurs during the time when there has not been a month below the global 20th century average.



Figure 3: Adapted from Meehl et al. (2009) the ratio of U.S. record highs and record lows by decade.

The next figure I show is another version of the global difference figure. This one is calculated as differences from 1950 onwards in order to overlap with the data from the Climate Prediction Center that identify El Nino and La Nina Cycles. El Nino and La Nina are names given to frequently occurring patterns of variation that are concentrated in the tropical Pacific Ocean, but that change the average temperature of Earth for about a year. When there is an El Nino then the globe is warmer and when there is a La Nina the globe is cooler.



Figure 4: Global temperature differences with El Nino (warm) and La Nina (cool) years marked. From National Climatic Data Center.

Looking first at the La Nina years, 1985, the last year when the Earth was cooler that the 20th century average was a La Nina year. One could say that this was the last year when the variation associated with La Nina was strong enough to counter the warming trend enough for the Earth to appear “cool.” What is striking is that the La Nina years in the past three decades are systematically warming. This suggests that in the La Nina cool period, we are seeing a warmer and warmer background, average, temperature evolving.

The warm phase of this variation does not paint as easy a picture. The very strong 1997-1998 El Nino famously raised the Earth’s temperature to a point that many argue was the warmest year observed. The subsequent El Nino events are not as strong as the 1997-1998 El Nino, and each one has temperature maximum that flirts with the 1998 maximum. It is important to note that in 1998 the entire positive anomaly of temperature was not due to the presence of El Nino. The El Nino events take place on a background of increasing temperature, and each event is a burst towards new historic highs in temperature. It is useful to look back earlier in the graph, say 1970 and earlier, to get an idea of the size of variation that can be associated with El Nino and La Nina.

Returning again to the question posed in the beginning, can we expect to regularly see such warm temperatures going forward? Yes, it makes sense that we will see more and more record high temperatures. To not expect that is to bet against the emerging observed trend of warmer and warmer temperatures that is a metric of the warming climate.

I will finish this just temperature story with a map of the Plant Hardiness Zones. Here is the official version from the US Department of Agriculture with an service that lets you pick out your zip code. I show a map of Michigan. In 1990 the green zones, 6, were down around the Ohio River in southern Ohio. This is a measure of not only warming, but also of the definitive changes in the onset of spring. The Washington Post has an excellent graphic that shows the changes between 1990 and 2012.



Figure 5: Plant hardiness zones in Michigan for 2012. From US Department of Agriculture.

We have just experienced in the U.S. a record extreme heat event. This raises the natural questions of climate, weather, and climate change. I have linked a couple of excellent discussions of these issues in the opening paragraph. What I have done in my article is to focus simply on temperature. I have laid out a thread that starts from the globe and the remarkable observation that we have not seen a month below the 20th century global average in more than 25 years. This I followed with the observation that we are in a time when we are setting more than twice as many record highs as record lows. After that I discussed the role of one of the most prominent forms of planetary temperature variations, El Nino and La Nina. The compelling point from this graph was that in the past 30 years during the cool phase, La Nina, the planet shows a warming trend. Finally, I introduce the plant hardiness zones, which show warmer winters, and can be translated to earlier springs. So the question that has been posed to me last week, can we expect such high temperatures in the future? Yes. If we use our experience and observations for the basis of decision making, then the rational answer is yes. We will see more records. We will see an earlier spring. We will see warmer times.


r


Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 382 - 332

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Quoting iceagecoming:



Darn Neaderthal were busy with the brush fires.
or


early suv!

Link



You probably should have read the entire article. From your link:

"The temperature increased by more than 10°C within 40 years. Other records show us that major changes in atmospheric circulation and climate were experienced all around the northern hemisphere. Antarctica and the Southern Ocean experienced a different pattern, consistent with the idea that these rapid jumps were caused by sudden changes in the transport of heat in the ocean. At this time, there was a huge ice sheet (the Laurentide) over northern North America. Freshwater delivered from the ice sheet to the North Atlantic was able periodically to disrupt the overturning of the ocean, causing the transport of tropical heat to the north to reduce and then suddenly increase again. While this mechanism cannot occur in the same way in today’s world, it does show us that, at least regionally, the climate is capable of extraordinary changes within a human lifetime: rapid switches we certainly want to avoid experiencing.

Summary

Ice cores provide direct information about how greenhouse gas concentrations have changed in the past, and they also provide direct evidence that the climate can change abruptly under some circumstances. However, they provide no direct analogue for the future because the ice core era contains no periods with concentrations of CO2 comparable to those of the next century."
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting iceagecoming:



More real evidence, not blather. Thanks.

Link

No, it's blather. It is either a straw man argument or a confession of a profound misunderstanding of the current warming and its causes.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting theshepherd:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

I'll say here what I said on Dr. Masters' blog about this particular piece of nothing:

Alternate headline: "Old Men Yell at Cloud."

If they have an alternate explanation, they are perfectly free to publish in the reputable, peer-reviewed journal of their choice.

Science isn't done through press releases.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469



Darn Neaderthal were busy with the brush fires.
or


early suv!

Link


Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1076
Quoting Neapolitan:
Just goes to prove--again--that a bunch of aged, retired aerospace engineers know as much about modern climate science as modern climate scientists know about piloting an Apollo orbiter or designing a space shuttle.



More real evidence, not blather. Thanks.

Link
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1076
Quoting theshepherd:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

""We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.""


Ah! So Professor Rood did not boot you off his blog after all. ... Good.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting theshepherd:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

""We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.""


So what do astronauts know about Earths weather? Do they study Meteorology?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting theshepherd:
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

""We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.""
Just goes to prove--again--that a bunch of aged, retired aerospace engineers know as much about modern climate science as modern climate scientists know about piloting an Apollo orbiter or designing a space shuttle.
Quoting The Green Miles:
Texas A&M atmospheric sciences professor Andrew Dessler told POLITICO that he did in fact meet with the 75 or so retirees at Goddard last October — along with University of Houston professor Barry Lefer and fellow Texas A&M professor John Nielsen-Gammon — and came away less than impressed.

"These people are well meaning, but they don"t seem to realize that climate science takes years of full-time work to actually get to know," he said. "They really don’t understand anything about the climate system. They understand less than the first-year grad students that come out of my classes."
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13556
Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space Center in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.

""We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.""
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:

I claimed that specific images were from peer reviewed papers, which you said MUST have come from blogs because you thought they looked poor in quality.

I never claimed that the images in your peer reviewed papers must have come from blogs. I wrote: "You are cherry-picking graphs that fit your theory. Poorly made graphs which one can see directly is not taken from a scientific paper, but instead created by some denier at some anti-science blog".
The four examples I gave you in my last post you'll find only on blogs and not in peer-reviewed papers. Right?

Quoting Snowlover123:

Well there's paleoclimatic evidence that the sun dominated temperature changes, the Geomagentic AA Index signficantly increased during the 20th Century, GCRs hit an all time low near 1992, during SC 22, the most active cycle on record during the last 150 years during a time of solar activity that was rarely seen over the last 10000 years. A secular trend in the ACRIM dataset has also been observed. Increased TSI has been reaching Earth's Surface over the last 25 years, possibly indicative of increasing levels of TSI and decreasing levels of Cloud Cover.

Cloud Cover has also been decreasing, which indicates a solar influence because direct variations with TSI correlate to changes in Cloud Cover.

I can provide evidence to all of this with links to peer reviewed papers if you would like.

Here is something for you to read. A self-studie about the "Principles of Planetary Climate" by Professor Raymond Pierrehumbert. This publication introduces you to all the basic physical building blocks of climate needed to understand the present and past climate of Earth. These blocks include thermodynamics, infrared radiative transfer, scattering, surface heat transfer and various processes governing the evolution of atmospheric composition.

If you find it hard to read all those pages, but want to understand why scientists are so certain that CO2 is such a big driver of our climate, I strongly recommend you to instead watch the video "The Biggest Control Knob: Carbon Dioxide in Earth's Climate History" by Professor Richard Alley, one of the world's leading climate researchers.

In the video, Professor Alley, takes us on a journey through the billion years of Earth history and respond simultaneously to questions about "Snowball Earth", ice cores, Permian–Triassic extinction event, ice ages, cosmic rays, and more. It's a whirlwind lecture with an important conclusion: Nothing in the Earth's climate history is intelligible except with the carbon dioxide as a starting point.

SC19, which began in 1954 and peaked in 1957, is the record holder for most active solar cycle. Not SC22.

Cosmic ray flux has been monitored since the mid-20th century, and has shown no significant trend over that period.


Cosmic Ray Intensity (blue) and Sunspot Number (green) from 1951 to 2006 - University of New Hampshire

The correlation between low clouds and cosmic rays broke down in 1991. At that point, cloud cover began to lags cosmic ray trends by over 6 months while cloud formation should occur within several days. The correlation completely breaks down in 1994.


Low cloud cover (blue line) versus cosmic ray intensity (red line)

Neither direct nor indirect solar influences can explain a significant amount of the global warming over the past century, and certainly not over the past 30 years.

Quoting Professor Pierrehumbert (about solar warming):

"That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one"

Yes, I would like to see your paleoclimatic evidence that the sun dominates temperature changes, but then in peer reviewed papers which have not been debunked.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Link


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Nuff Said?




This prevents that:

Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting swampdooogggg:
Birthmark. I tried dialing up a link and noticed it was more than a decade old. It might have even been older than Pat Rap's Noaa climate change indicator link he always spams the blog with. I would argue some climate change with you, Chief.


This is a lot less than a decade old. I like NOAA reporting accurate data.


U.S. records warmest March; more than 15,000 warm temperature records broken

First quarter of 2012 also warmest on record; early March tornado outbreak is year's first "billion dollar disaster"

Record and near-record breaking temperatures dominated the eastern two-thirds of the nation and contributed to the warmest March on record for the contiguous United States, a record that dates back to 1895. More than 15,000 warm temperature records were broken during the month.

The average temperature of 51.1°F was 8.6 degrees above the 20th century average for March and 0.5°F warmer than the previous warmest March in 1910. Of the more than 1,400 months (117+ years) that have passed since the U.S. climate record began, only one month, January 2006, has seen a larger departure from its average temperature than March 2012.

Note: The March 2012 Monthly Climate Report for the United States has several pages of supplemental information and data regarding the unprecedented early 2012 temperatures.


Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:


Perhaps you misunderstood.

I have not claimed those were from peer reviewed papers.

I claimed that specific images were from peer reviewed papers, which you said MUST have come from blogs because you thought they looked poor in quality.



How do you know these gravity changes are reflecting ice changes and not isostasic changes occuring with the crust of the Earth? It's hard to tell because this is such a short record. The Antarctic snowmelt observations are a better way of determining any long term trends in Antarctica.

Take a look at this graph again.



If you were to choose a similar timeframe to how long the GRACE satellite has been in operation, you could claim that there was a trend upward in snowmelt from 1986 to 1997. Of course, it's over a longer no trend period.

We don't know if that's the case or not for GRACE, and if it's even measuring ice mass changes.



Thanks for the promotion.




Our Gov. hard at work with Dog and Pony shows.
Link


High-profile visitors make an appearance at Palmer Station
By Brian Nelson, Palmer correspondent
Posted March 9, 2012
February began and ended with visits from distinguished guests.

Lindblad Expedition’s National Geographic Explorer came to Palmer Station with former Vice President Al Gore and the Climate Reality Project in early February. Amongst Gore’s guests were prominent political, scientific and entrepreneurial figures, as well as a few celebrities.

Climate Reality cruise notables
Ragnar Grímsson, president of Iceland

Hasan Mahmud, Bangladesh's minister of Environment and Forests

Tokyo Sexwale, South Africa’s Human Settlements minister

Christiana Figueres, executive secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change

Kevin Trenberth of the National Center for Atmospheric Research

James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies

Richard Branson, founder of the Virgin Empire

Ted Turner, founder of TBS and CNN television networks

Tom Brokaw, veteran American television journalist

Tommy Lee Jones, Academy Award-winning actor

Jason Mraz, Grammy Award-winning musician
Needless to say, it was an exciting day. The guests were given a slightly expanded tour of the station, while many of our local scientists answered questions aboard the Explorer.

Through the middle of February, Palmer Station was the welcoming recipient of many days of sunshine and calm weather. We worked hard to convince short-duration residents that this is not the norm.

Scientists Chuck Amsler and Jim McClintock , both with the University of Alabama at Birmingham , and their diving team returned for another field season. This year they will work on an ocean acidification project in addition to their regular work studying the benthic ecosystem. [See previous article — Underwater forests of Antarctica: Scientists dive deep into unlocking mysteries of unique marine ecosystem.]

James Bockheim , a professor in the Department of Soil Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison , and his group are also back at Palmer Station. Bockheim is leading the U.S. component on an international effort to learn more about the characteristics of Antarctic permafrost and its sensitivity to climate change. [See previous article — Hitting the ground: International project monitors permafrost in Antarctica.]



Link

The whose who of Climate science.
Member Since: January 27, 2009 Posts: 24 Comments: 1076
Quoting Snowlover123:
I'm burnt out right now, I'll reply to Birthmark's post when I have time in the future.

Believe me, I completely understand. Nearly took the day off my own self.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


Satellites are, however more accurate than computer models, which cyclone tried to convince me was more accurate than the satellites.

Are more accurate than computer models at what, if I may ask?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting swampdooogggg:

Do you have proof that I'm Cat5? If so, I'd love to see it.

Otherwise, I'm just gonna chalk it up to yet another ad hominem from the alarmist side and retract my kind words I spoke of you a few days back.


You may retract your kind words at any time and for any reason. This has always been your prerogative. None the less, I do appreciate that you did offer them to me.

I lack definitive proof that you are Cat5. I only suspect that if you are not Cat5, then his use of verbiage is far more prevalent than I would have imagined. I would carry this further, but why tip you off on how to avoid being caught by offering you more details now? That would take the fun of the game away from both of us, would it not? ... The fact remains that I am glad that you are still among the living. I say this will all sincerity.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
I'm burnt out right now, I'll reply to Birthmark's post when I have time in the future.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Sorry about that. The point, however, is that satellites aren't magic. They require all kinds of corrections.

Since you agree that the Arctic is losing ice fast, it really doesn't make much difference.

The trend will not turn around. It might slow, but that ice is done for in a summer not too far away.


Satellites are, however more accurate than computer models, which cyclone tried to convince me was more accurate than the satellites.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Some1Has2BtheRookie:


I would think that for someone to claim that the sun is the cause the current climate change that they would be able to provide strong evidence that the sun has changed significantly enough, over the past 150 years, to cause such a change. A hypothesis is little more than a glorified opinion without the observations that would support the hypothesis. Do you have such evidence to provide to us?


Well there's paleoclimatic evidence that the sun dominated temperature changes, the Geomagentic AA Index signficantly increased during the 20th Century, GCRs hit an all time low near 1992, during SC 22, the most active cycle on record during the last 150 years during a time of solar activity that was rarely seen over the last 10000 years. A secular trend in the ACRIM dataset has also been observed. Increased TSI has been reaching Earth's Surface over the last 25 years, possibly indicative of increasing levels of TSI and decreasing levels of Cloud Cover.

Cloud Cover has also been decreasing, which indicates a solar influence because direct variations with TSI correlate to changes in Cloud Cover.

I can provide evidence to all of this with links to peer reviewed papers if you would like.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:


It's saddening that the sun causing climate change is considered to be a 'radical' hypothesis by you.


I'm curious. Where specifically in the paleoclimate is the Sun shown to be the cause of a climate change rather than some factor on Earth or related to Earth's orbit and/or obliquity?
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


Your link is 11 years old and redirects me to a paper about Cryosat 1.

Arctic Sea Ice is thinning very rapidly, but I think that trend will turn around once the AMO goes negative.




Sorry about that. The point, however, is that satellites aren't magic. They require all kinds of corrections.

Since you agree that the Arctic is losing ice fast, it really doesn't make much difference.

The trend will not turn around. It might slow, but that ice is done for in a summer not too far away.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


You've done no such thing! You are jumping to a conclusion that you want to be true. Unfortunately, what you want to be true isn't. The UHI is adjusted for in all the major datasets.

The studies that have been done to find out if UHI has been adequately accounted for say that it has been.

Quoting Snowlover123:
So my peer reviewed studies don't count as evidence, but your's does? Interesting double standard.

No double standard, you are simply misstating what those studies say. The fact that there is an UHI in no way demonstrates that the UHI is affecting the measured trends reported by climatologists. None of your studies make that claim. You did. So, the papers are fine. Your conclusion is faulty.

Quoting Snowlover123:
How do you know the UHI signal is adjusted correctly in the datasets?

"The GHCNv3/SCAR data are modified to obtain station data from which our tables, graphs, and maps are constructed: The urban and peri-urban (i.e., other than rural) stations are adjusted so that their long-term trend matches that of the mean of neighboring rural stations. Urban stations without nearby rural stations are dropped."

Quoting Snowlover123:
And the sun has been the most active it has been over the past 10000 years. That's more than a plausable factor, because solar activity has ALWAYS controlled temperatures in the past, and it is likely to have controlled most of the warming that took place during the industrial revolution and the warming from 1970-2000. It's basic physics that when more solar radiation reaches the Earth than what is being radiated out of Earth, the Earth warms.

That's nonsense. The sun varies very, very little. Overall, the Earth's orbit and inclination have played a much greater role in Earth's climate than solar variation has had. Unless you want to contend that it was the Sun and not Milankovitch cycles that caused the ice ages we've been having.

Quoting Snowlover123:
At least you admit that the paper you posted has some serious flaws with it.

I don't think it's split 50-50. It's probably 70-30 where the AGW Advocates being the 70 in the 70-30 ratio.

I think it's > than 90-10, probably 95-5 if we include reputable scientific journals.

Quoting Snowlover123:
This is the paper which Skeptical Science tried to refute, but there is no rebuttal that has been published in the peer reviewed literature, or else it would have been cited by other researchers and so far it has not, because the paper is VERY new.

There may never be a rebuttal in the scientific literature. Some things are simply too stupid for a scientist to waste his or her time on. This may very well be one of them. If I propose a hypothesis that the sky is blue not due to Rayleigh scattering, but rather invisible, microscopic zombies bending the light with candycanes not scientist will waste a moment of their valuable time disproving it --even if I manage to get it published.

Astrology has already been demonstrated to be bogus. There is no reason to suppose that it works any better when applied to climate. SkS clearly demonstrated that.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Why don't you show where my 'assertions' were wrong?

I'd really like to but I'm busy disproving ghosts to one of my neighbors.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I said that your dismissal of the Spencer analysis is unsubstantiated because you don't know if it is a fair representation or not.

On the contrary, I do indeed know that Spencer's analysis isn't representative. Others working from larger datasets over long time periods have found no such bias. So, either Spencer cherrypicked the stations (most likely) or Spencer buggered the numbers. In any event, who cares?

Quoting Snowlover123:
I assume that since you didn't bother to critique what's actually in the paper, you couldn't find anything wrong with it, so you now accept that Urbanization creates a steeper temperature slope than otherwise would have been.

It's a bogus paper that a clown got published in his brother's journal. It has been rebutted and has been tossed on the trash-heap of denialist "scientific papers."

Quoting Snowlover123:
GISS shows warming like all of the other datasets. That doesn't mean it's data is 100% accurate, when it has substantial holes of data by the polar regions.

Unless you can demonstrate that those holes contain some relevant and substantive information, your point is meaningless.

My point, however, that the Sun can not be causing winter warming in the Arctic and Antarctic stands. It is a fatal blow to the Sun hypothesis.

Quoting Snowlover123:
So increased solar radiation during the other seasonal months does not have an impact on the winter temperatures with more energy than otherwise would have been there in the winter months?

Your kidding, aren't you? You have to be. (Hint: What happens at night?)

Quoting Snowlover123:
I have posted paper after paper which documents UHI's strong impact on the temperature record, and you still dismiss it as if I didn't post anything substantial.

I only do that because you haven't posted anything substantial. Such effects are corrected for in the datasets. I will, however, grant that you have done an exemplary job of demonstrating what those datasets are correcting for.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Klotzbach et. al 2009

It's not just wrong. It's laughably bad.


Quoting Snowlover123:
Lindzen's original 2001 paper got 278 citations.

That means the scientific community is taking this hypothesis seriously.

Oh, please! You know as well as I do that those cites include blog posts, so you have no idea how many were cites in scientific literature or how many were cites in various blogs. That said, Lindzen's hypothesis was worth a look. It's wrong, but at least it was imaginatively wrong.

Quoting Snowlover123:
I will say it again.

There is no (known) fingerprint that AGW is responsile for most of the warming over the last century and over the 1970-2000 timeframe.

No matter how many times you say it, it is still wrong and nonsensical. Both the scientific community and reality disagree with you.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:


It's saddening that the sun causing climate change is considered to be a 'radical' hypothesis by you.

Oh, is that what you took away from me? if so, you misunderstand. See, "radical" hypotheses are those which say that climate scientists who have been working in the field for decades are a bunch of blind and deaf fools who can't see what's really happening. "Radical" hypotheses claim, against a huge and growing mountain of evidence to the contrary, that anthropogenic CO2 emissions are not the cause of the current observed warming, Those "radical" hypotheses dismiss reams of independently verified data, while clinging desperately to repeatedly debunked denialist talking points proffered by repeatedly debunked denialists. Those are the "radical" hypotheses to which I was referring.
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13556
Quoting swampdooogggg:
Birthmark. I tried dialing up a link and noticed it was more than a decade old. It might have even been older than Pat Rap's Noaa climate change indicator link he always spams the blog with. I would argue some climate change with you, Chief.


You always find a way to expose your more known handle, do you not, Cat5? Well, at least I am glad to that you are still among the living. There is that to be thankful for.
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting Snowlover123:


It's saddening that the sun causing climate change is considered to be a 'radical' hypothesis by you.



I would think that for someone to claim that the sun is the cause the current climate change that they would be able to provide strong evidence that the sun has changed significantly enough, over the past 150 years, to cause such a change. A hypothesis is little more than a glorified opinion without the observations that would support the hypothesis. Do you have such evidence to provide to us?
Member Since: August 24, 2010 Posts: 0 Comments: 4745
Quoting Neapolitan:
what do you think we supporters of the science have been trying to tell denialists for years and years now?


It's saddening that the sun causing climate change is considered to be a 'radical' hypothesis by you.

Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Or maybe Cryosat's observations are wrong. It's still relatively new.

But that's all misdirection, anyway.

The fact is that the Arctic Sea Ice is thinning extremely rapidly --no matter what method you use to measure it. The old ice which used to account for 25% of the ice cap now comprises around 2%.


Your link is 11 years old and redirects me to a paper about Cryosat 1.

Arctic Sea Ice is thinning very rapidly, but I think that trend will turn around once the AMO goes negative.



Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Well, since the DTR isn't flat according to the overwhelming majority of the peer-reviewed literature, this isn't really much of an issue. However, the fact is if we don't understand the effects of CO2 then we don't understand the effects of CO2. That applies to the past as well as the present. Therefore, every bit of our understanding of climate is wrong


That's mistaken.

I have posted study after study which show that less urbanization causes a positive diurnal trend, which indicates that the rate of urbanization plays a very large role in the diurnal temperature change, and has little to nothing to do with changes in the atmospheric content of Carbon Dioxide. Had it not been for urbanization, there would probably be no trend in the diurnal temperature range, since it has such a profound impact on the rate of temperature changes, moreso than CO2. This is because in the least populated areas, the diurnal temperature range is INCREASING, which is inconsistent with the CO2 theory. The large differences between the diurnal trends of urbanized cities and rural areas leads me to believe that it has much more of an impact on the DTR than CO2 does.

Quoting Birthmark:

But, as I said there really isn't an issue here according to the evidence.


So my peer reviewed studies don't count as evidence, but your's does? Interesting double standard.

Quoting Birthmark:

But UHI is adequately accounted for in the data processing.


How do you know the UHI signal is adjusted correctly in the datasets?

Quoting Birthmark:

And the reason it disagrees is a very good one, based on sound observation: human activity. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in less than 200 years. That has probably never happened before. We humans have given CO2 it's big chance to lead temperature, and CO2 is taking advantage of that chance. That's no surprise since it's basic physics.


And the sun has been the most active it has been over the past 10000 years. That's more than a plausable factor, because solar activity has ALWAYS controlled temperatures in the past, and it is likely to have controlled most of the warming that took place during the industrial revolution and the warming from 1970-2000. It's basic physics that when more solar radiation reaches the Earth than what is being radiated out of Earth, the Earth warms.

Quoting Birthmark:

So what? Do you think that in reality it's a 50-50 break between "skeptical" and "mainstream" papers? Of course it isn't! If the real percentage is "only" 95% or 92% is that some sort of moral victory?


At least you admit that the paper you posted has some serious flaws with it.

I don't think it's split 50-50. It's probably 70-30 where the AGW Advocates being the 70 in the 70-30 ratio.

Quoting Birthmark:

That's the point. Had Scafetta considered the implications of his assertions, he would have quickly seen that they were wrong.


Why is "that the point" that B & S 2009's data disagreed with itself?

Quoting Birthmark:

No answer is required since the paper in question was refuted in the peer-reviewed literature.


This is the paper which Skeptical Science tried to refute, but there is no rebuttal that has been published in the peer reviewed literature, or else it would have been cited by other researchers and so far it has not, because the paper is VERY new.

Quoting Birthmark:

Your critiques lacked any real substance. They were bald assertion based on nothing more than your personal feelings. Those assertions have no effect upon the issue.


Why don't you show where my 'assertions' were wrong?

Note, Bolded sections indicate sections quoted from the SKS article,

A 2-sigma envelope would cover about 95% of the observations, and if the observations lay outside that larger region it would be substantial cause for concern. Thus it would be a more appropriate choice for Scafetta's green envelope.


Why not include a 6 sigma range, so we can claim that the IPCC was correct even with a negative trend in temperatures over the next few decades?

Second, while the IPCC envelope (Scafetta's green) is based on annual data, in his widget Scafetta plots monthly data, which has greater variability and thus is much more likely to fall outside of the envelope.

If the IPCC were correct with their overall mean temperature predictions, then the monthly temperature variability would be higher and lower than the IPCC range, but making it still consistent with the IPCC predictions.

We don't observe that.

Third, Scafetta has used HadCRUT3 data, which has a known cool bias and which will shortly be replaced by HadCRUT4.
Yeah, throw out the temperature data because it doesn't fit the predetermined conclusions of rapid warming in the near future due to mankind.


Fourth, although the widget itself only shows post-2000 data, Scafetta has used a 1900-2000 baseline.

Here is Dr. Scafetta's reply to that:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/reference-pages/scafet tas-solar-lunar-cycle-forecast-vs-global-temperatu re/#comment-890590

The base line for the temperature record and the average IPCC simulation is exactly the same. The period used for the baseline is 1900-2000 because the model simulation starts in 1900 and it is supposed to reconstruct the temperature during the 20th century. Thus it needs to be optimized against the temperature by using as common baseline the period 1900-2000.

No baseline errors are in the graph.
By using as baseline the period 1960-1990, the GCM simulation will need to be shifted down by just 0.022 C. This is not a big deal. In any case, it is more appropriate to use the 1900-2000 baseline as I did.


That was a pretty weak attempt at a rebuttal from Skeptical Science.


Quoting Birthmark:

Well, that's not very skeptical of you, is it? You just assume that Spencer's data is representative based on nothing substantive, even though his conclusions conflict with the body of work already done on this topic.


I never said it was.

I said that your dismissal of the Spencer analysis is unsubstantiated because you don't know if it is a fair representation or not.

Quoting Birthmark:

Seriously? A paper published in BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327?


I assume that since you didn't bother to critique what's actually in the paper, you couldn't find anything wrong with it, so you now accept that Urbanization creates a steeper temperature slope than otherwise would have been.

Quoting Birthmark:

Well that may be good enough for you, but many of us prefer a more stringent criteria before dismissing something like GISS, which is held in high regard by climatologists around the world. It should also be noted that the recent BEST paper agrees with GISS. In fact, all of the major data sets --including satellite-- show similar trends when MoE is included.


GISS shows warming like all of the other datasets. That doesn't mean it's data is 100% accurate, when it has substantial holes of data by the polar regions.

Quoting Birthmark:

As I, and now you, have demonstrated, the high latitudes are warming during winter. The Sun simply cannot be causing that.


So increased solar radiation during the other seasonal months does not have an impact on the winter temperatures with more energy than otherwise would have been there in the winter months?

Quoting Birthmark:

I understand that you really, really want the UHI to be the cause. However, until you can show some work published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal that demonstrates that the UHI is the cause for the trend, you are simply wrong. And you are very unlikely to find such papers since land measurements and satellite measurements show almost identical trends.


I have posted paper after paper which documents UHI's strong impact on the temperature record, and you still dismiss it as if I didn't post anything substantial.

Land measurements and satellite measurements are NOT "almost identical" by the way.

Klotzbach et. al 2009

Quoting Paper:

This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period
from 1979 to 2008. Surface temperature data sets from the National Climate Data
Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the
lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama in Huntsville and Remote
Sensing Systems data sets.
The differences between trends observed in the surface and
lower-tropospheric satellite data sets are statistically significant
in most comparisons,
with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings
strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite
records.

...

The differences between
surface and satellite data sets tend to be largest over land
areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination
because of various aspects of land surface change



Yes, that would include urbanization.

Quoting Birthmark:

Well, it might be controversial among denialists, but among scientists it is merely interesting and expected. Very, very few took Lindzen's hypothesis seriously, so it was unsurprising that it was rebutted


Lindzen's original 2001 paper got 278 citations.

That means the scientific community is taking this hypothesis seriously.

I will say it again.

There is no (known) fingerprint that AGW is responsile for most of the warming over the last century and over the 1970-2000 timeframe.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123 (#344):
...when a radical new hypothesis is introduced, that disproves years of climate science, it is likely untrue, because it is unlikely scientists have made such a serious error for so long.
Well, at least you admit to this; what do you think we supporters of the science have been trying to tell denialists for years and years now?
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13556
Quoting Snowlover123:
PIOMAS overall averaged much lower than the actual observations, hence why its datapoints are questionable.

Or maybe Cryosat's observations are wrong. It's still relatively new.

But that's all misdirection, anyway.

The fact is that the Arctic Sea Ice is thinning extremely rapidly --no matter what method you use to measure it. The old ice which used to account for 25% of the ice cap now comprises around 2%.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:
I'm not sure how a flat line in the diurnal temperature range can allow you to come to this conclusion.

Well, since the DTR isn't flat according to the overwhelming majority of the peer-reviewed literature, this isn't really much of an issue. However, the fact is if we don't understand the effects of CO2 then we don't understand the effects of CO2. That applies to the past as well as the present. Therefore, every bit of our understanding of climate is wrong.

But, as I said there really isn't an issue here according to the evidence.

Quoting Snowlover123:
As I said, a lot of the diurnal temperature change decreases have occured due to the fact that increased urbanization rates have occured by many stations, thus reducing the diurnal temperature range. This is what Fall et. al 2011 documented.

Perhaps you misunderstand the situation? No one contests that there is an urban heat island effect. But UHI is adequately accounted for in the data processing. So you pored through a bunch of papers for nothing.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Because it is disagreeing with a basic fact of paleoclimate science which is that CO2 follows temperature changes.

And the reason it disagrees is a very good one, based on sound observation: human activity. We have increased the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere by 40% in less than 200 years. That has probably never happened before. We humans have given CO2 it's big chance to lead temperature, and CO2 is taking advantage of that chance. That's no surprise since it's basic physics.

Quoting Snowlover123:
They used Google Scholar to search up the names of researchers who have contributed in the field of climate science. This is a poor method to try and compile a list of names, because of the fact that Google Scholar includes newspapers and books, which are not peer reviewed scientific pieces of literature.

So what? Do you think that in reality it's a 50-50 break between "skeptical" and "mainstream" papers? Of course it isn't! If the real percentage is "only" 95% or 92% is that some sort of moral victory? LOL


Quoting Snowlover123:
The discrepency itself is in the actual Benestad and Schmidt paper, Scafetta didn't come up with the discrepency in his analysis.

That's the point. Had Scafetta considered the implications of his assertions, he would have quickly seen that they were wrong. There's a reason he never addressed the criticisms in peer-reviewed publications and went straight to blogs. ;)

Quoting Snowlover123:
So in other words, you don't have an answer other than the fact that it's what Skeptical Science said.

No answer is required since the paper in question was refuted in the peer-reviewed literature.

Quoting Snowlover123:
So in other words you don't have an answer for my critiques.

Your critiques lacked any real substance. They were bald assertion based on nothing more than your personal feelings. Those assertions have no effect upon the issue.

Quoting Snowlover123:
They didn't include all of the data, but that's not to say that it wasn't a fair representation of all the data.

Well, that's not very skeptical of you, is it? You just assume that Spencer's data is representative based on nothing substantive, even though his conclusions conflict with the body of work already done on this topic.

Quoting Snowlover123:
DeFreitras 2002 found that as the population density increased, the rate of temperature change also increased.

Seriously? A paper published in BULLETIN OF CANADIAN PETROLEUM GEOLOGY VOL. 50, NO. 2 (JUNE, 2002), P. 297-327? (Caps not mine). A paper edited or run by his brother, as I recall. Yeah, see? That's not peer-reviewed science. That's brother published nonsense that even if taken at face value shows a correlation and not a causation. Nor does it demonstrate that the AGW-caused warming trend is in the slightest error.

Quoting Snowlover123:
LaDochy et. al 2007

Again, what has this to do with anything? The UHI is reasonably well-known and accounted for.


Quoting Snowlover123:
My own independent research.

Well that may be good enough for you, but many of us prefer a more stringent criteria before dismissing something like GISS, which is held in high regard by climatologists around the world. It should also be noted that the recent BEST paper agrees with GISS. In fact, all of the major data sets --including satellite-- show similar trends when MoE is included.


That should have turned up in your research.


Quoting Snowlover123:
Here we can see that there are large amounts of data missing from the Arctic and Antarctic, specifically what you had claimed was warming the fastest.

Your maps also show that that is the case! I was exactly correct. Those maps show that the Sun cannot possibly be causing the warming.

As for the "missing data"...those maps are for thirty years, not the day before yesterday. They are not measuring weather. They are measuring climate and the changes in that climate. Having a thermometer on every point of the Earth's surface isn't necessary (thank goodness!) to measure climate. You might notice, however, that even at the 250 km smoothing there is warming all the way to the North Pole.

As I, and now you, have demonstrated, the high latitudes are warming during winter. The Sun simply cannot be causing that.

I understand that you really, really want the UHI to be the cause. However, until you can show some work published in a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific journal that demonstrates that the UHI is the cause for the trend, you are simply wrong. And you are very unlikely to find such papers since land measurements and satellite measurements show almost identical trends.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Um, this is probably one of the most controversial studies out there in the climate science field, and nothing in this paper is definite, especially because Dr. Spencer is getting a rebuttal published in GRL, probably this year.

Well, it might be controversial among denialists, but among scientists it is merely interesting and expected. Very, very few took Lindzen's hypothesis seriously, so it was unsurprising that it was rebutted. That said, there is still a lot of uncertainty about clouds, however, there is absolutely no reason to imagine that they play enough of a role to mitigate the warming very much. If they could they would have prevented the ice ages and very warm periods of the past.

I'll believe that Spencer will respond in the peer-reviewed literature the moment it happens. I've heard this song before --and it usually ends in silence. :)

Quoting Snowlover123:
I will say this again.

There is no human fingerprint as being responsible for most of the warming that took place.

No matter how many times you say it, you are wrong. The evidence is against you. So you are merely stating your feelings about the evidence, not showing the evidence is wrong in any real way.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Birthmark:
"PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations."

This appears to be another double-standard. Please explain the criteria for you accept one model and not the other.


It's not a double standard.

PIOMAS has been shown to be too low based off of actual observations.

The Cryosat-2 satellite gave observations with ice thickness for January and February 2011.



These observations are compared to the PIOMAS simulation in March 2011. PIOMAS should have slightly thicker ice than the Cryosat observations because the image is for March, and more freezing was allowed to take shape.

We don't observe that.



With the estimated thicknesses for Cryosat and PIOMAS.



PIOMAS overall averaged much lower than the actual observations, hence why its datapoints are questionable.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:


Computer models are very accurate perhaps more so than actual observations these days. So what's your point?


Computer models are not more accurate than observations.

No idea how that thought could cross your mind.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
To those of you who celebrate it, Happy Easter!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Birthmark:

Yep. They either give the wrong temperature or the attribution of that temperature to the GHE of CO2 must be attributed to some other factor. No logical way around it.


I'm not sure how a flat line in the diurnal temperature range can allow you to come to this conclusion.

Quoting Birthmark:

That is simply untrue according to the science: Braganza 2004
Alexander 2006
Zhou 2009
all find more night time warming. What you claim is not representative of the body of scientific work on the topic.


As I said, a lot of the diurnal temperature change decreases have occured due to the fact that increased urbanization rates have occured by many stations, thus reducing the diurnal temperature range. This is what Fall et. al 2011 documented.


Zhou et. al 2004




This image from Zhou et. al shows that as the urbanization concentration increases, the diurnal temperature trend becomes more and more negative, thus proof that urbanization has a significant impact on the diurnal temperature range.

Liu et. al 2007

Quoting Paper:


UHI intensity for minimum temperature has a strong positive correlation with the increase in the urban population and the expansion of the yearly construction area. Seasonal analyses showed the UHI intensity is strongest in winter.


Gallo et. al 1996

Quoting Paper:

Those stations that were associated with predominantly rural land use / land cover (LULC) usually displayed the greatest observed DTR, whereas those associated with urban related land use or land cover displayed the least observed DTR. The results of this study suggest that significant differences in the climatological DTR were observed and could be attributed to the predominant LULC associated with the observation stations. The results also suggest that changes in the predominant LULC conditions, within as great as a 10 000 m radius of an observation station, could significantly influence the climatological DTR.

Remar 2010


Quoting Paper:

Las Vegas’ urban minimum temperatures have been increasing at a substantial rate, while minimum temperatures in its rural surroundings have shown no statistically significant changes or trends. … these unnatural increases in minimum temperatures have reduced the diurnal temperature range of Las Vegas’ urban areas by 3°F more than its rural surroundings.

So it seems that urbanization has a profound impact on the DTR ranges, and those least contaminated with the effects of Urbanization show positive and flat trends in the DTR.

And yes, these papers are from the peer reviewed science.

Quoting Birthmark:

You are exhibiting a double-standard. You dismiss a new study that goes against what you believe while citing as evidence papers that agreee with your belief that are as little as two weeks old.


Because it is disagreeing with a basic fact of paleoclimate science which is that CO2 follows temperature changes.

Indermuhle et. al 2000

Quoting Paper:

The lag was calculated for which the correlation coefficient of the CO2 record and the corresponding temperatures values reached a maximum. The simulation yields a lag of (1200 ± 700) yr.

Monnin et. al 2001

Quoting Paper:

The start of the CO2 increase thus lagged the start of the [temperature] increase by 800 ± 600 years.

Fischer et. al 1999

Quoting Paper:

"High-resolution records from Antarctic ice cores show that carbon dioxide concentrations increased by 80 to 100 parts per million by volume 600 ± 400 years after the warming of the last three deglaciations."

Stott et. al 2007

Quoting Paper:


"Deep sea temperatures warmed by ~2C between 19 and 17 ka B.P. (thousand years before present), leading the rise in atmospheric CO2 and tropical surface ocean warming by ~1000 years."


Mudelsee 2001

Quoting Paper:

"Over the full 420 ka of the Vostok record, CO2 variations lag behind atmospheric temperature changes in the Southern Hemisphere by 1.3±1.0 ka"

etc. etc. etc.

That's why when a radical new hypothesis is introduced, that disproves years of climate science, it is likely untrue, because it is unlikely scientists have made such a serious error for so long.

This also applies to the GHE Skeptics.

Quoting Birthmark:

It leads this time. It leads because we are pumping outrageous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere.


I didn't say that the CO2 did not lead temperature. I said that the paleoclimatic record (the one that you said can't follow a logical trend if there is no trend in the DTR range) the CO2 follows temperature changes.

Quoting Birthmark:

Sorry. Here is the link: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003 187107


Okay, thanks. This link actually works this time.

I did a search up of the paper and I found the actual PDF file for the entire paper.

This is the PDF file:

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003 187107.full.pdf

They used Google Scholar to search up the names of researchers who have contributed in the field of climate science. This is a poor method to try and compile a list of names, because of the fact that Google Scholar includes newspapers and books, which are not peer reviewed scientific pieces of literature.

Their technical definition of a climate "expert" was anyone who had over 20 publications in this field. Just because they didn't publish 20 publications doesn't mean they're not an expert. From the paper: "we imposed a 20 climate-publications minimum to be considered a climate researcher." They clearly tried to get a predetermined conclusion because they state in their paper, "researchers with fewer than 20 climate publications comprise ≈80% the UE group."

So they purposely excluded skeptic scientists just so they could come to an imaginary consensus.

Quoting Birthmark:

That apparent paradox is the direct result of Scafetta's shoddy work. IOW, when Scafetta's technique is applied to the real world it just doesn't work. (That's probably why he never got around to rebutting B&S 2009 as he said he would.)


The discrepency itself is in the actual Benestad and Schmidt paper, Scafetta didn't come up with the discrepency in his analysis.

Quoting Birthmark:

It's picking nits anyway since Scafetta has been completely refuted.


So in other words, you don't have an answer other than the fact that it's what Skeptical Science said.

Quoting Birthmark:

Your "critiques" were without substance. IOW, they were a statement of your feelings. You are allowed to feel anyway you choose. You don't need my input.


So in other words you don't have an answer for my critiques.

Quoting Birthmark:

Oh, I sure that they didn't meet Spencer's requirements. LOL But that's not the issue. The issue is if they are a fair representation of the data as a whole. The answer is no, they are not.


They didn't include all of the data, but that's not to say that it wasn't a fair representation of all the data.

DeFreitras 2002 found that as the population density increased, the rate of temperature change also increased.



This study also found that with 93 stations, (Quoting Paper): “Counties with large populations show more warming than rural counties due to the urban heat island influence.”

LaDochy et. al 2007:

Quoting Paper:

Most regions showed a stronger increase in minimum temperatures than with mean and maximum temperatures. Areas of intensive urbanization showed the largest positive trends, while rural, non-agricultural regions showed the least warming. Strong correlations between temperatures and Pacific sea surface temperatures (SSTs) particularly Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) values, also account for temperature variability throughout the state. The analysis of 331 state weather stations associated a number of factors with temperature trends, including urbanization, population, Pacific oceanic conditions and elevation. Using climatic division mean temperature trends, the state had an average warming of 0.99°C (1.79°F) over the 1950–2000 period, or 0.20°C (0.36°F) decade–1. Southern California had the highest rates of warming, while the NE Interior Basins division experienced cooling. Large urban sites showed rates over twice those for the state, for the mean maximum temperatures, and over 5 times the state’s mean rate for the minimum temperatures.


Quoting Birthmark:
Says who and with what evidence?


My own independent research.

I have replicated your exact images, except I used a 250 km smoothing radius to plot the data instead of a 1400 km smoothing radius which you have in your charts. This will show the areas that GISS extrapolated, if they didn't have data for this region.

Let's start with NH Summer.



Here we can see that there are large amounts of data missing from the Arctic and Antarctic, specifically what you had claimed was warming the fastest.

Now let's look at the Winter months.



The same large areas of data missing are still present.

Urbanization can actually be responsible as to why the higher latitudes are "warming" faster, in the places where GISS has surface data, and why the trophospheric temperatures are not warming quite as fast in the Polar Regions in Winter time. Barrow, which is a very far north city, is used as an example. Urbanization has turned reflective white albedo into black absorbing albedo, making it warm the fastest.

Quoting Paper:

Here, we demonstrate the existence of a strong urban heat island (UHI) during winter. Data
loggers (54) were installed in the ∼150 km2 study area to monitor hourly air and soil temperature, and daily spatial
averages were calculated using the six or seven warmest and coldest sites. During winter (December 2001–March 2002),
the urban area averaged 2.2 °C warmer than the hinterland. The strength of the UHI increased as the wind velocity
decreased, reaching an average value of 3.2 °C under calm (<2 m s−1) conditions and maximum single-day magnitude of
6 °C. UHI magnitude generally increased with decreasing air temperature in winter, reflecting the input of anthropogenic
heat to maintain interior building temperatures.
On a daily basis, the UHI reached its peak intensity in the late evening
and early morning. There was a strong positive relation between monthly UHI magnitude and natural gas production/use.
Integrated over the period September–May, there was a 9% reduction in accumulated freezing degree days in the urban
area.
The evidence suggests that urbanization has contributed to early snowmelt in the village.


Quoting Birthmark:

Yes, I can.


Um, this is probably one of the most controversial studies out there in the climate science field, and nothing in this paper is definite, especially because Dr. Spencer is getting a rebuttal published in GRL, probably this year.

I will say this again.

There is no human fingerprint as being responsible for most of the warming that took place.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
If the data don't support your lies, then lie some more:

Link
Member Since: December 10, 2011 Posts: 0 Comments: 303
Just ignore and report the troll--swampdooogggg, in case you're interested in her childish Easter morning antics; I reckon she's upset that the Easter Bunny left her no basket. Again.

Thanks!
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13556
Quoting Birthmark:


From the abstract: "Here we present an Antarctic melt volume climatology for the period 1979–2010, obtained using a regional climate model equipped with realistic snow physics."

Earlier in this thread you objected to PIOMAS because, "PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations."

This appears to be another double-standard. Please explain the criteria for you accept one model and not the other.


It's not that it is a criteria it is however called



Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401


From the abstract: "Here we present an Antarctic melt volume climatology for the period 1979–2010, obtained using a regional climate model equipped with realistic snow physics."

Earlier in this thread you objected to PIOMAS because, "PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations."

This appears to be another double-standard. Please explain the criteria for you accept one model and not the other.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Xandra:

Show me the peer reviewed paper that belongs to this image, this image, this image and this image.


Perhaps you misunderstood.

I have not claimed those were from peer reviewed papers.

I claimed that specific images were from peer reviewed papers, which you said MUST have come from blogs because you thought they looked poor in quality.

Quoting Xandra:

Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate.


How do you know these gravity changes are reflecting ice changes and not isostasic changes occuring with the crust of the Earth? It's hard to tell because this is such a short record. The Antarctic snowmelt observations are a better way of determining any long term trends in Antarctica.

Take a look at this graph again.



If you were to choose a similar timeframe to how long the GRACE satellite has been in operation, you could claim that there was a trend upward in snowmelt from 1986 to 1997. Of course, it's over a longer no trend period.

We don't know if that's the case or not for GRACE, and if it's even measuring ice mass changes.

Quoting Xandra:

Btw, you're not just a denier - you are a hardcore denier.


Thanks for the promotion.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Snowlover123:

If we didn't know how GHGs impacted the climate, that means that the temperature proxies are somehow flawed?

Yep. They either give the wrong temperature or the attribution of that temperature to the GHE of CO2 must be attributed to some other factor. No logical way around it.

Quoting Snowlover123:
We know GHGs cause warming. The fact of the matter that the diurnal temperature has not decreased in the best sited weather stations, indicates that they are not the driver of recent climate change.

That is simply untrue according to the science: Braganza 2004
Alexander 2006
Zhou 2009
all find more night time warming. What you claim is not representative of the body of scientific work on the topic.

Quoting Snowlover123:
CO2 never lead temperature (despite what one recent study proclaims to suggest) it follows temperature, because of the large lag time between temperature increases and CO2 releases from the temperature changes of the ocean.

You are exhibiting a double-standard. You dismiss a new study that goes against what you believe while citing as evidence papers that agreee with your belief that are as little as two weeks old.

The fact is that it doesn't matter if CO2 ever led warming before. It leads this time. It leads because we are pumping outrageous amounts of CO2 into the atmosphere. That *has* to produce warming. (I'm rather surprised to see you using such a weak (non-existent and non-relevant) argument.

Quoting Snowlover123:
It says the content is temporarily unavailable.

Sorry. Here is the link: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2010/06/04/1003 187107

Quoting Snowlover123:
How is it nonsense? How can the sensitivity parameter go down for TSI when TSI increases over the same timeframe?

That apparent paradox is the direct result of Scafetta's shoddy work. IOW, when Scafetta's technique is applied to the real world it just doesn't work. (That's probably why he never got around to rebutting B&S 2009 as he said he would.)

Quoting Snowlover123:
Provide support that the 2-Sigma range is generally used instead of a 1 sigma range.

Why? Do you have some need for me to waste my time proving what anyone who has been interested in CC and AGW learns very quickly? LOL

It's picking nits anyway since Scafetta has been completely refuted.

Quoting Snowlover123:
So you're not going to address my critiques then.

Your "critiques" were without substance. IOW, they were a statement of your feelings. You are allowed to feel anyway you choose. You don't need my input.

Quoting Snowlover123:
400 weather stations is not cherry picking and not a coincidence. The rest of the stations did not meet the requirements for this experiment.

Oh, I'm sure that they didn't meet Spencer's requirements. LOL But that's not the issue. The issue is if they are a fair representation of the data as a whole. The answer is no, they are not.

Parker 2006


Peterson 2003


Quoting Snowlover123:
Your GISS links do not work, and GISS does not have data in the Arctic or Antarctic. they extrapolate data from nearby stations over parts of the Arctic where they have no data.

These too are not accurate observations.

Says who and with what evidence?

Anyway, here are the graphics again, hosted elsewhere so they don't disappear:




It is as I said, the high northern latitudes are warming dramatically at a time the Sun isn't even visible. Even Antarctica is warming somewhat during its winters. That alone puts solar forcing out of the running as a major cause of the current warming.

Quoting Snowlover123:
Can you provide evidence for these claims?

Yes, I can.
Member Since: October 30, 2005 Posts: 7 Comments: 5469
Quoting Snowlover123:

You have clearly not checked out any of my peer reviewed papers I posted. Point to me where the pictures I posted are not in the peer reviewed paper that I posted. Otherwise, you're just making baseless assumptions.

Show me the peer reviewed paper that belongs to this image, this image, this image and this image.

Quoting Snowlover123:

ANOTHER falsehood?

Quoting Paper:

Surface snowmelt is widespread in coastal Antarctica. Satellite-based microwave sensors have been observing melt area and duration for over three decades. However, these observations do not reveal the total volume of meltwater produced on the ice sheet. Here we present an Antarctic melt volume climatology for the period 1979–2010, obtained using a regional climate model equipped with realistic snow physics. We find that mean continent-wide meltwater volume (1979–2010) amounts to 89 Gt y−1 with large interannual variability (σ = 41 Gt y−1). Of this amount, 57 Gt y−1 (64%) is produced on the floating ice shelves extending from the grounded ice sheet, and 71 Gt y−1 in West-Antarctica, including the Antarctic Peninsula. We find no statistically significant trend in either continent-wide or regional meltwater volume for the 31-year period 1979–2010.

Gravity data collected from space using NASA’s Grace satellite show that Antarctica is losing ice at an accelerating rate.

Quoting this article:

"How is it possible for surface melting to decrease, but for the continent to lose mass anyway? The answer boils down to the fact that ice can flow without melting"



Btw, you're not just a denier - you are a hardcore denier.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
Sorry, but that's not an entirely accurate statement. PIOMAS is a model, yes, but it incorporates sea surface temps along with observations from satellites, submarines, and moorings. And it's been extensively validated through comparisons with those real-world observations, to the point that the margin of uncertainty averages only about 750 cubic kilometers--and it's getting better all the time.

Claiming PIOMAS is invalid because it's "just a model" is like claiming a dental X-ray is invalid because it's "just a picture".


Correct!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401
Quoting Snowlover123:


PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations.
Sorry, but that's not an entirely accurate statement. PIOMAS is a model, yes, but it incorporates sea surface temps along with observations from satellites, submarines, and moorings. And it's been extensively validated through comparisons with those real-world observations, to the point that the margin of uncertainty averages only about 750 cubic kilometers--and it's getting better all the time.

Claiming PIOMAS is invalid because it's "just a model" is like claiming a dental X-ray is invalid because it's "just a picture".
Member Since: November 8, 2009 Posts: 4 Comments: 13556
Quoting Snowlover123:


PIOMAS is a model cyclonebuster, not actual observations.


Computer models are very accurate perhaps more so than actual observations these days. So what's your point?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20401

Viewing: 382 - 332

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.