Hi all - for anyone interested Steve M at Climate Audit has just posted which surface stations are effected by Hansen's adjustment of the data & it makes for some interesting reading irregardless of which side of the GW debate one is on. I was surprised that not all stations get corrected.
Cheers,
Rick.

Models cannot be trusted. You know and I know that. Would you trust the GFS 16 days out? The NAM can't even be trusted and its a shorter range model. To make a model of coming years, decades, and centuries is foolish.

Hey Mark, did you go out on that glacier to join the protest?

And I was thinking Brett, "The Global Warming Center" is unbiased right? Maybe the name should be changed to "Climate Change Center", thats just my opinion. I don't mean to offend or anything Brett.

Reply: no offense taken Darren. Brett.

Interesting how the modelers are younger and the skeptics are older. Problem is that the modelers only remember the warming of the most recent 30 years, but the older scientists remember the cooling of the previous 30 years.

If you look at only 60 degrees of a sine wave, it appears to be an exponential function. You need to look at a full 180 degrees to make sense out of the behavior.

There is a sweet spot of Climate modeling between 20 to 40 years. Beyond that and assumptions, such as how human CO2 emission may vay, introduce more error than the models to themselves.

The science of Global Warming is actually very solid.

Sunlight is mostly UV and visible radiation.
As CO2 goes up, the atmosphere absorbs more infrared radiation.
Since the earth radiates in the infrared, more energy is retained within the atmosphere. It heats up.
As the atmosphere warms, so do the oceans.
As the oceans warm, water vapor in the atmosphere goes up.
Water vapor is another greenhouse gas and retains more infrared.
So, there is a feedback mechanism which amplifies the effect of the initial increase in CO2.

One might fear a runaway condition with temperatures sky rocketing.
However, water vapor also leads to more precipitation.
Precipitation is the primary mechanism that removes CO2 from the atmosphere.

Eventually CO2 levels in the atmosphere will stabilize, but not by nature until temperature and precipitation rise accordingly.

Any questions?

This video repeated the same clip from last week featuring a climate modeler making the claim (and I am paraphrasing here), that they cannot account for warming by natural causes alone in their models and that the only way to account for the amount of warming observed is via human caused emissions and therefore, this is proof that human greenhouse gases are the cause of warming. This guy is a scientist?

I'm sorry, so their models are perfect? Do they claim that their models account for all known and unknown climate forcings? No they don't, they admit in this video that they are constantly improving their models and that models are just that.....MODELS. The AGW conclusion does not follow simple logic.

By an oversimplified example, they say that their models take into account variables 1-20, but admittedly their are MANY more variables for which they cannot account for. Keeping 20 (man made C02) out of the equation and adjusting for 1-19 cannot show the observed warming, therefore 20 must be the cause? Ummmmmmmmm..... what about variables 21-infinity that you admittedly have not accounted for? These obviously couldn't have anything to do with the shortcomings of your models now could they? Are you kidding me?

What I find repulsive is how in one statement they admit that models are in their infancy and require vast computer power to calculate even their simple models, yet in another breath conclusively state that their models are somehow proof of AGW. They are either intentionally misrepresenting the accuracy of their models and misleading the public through untenable conclusions, or they are incompetent. I see no other other way to describe their statements.

Yep! Enviro-Nut Job GW Protesters came out in droves in Great Britain and in Switzerland (stripped down to their skivies) in those roasting 50 degrees F temperatures to pimp their leftist agenda...(I hope they all get the flu!)...I guess all of the lunatic asylums in EU have shut down......As for back home, here: Still don't think the global warming farce was created to control your life and lifestyles??? Take a peak at this:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/dan-gainor/2007/08/24/dingell-plans-attack-homeowners

I think the people of Michigan really need to pull their heads out of their collected back sides and vote John Dingell....(berry)..... out of office permanently!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLOBAL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Fehlinger again trots out the same tired and discredited "jesters". One would have thought that she'd been embarrassed enough by Gray's last appearance on this "unbiased" propaganda source.

Fred Singer? The same Fred Singer who also works as a shill for the tobacco industry denying the effects of second-hand smoke? The same Fred Singer who lies about his funding from ExxonMobil in 1998 and 2000?

Chris Horner? The same Christopher Horner who is a Senior Fellow at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the extremist right-wing advocacy group? These guys actually claimed that dioxin is good for you!

It's no wonder that this blog has become a favored gathering-spot for the deniers. Pieces like this are about as "unbiased" as Fox News is "fair and balanced." Crackpots like Gray, Singer and Horner are best suited for the National Enquirer and New York Post. If this garbage is what Accuweather wants associated with its brand, so be it. It's enough to make one wonder whether some competition from a genuinely unbiased source like the National Weather Service is perhaps a good thing after all (in spite of Santorum's best efforts to the contrary)

Did anybody notice how dark and warm that Glacier was?

When snow melts, it becomes darker which can lead to an albedo flip.

Snow-covered ice reflects back to space most of the sunlight striking it, but as warming air causes melting on the surface, the darker water and dirt absorb much more solar energy. This leads to more melting and the resulting meltwater burrows through the ice sheet, lubricating its base and speeding up the movement to lower and warmer elevations.

Similar thing is going on in Greenland where the summer melt area has been steadily increasing.

Link to study of melt days on Greenland

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/snowmelt_greenland.html

Andrew,

Yes, several questions.

What is your hypothesis?

Sunlight is mostly UV and visible radiation.
What causes you to say that UV and visible light makes up most of the spectrum?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunlight

As CO2 goes up, the atmosphere absorbs more infrared radiation.
How much? The graph in the link above suggests that CO2 absorbs only a narrow band of infrared while H2O absorbs many bands. Currently there is .00069 kg per cubic meter of CO2 up from LIA levels of .00051 kg per cubic meter. So are you saying the one degree increase since the LIA can be attributed to the additional .00018 kg per cubic meter of CO2? Is this a linear function?

Since the earth radiates in the infrared, more energy is retained within the atmosphere. It heats up.
How much? Does atmospheric CO2 absorb the infrared rays that come form the Sun or do they pass right on through? Where is convection in your GW lesson?

As the atmosphere warms, so do the oceans.
Does the atmosphere warm the oceans or does the Sun?

Water vapor is another greenhouse gas and retains more infrared.
How much water vapor is present in the atmosphere at any given time? How does water vapor differ from CO2 in it's ability to absorb and retain heat?

Why did the Earth warm and cool many times over the last 10,000 years when CO2 levels stayed steady at 280 ppm?

Why do you think Ice Ages occur? Is it CO2?

Regards,

Steve

Andrew,

It is August, the second warmest month of the year. Temperatures in the interior of Greenland have averaged just above 0F this month. The snow cover is a mile deep, and extremely clean and bright. You practically need sunglasses to look at it from 35,000 feet.

The ridiculous talk of Greenland melting is absurd. The ice hasn't yet retreated to it's 14th century mark, much less 400,000 years ago when boreal forests grew there.

JK hit the nail on the head. What absurd nonsense to spend billions on the results of this conjecture.
I bet the conversation went like this "So far with the variables we are still short on our calculations...so let's throw in another. make the math fit the hypothesis. Use an equation giving CO2 the difference, plug it into the computer and lets get it right. THat's my story and I am sticking to it. Oh apply for another grant to see if we can find out what the real cause is."
....and Andrew calls models proof....... Thanks for another day another chuckle.

Please stick with the current weather and a reliable three- to four-day forecast. The AGW discussion is highly political and centers on our ability to detect a 0.6C global temperature change over the past century or so with a measuring system never designed for the job. Just the weather, please.

Steve; Thanks for the good questions.

What causes you to say that UV and visible light makes up most of the spectrum?
I am trying to keep the science easily understandable. As your link shows, sunlights greatest intensity is in the visible part of the spectrum. To be more technical and specific, sunlight has wavelengths between 250 to 2500 nm, characteristic of a body radiating at over 10,000F.

As CO2 goes up, the atmosphere absorbs more infrared radiation.
How much? The graph in the link above suggests that CO2 absorbs only a narrow band of infrared while H2O absorbs many bands.
The link shows absorption bands for incoming sunlight. The earth radiates at longer wavelengths between 7,000 to 20,000 nm, characteristic of a body at 55F.
At these longer wavelengths, there is still overlap between CO2 and H2O. However, the amount of H2O varies widely in the atmosphere so their contributions do as well.

Currently there is .00069 kg per cubic meter of CO2 up from LIA levels of .00051 kg per cubic meter. So are you saying the one degree increase since the LIA can be attributed to the additional .00018 kg per cubic meter of CO2? Is this a linear function?
Yes. Most of the warming is due to additional CO2. Some is due to additional CH4. The earth has not reached equilibrium, so more warming is coming even if CO2 and CH4 levels are held constant. I do not know if it is linear or not.
Keep in mind that not much else is absorbing between 7,000 to 20,000 nm besides H2O and O3.

Since the earth radiates in the infrared, more energy is retained within the atmosphere. It heats up.
How much? Does atmospheric CO2 absorb the infrared rays that come form the Sun or do they pass right on through? Where is convection in your GW lesson?
I am no expert on this stuff and am learning as I go, so I can not provide a specific amount of heating. It is basically just an energy balance problem. If energy can not leave the system, then it heat up.

As the atmosphere warms, so do the oceans.
Does the atmosphere warm the oceans or does the Sun?
Both. However, suns output does not have to change in order to warm the atmosphere more than it would ordinarily.

Water vapor is another greenhouse gas and retains more infrared.
How much water vapor is present in the atmosphere at any given time? How does water vapor differ from CO2 in it's ability to absorb and retain heat?
The amount of water vapor varies a great deal in the atmosphere. It is almost zero at cold temperatures and much higher when warmer. Also depends on air currents and proximity to liquid water.

Why did the Earth warm and cool many times over the last 10,000 years when CO2 levels stayed steady at 280 ppm?
Are you referring to the Younger Dryas type events? These were caused by large influx of fresh water into the north Atlantic that temporarily shut down the gulf stream.
These were caused by dramatic events when large glacial lakes burst thru the continental ice sheets and flooded into the ocean. The northern hemisphere cooled off quickly. However, since the gulf stream was able to start again, the earth warmed back up again relatively quickly. So, the warming and cooling were tied to dramatic event.
Believe there were 2 or maybe 3 such events.

Why do you think Ice Ages occur? Is it CO2?
Ice ages occur due to slight variations in earths orbit around the sun that affect the amount of sunlight around 65 degrees north latitude. This either melts or preserves the seasonal snow at those latitudes. In the Northern Hemisphere there is a lot of land between Asia and Canada that supports seasonal snow at those latitudes.
Increasing seasonal snow increase the albedo of the NH enough that there is additional cooling. Precipitation then increases enough to lower CO2 levels which causes even more cooling. Eventually, the oceans cool enough that H2O levels in the atmosphere drop and a new dryer and cooler climate is obtained.
Over time the earths orbits shifts again so that seasonal snow and ice melts around 65 degrees north latitude. Less snow and ice results in more sunlight being absorbed. The entire earth warms enough so that the oceans do not absorb CO2 as well and the concentration in the atmosphere increases resulting in more warming. Eventually, precipitation increases, halting the CO2 increase and a new wetter and warmer climate is obtained.
Bottom line, CO2 plays a role, but is not only cause for ice ages.

Patrick.

Be patient, it takes a while to melt ice 2 miles thick. Can you show us the 14th century mark?

The "scientist" in this video mentions that the earth is trying to catch up or balance to the changes......I'm sorry, but not being a scientist, I understand that equilibrium always exists in each state of an event in nature. "Catching up" as implied by this video implies simply a continuation of balance with continuous change. i.e. changing balance ....period ( no science fiction here).

Isn't it curious that everyone seems to think that everything WE do "controls" nature. I always thought it was the other way around......

Does anyone out there know if the worlds glaciers were affected in other than Greenland during the warming period from 800 A.D to 1400 A.D.?

Andrew,

Can you show us the 14th century mark?

I'm guessing the 14th century mark is somewhere behind the 14th century farms still under the ice.

it takes a while to melt ice 2 miles thick

Are you proposing a new mechanism where ice melts at 4F? Particularly interesting theory considering that ice is increasing in the interior of Greenland. According to my back of the envelope calculations, at a delta of +8 inches per year, it takes infinity years for the ice to melt.

Ice ages occur due to slight variations in earths orbit around the sun that affect the amount of sunlight around 65 degrees north latitude.

The earth's angle to the sun changes by 47 degrees every 12 months. Guess that last tenth of a degree is enough to break the camel's back

I found a great resource. The GISS data for google earth, showing exactly where the weather stations are and the graphs they use to come up their "sky is falling" press releases.
http://dev.edgcm.columbia.edu/browser/misc/GISTEMP/GISTEMP.kml?format=raw

It shows several wonderful things.

1. Most stations are cooling since the 1930s

2. How badly placed some stations are. Ft. Lauderdale is one of a few stations in Florida not showing cooling, it is also located in a large parking lot, next to a concrete building, immediately adjacent to a six lane highway in the middle of a huge metropolitan area.

3. The most amazing thing is that you can see how the standard 1961 comparison begin point is chosen. It is a local minima for almost every single station! It's like an internet stock offer which shows you a graph started right after the company's last crash.

4. Most of the eastern and southern US is cooling.

I also suggest you take a "fly" over Greenland to understand that almost all of Greenland is at high altitude and covered with thick ice. The preponderance of stations along the southwest coast is an artifact of the fact that there is a 20-100 mile wide strip there which becomes snow free in the summer, and is thus habitable by hearty humans.

Also please note by browsing these sites that essentially all Greenland stations are running close to normal this summer.
http://www.wunderground.com/global/GL.html
http://en.allmetsat.com/climate/greenland.php?code=04272

Well, I can say that I got a good Sunday morning laugh out of that video, especially when the modelers are saying that they can "see the human influence" in their models. OMG. That is just too funny. Talk about truth in advertising.

Ok, I'm all better now.

Interesting, it used to be said that one way to define insanity was to do the same thing over and over again and expect a different result. It looks like the AGWers are giving us a new one, insanity is changing different things over and over again to get the same result.

There has been plenty of melting going on in Greenland. Losses along the coast have far outweighed gains in the interior. Just visit the following links to see the progressively greater melt areas.

2006 Greenland Melt Extent.

http://www.scitizen.com/screens/blogPage/viewBlog/sw_viewBlog.php?idTheme=13&idContribution=678

Fancy graphics of Greenland Melt Extent

http://cires.colorado.edu/science/groups/steffen/greenland/melt2005/

View of melt ponds on Greenland. Click on full image and it is possible to see iceburgs floating away from Greenland.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Newsroom/NewImages/images.php3?img_id=17319

Another view of Greenland Melt area

http://gest.umbc.edu/jcet/news/is_greenland_melting.html

Extent of ice loss on Greenland since 1978

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Grnqx2.png

French and Belgium site for Greenland melt

http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/902.htm?&debut=16

NASA study of Greenland Melt

http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/news/topstory/2007/snowmelt_greenland.html

Greenland, hmm. If the ice melts completely and the forests grow back, there will be an enormous opportunity over the next 10,000 years for industry to set up shop , develop large urban centers and make it like Canada became after the mile thick ice receeded.

New lakes will be formed, as did the Great Lakes after the ice age, fishing and tourism will flourish and folks will be having a great time at the beach.

Greenland will become like Canada or Norway is today. What's the problem?

Interesting comment from Joe Sobel about the GFDL model and Hurricane Dean.

http://www.accuweather.com/news-blogs.asp?partner=accuweather&traveler=0&blog=globalperspective&date=2007-08-22_14:59
the GFDL (model) took the storm (Dean) across the Caribbean,, but not across the Yucatan. Instead it took it through the Yucatan Channel and then toward the upper Texas and Louisiana coast. That scenario would have been a disaster for Houston, and maybe even New Orleans. Fortunately, the GFDL turned out to be wrong, and the earlier consensus of the other models was much more accurate.

An interesting side note on all of this is that the GFDL model was developed in the same place as some of the climate models that are used to support major global warming because of increased greenhouse gases. Just an observation....not necessarily an editorial comment!!!!!

Andrew,

Thanks for the links. Note that >80% of the Greenland ice pack never sees any melting.
http://www.nasa.gov/centers/goddard/images/content/178064main_Tedesco1_lg.jpg

Any assumption that the climate is static in Greenland is flawed. Boreal forests grew there only 400,000 years ago. The fact that there is a little more melting going on now than there was 15 years ago at some lower elevation locations, is barely interesting. How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Temps in the interior (where the vast majority of the ice is) have averaged 3F this August, the second warmest month of the year.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2007/8/26/MonthlyHistory.html

Andrew,

It is true that the US is only 2% of the globe. It is also true that the ocean is 70% of the globe, and it shows little or no warming on average.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/sst/ani-weekly/5.gif

The warm region above the Bering Strait looks large, but is distorted in area 7X by the map projection. It is actually relatively small and probably mainly due to soot melting the ice in July.

As flawed as it is, the US climate record is the best in the world - so you might want to view data showing the rest of the world warming faster with considerable caution.