Well,rest assured that when the GISS data comes out it will show may as 42 degrees above normal globablly.Hmm,which one to believe?

The "observed" surface data are not observed, they are "adjusted" beyond all credibility: http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/06/adjustments-at-hansens-nasa-giss.html

The lower troposphere data are accurate, both RSS and UAH agree. The globe is cooling, has been for 10 years, Hansen, NASA GISS and NOAH notwithstanding.

"was the eighth warmest on record."

What record? The record of temperatures that have bee buggered and adjusted until all hope of meaning has been removed?

Why are there so many reports of crop damage, ski resorts still operating, and on and on if it is so bloody hot?

(Reply: Most of what we hear is from this country, and a large part of the Midwest was cool and wet in May, and the ski areas had a lot of snow pack from the winter and some recent cold and snow. I amd trying to focus on the global picture with this blog.)

I don't understand.

When does Alaska get to be part of North America and the "continental U.S"?

Wow, the divergence between RSS/UAH and NCDC is becoming almost ludicrous. Satellite measurements that cover the actual globe (except for the poles) 2X/day are showing a remarkably different story. Is NCDC still using surface temp from land based stations with all their UHI/bad placement and extrapolating the temps over the oceans/from stations they don't have data from? If so, its time for them to step into the 21st Century.

No doubt there was quite a contrast between the observed surface data and the lower tropospheric data!
That's why GISS uses the weather stations that are beside bbq's and open fires...start out with higher than normal temps and then adjust them higher for good measure (and to make global warming appear to be happening).

This is the last gasp for AGW. As long as they keep putting this out, people will think AGW might be real. It's been cold where they were, but maybe it has been warm everywhere else, so they will believe that they were just in an unusual weather pattern.

Note the 1961 -1990 base period for the red dots. Probably the coldest 30 year period available.

I trust the NOAA dataset as much as the GISS dataset, which not at all. Their Canadian data, historical and current, is virtually untracable, and is not representative of MSC (Env. Canada) surface station data.

Uh Huh. NCDC- 8th Warmest. UAH & RSS - 5th & 8th Coolest. Ooooooh Yeah, this ought to be real good.

I have lived in this area for about 13 years I think. The first couple we had extremely cold winters much like the past two winters. So there was about 7 years I would say that were much warmer overall and much, much drier. I am very heat sensitive and so I think I can be a good judge of increased warmth. Two winters ago, we had a much colder Feb than normal and it seems since then things have been adjusting downward in temp. Also what I have noticed is that the winter started earlier this year like it did back when I first moved here, and ended later as well which was like it was back 13 years ago. The big difference this spring has been the sky. It is not at all the sky we normally see this time of year. It has been looking like a fall sky which makes sense since our temps have been much cooler. I think it is impossible to draw any conclusions based on my observations of the past 13 years. What I can say for sure is that it has been both warmer and cooler than normal during those 13 years.

If the base line is 1961-1990, the graph temperatures should average base line between those years. It does not.

SteveP,

Well,rest assured that when the GISS data comes out it will show may as 42 degrees above normal globablly.Hmm,which one to believe?

It already is. GISS shows a +0.36C anomaly for May compared to the period 1951-1980, although if you align the base period to that of UAH, the anomaly is only +0.14. If I'm counting correctly, it's 11th warmest in the past 129 years, though cooler than any year since 2000.

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/do_nmap.py?year_last=2008&month_last=5&sat=4&sst=1&type=anoms&mean_gen=05&year1=2008&year2=2008&base1=1979&base2=1998&radius=1200&pol=reg

http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Also keep in mind that while GISS and NCDC deal largely with surface data, RSS and UAH are taking an average of the air temperature across a 5-8km range in altitude. We can expect both datasets to show the same trend (and indeed they are very similar for the past 30 years of satellite data), but we can't expect them to align closely each month. In fact, during the super El Nino of 1998 when there was so much heat in the atmosphere, RSS and UAH show significantly higher anomalies (when adjusted to the same base period) than NCDC and GISS do in the surface data. It was a reversal of what we see in the most recent data.

When is everyone gonna finally start to realize that this section should be changed to the global cooling column? The interglacial period is and has been winding down and before too long we will all begin feeling the reality that an ice age is approaching. Remember the 1970's when all the rage was the coming ice age? Well guess what-----they had it right! The recent wild events are only the beginning. People should start listening to William Gray and Joe Bastardi. They know what they're talking about! I hope Al Gore is reading! Harold Olsen, Belle Harbor, NY

You know, I might have said this before, but those charts ALL look VERY cyclic to me. Damned near sinusoidal..... or some other oidal. And if they are, the data will continue to show that the current year is one of the warmest on record for years even though the values are trending down. I understand that this is just a visual interpretation, but that's why you make charts yeah? To show (visually) that temps were low, then they were high, and now they're going back down again. And in a few years everyone will be sleeping under down comforters because it'll be colder than today, and it'll be illegal to burn fuel for home heating..... even IF you can afford it after paying your carbon tax.

You know. I think if you go back far enough you'll find that lynching was a practice that first began with the ceremonial public execution of politicians who instituted a senseless tax. I'm gonna research it a little more though. I'll get back with you.

I agree. Somethings is a bit strange with the NOAA & GISS reports. I don't know exactly what they do as what they do is cloaked in mystery.

With RSS, UAH and HadCru all showing significant Global cooling since last fall to temperatures at or near their respective zero anomalies, how is it that NOAA and GISS seem to be stuck on warm?

Is it the multitude of adjustments? Is it UHI? Is it confirmation bias? Is it a combination of the above? Is it something else that should never me mentioned on a polite blog?

Whatever it is, how much longer will the American public put up with these incredible warmest comparisons while they can see out their windows (and in their heating bills) that things are very much cooler than NOAA and GISS are claiming?

Reply: Remember, these stats take into account the whole globe, not just the U.S. (Big difference).

The surface temperature readings are the most accurate, period. There are factors and biases that affect the tropospheric readings, but it matters not because different factors affect the temperatures at various levels of the atmosphere.

Unlike these biased (wrongly, I might add) commenters on this Blog, I live on the surface of the Earth and it is getting much hotter globally. Maybe you guys will let go of your hot air (balloons) and come down to Earth with the rest of us intellegent and concerned citizens of the world.

They continue to mislead people with this kind of information. There definitely needs to be some accountability for the way they are interpreting temps so differently. Not surprised at all by what they are reporting however due to the fact that this is same old story with them.

UAH data.....May was 5th coolest
RSS data (I just blogged about)...May was 8th coolest.

REPLY: Nah, really? Gee, and I thought things were heating up? But it doesn't prove or disprove anything. LOL!!!!

Oh forgot to mention. Not getting out of the 60s this week for high temperatures. Can't wait to see the data for June! But again, that's just a "back yard" forecast with absolutely no bearing on the plight of the polar bears and fiddler crab! LOL! (Brett: still not amused. I really detest cool wx, especially when people still run the AC in the office bldgs. Ain't funny. Time to make beach reservations!).

Pittsburgh and Seattle Weather. Proof that GLO-BULL Warming is a CROCK!!!!!!!!

The problem with the surface data from a statistical point of view is the overall reduction in reporting stations since 1960. Because of fiscal problems, civil war, the closing of military and civilian airfields, the clsoing of remote RADAR stations such as the Dew-line, the fall of the Warsaw Pact and Soviet Union, there are 2/3 less reporting stations than there were in 1960.

Climate Audit several times has visited this issue during the last 2 or 3 years. If I am not mistaken NASA and NOAA use different methods to fill in the "empty gridcells".

It should also be noted that while the US only occupies 6% of the global landmass, it provides nearly 50% of the NOAA reporting stations.

When will weather professionels demand that GISS provide real information? Enough with the massaging and adjusting already!

Didn't Brent just show us a map with a totally different picture a week or so ago?

So which one is correct?

Reply: They are two different methods and the RSS/UAH data measures the lower troposphere while the NCDC uses surface data. Maybe they are both correct.

mrsund,

Note the 1961 -1990 base period for the red dots. Probably the coldest 30 year period available.

Whether or not the base period is 1961-1990, the middle of an ice age, or during Armageddon, it won't affect the rankings of the warmest/coolest years. All it will do is make the dot map more red or more blue. The base period only provides an "average" that yearly data can be compared to. Whether they chose a particularly cold base period or not (and if they wanted to do that, they should have chosen 1901-1920), the warmest years in the record still occurred in the past 15 years.

jblethen is right: the globe has been cooling since 1998. It's also been warming since 1999. The general theory behind AGW does not outlaw cooling periods, just as it does not state that we will see record global temperatures set year after year. It only says that the general trend will be upward. Climate will always be subject to natural variability, and as we saw in 1998 and again this year, nature can throw a pretty good curveball. But when you look at the 30-year trends calculated by UAH, RSS, NCDC, and GISS, all agree on the upward trend within about .05C per decade of each other.

NCDC? Why are you still giving this scientifically dubious, alarmist source any play at all? You do realize the practice only detracts from your own credibility.

Reply: I would not call the NCDC an alarmist source. I think most of their stuff is credible.

The data across Siberia especially are objectionable, as is the base period.

"No doubt there was quite a contrast between the observed surface data and the lower tropospheric data!"
That can't be I thought Hansonian devotees discovered that the troposphere was actually heating up just like AGW predicted....and, and the Models were quite correct when looking at the data on a 6 degree positive incline.
If these guys tried revisions of data like that to the FDA (US Food and Drug Administration) they'd all be in jail and their product would be pulled off the market in an emergency Class I recall (reserved for life threatening issues) until an independent board reviewed all "their Science". Yet this government agency can revise change and subvert science for their own personal agenda.
How about we all chip in and give these guys some home study courses in ethics, math and statistics? We could make it an early Christmas present. Looks like they really need it.

Sat measurements have better coverage and measure the air around the globe. Whereas the land/ocean metrics measure some air and some water with a lot of voodoo in between.

I much prefer sat measurements for a global temp.

Thanks Brett for your work and presentation of facts. It would be nice if the majority of respondents dealt with the information provided, which is educational and interesting, rather than using this as a platform for their prejudices.

That said, the following responds to the "majority" that dominates this blog:

"last gasp" you say? Give me a break, and please please check worldwide weather at least a couple of times a week. AccuWeather does this well, as does every other global weather service. You cannot say that world weather isn't getting wilder and more dangerous, because it would not be true.

Thanks Brett for an informative and interesting post. I hope (and assume) you will do this monthly. I wish people would respond to your posts instead of using this blog as a platform for their prejudices.

It would be nice if the majority here (who have steadily driven away most interested in real science and weather) didn't have their heads in the sand and use this as a safe haven for their blindness.

PLEASE all of you check world weather a couple of times a week over time; AccuWeather does this well, as do all other world weather services. You cannot say that weather is not getting wilder and more dangerous if you pay any attention to anything but your prejudices.

Something will eventually happen on your own doorstep (have you noticed food shortages/prices; water wars?) to get you to notice what is going on. Predictions made in the 1960s and 1970s are now becoming reality, and gathering speed.

As one of the few survivors of the majority who are concerned about climate change, I will continue to post here in hopes that those who don't belong to the club will know that you all are not a true majority. The content of many of their comments is nauseatingly biased, and in some cases likely funded by interested parties.

I smell John Kerry. "It was 8th coolest May on record, but it was also the 8th warmest May on record."

Weatherwatcher,

You missed this biased comment by David

" I live on the surface of the Earth and it is getting much hotter globally"

If it is getting much hotter globally, how come the global temperature has been cooler compared to 1998? I guess your statement is as wrong as a statement could be.

Also,
"The surface temperature readings are the most accurate, period."

These most accurate readings are some of the most adjusted. Temperature readings should not have to be adjusted.

Travis

"Whether or not the base period is 1961-1990, the middle of an ice age, or during Armageddon, it won't affect the rankings of the warmest/coolest years. All it will do is make the dot map more red or more blue."

You missed the point - they want the map red instead of blue because that looks warmer.

David wrote:

The surface temperature readings are the most accurate, period. There are factors and biases that affect the tropospheric readings, but it matters not because different factors affect the temperatures at various levels of the atmosphere.

Unlike these biased (wrongly, I might add) commenters on this Blog, I live on the surface of the Earth and it is getting much hotter globally. Maybe you guys will let go of your hot air (balloons) and come down to Earth with the rest of us intellegent and concerned citizens of the world.

The satellite data is generally accepted as most accurate. Do you have anything to back up that claim that surface temperatures are the most accurate? There are also wide swatches of the earth not covered by the surface data.

Don't forget that 70% of the earth's surface is water. There are no surface stations to measure the ocean temperature.
About about the Earth "getting much hotter globally" -- as compared to what, the Little Ice Age? And no, it's not getting hotter. Getting hotter means it's still warming and it clearly is not.

You really need to check your premises if you believe you are "unbiased".

Weather watcher:
"The content of many of their comments is nauseatingly biased, and in some cases likely funded by interested parties."

Absolutely correct. I do not know about you but most of us live on this planet so of course we are interested parties. What a nauseatingly condescending statement of superiority. We all better be interested in the science, not some slick baloney fed to us by the massive green AGW machine.
Just what part about the AGW spending billions more on public pabulum than on factual reproducible science don’t you understand? The science is weak and getting weaker all the time. Altering records without complete transparency for anybody to verify is a scientific NO-NO in any real science field.
I guess that's why questions from non believers is just so frightening. You really can't answer science with a slick but inane TV advertisements or slogans.
(Here's a hint: When some went to University and got our post graduate degrees in real science fields we actually came to believe that science shows us the way not the other way around. Sorry if that upsets you.)
As for an increase in bad weather? Maybe better reporting more lurid reporting but this is just weather and it happens all the time. As the zealots of AGW are always quick to point the years 1980 to 1998 as climate while anytime after that with lower or as of yet unadjusted data is just weather.
By the way nothing in the CO2 theory allows for nature to overpower the CO2 heat blanket covering the entire world for a short length of time.(Well except for Antarctica and the southern hemisphere which is regional and really doesn’t count.) Besides that, the temperature tipping points have been past so we can only spend money, pray to the Goracle and pay some more. If this lunacy was only going to be spending your money I'd be laughing but when you want to spend mine I and others balk at the shear unscientific stupidity being bantered about.
Folks Think for yourself. The Zealots of AGW have postulated so many conflicting theories about what AGW causes they can always have a theory to fit a temperature or weather condition...without altering records. And Without opening your database and code to anyone for validation, altering records screams to many the words, "Scam and fraud."

Off Topic but wanted to say petroleum oil is renewable!!!! visit www.popsci.com

Weatherwatcher:

Your posts are both amuzing and hypocritical, as you have done exactly what you criticize others for doing, which is to take a position on this debate (that is not the same as yours, which of course YOU believe to be right). It's actually quite easy to say that weather is NOT getting "wilder and more dangerous" and it would be absolutely true. All you need do to verify this is to read/listen more carefully to the reports on the latest weather "event." When they say that [weather event] is the worst SINCE [year of previous such weather event], what they're really saying is that there was a WORSE episode of such weather in the past in the year referenced. Increased tools of weather tracking and of communication mean more people are more familiar with severe weather that occurs far from home, but it does not mean that the weather has become more severe, and certainly does not provide any "evidence," much less "proof," of any human influence on the Earth's climate, REGARDLESS of how many times the Climate Fascists who wish to gain power and control and strip people's freedom repeat that it does.

I'm often reminded of Dr. Richard Lindzen's quote regarding the AGW campaign, "There is an effort to establish truth through repetition." Couldn't have said it better myself. Your own repetition of the alleged "truth" of the secular religion that is AGW will not make it true, nor will you repeated assertions of the "overwhelming evidence" (of which there is none) of AGW or the existence of a "majority" (which does not exist, but more to the point is irrelevant in science) who are "concerned" about "climate change" (conveniently omitting reference to "warming" since we're currently not experiencing any) make those "truths," either.

At the end of the day, REAL science is grounded in SKEPTICISM, not "consensus." Consensus is a creature of politics, not a creature of science, and YOU are the one who needs to pull your head out of the sand - and realize that you're being fed propaganda, not science.

Hmmmm...

So WeatherWatcher starts with:

"I wish people would respond to your posts instead of using this blog as a platform for their prejudices."

Then we have:

"It would be nice if the majority here (who have steadily driven away most interested in real science and weather) didn't have their heads in the sand and use this as a safe haven for their blindness."

And...

"As one of the few survivors of the majority who are concerned about climate change, I will continue to post here in hopes that those who don't belong to the club will know that you all are not a true majority."

Followed by the topper:

"The content of many of their comments is nauseatingly biased, and in some cases likely funded by interested parties."

So glad everything you post is so rock-solidly fact-based and you don't let your biases show.

In all fairness to my previous post here, I had to leave before I could completely finish it, I wanted to also stress the baseline and the differences it makes in the numbers you see.

If you put all metrics under the same baseline, sometimes there real close, and sometimes not, but the trends are remarkably close. This has been shown before at Atmoz blog in response to Watts blog.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/04/14/comparable-global-climate-metrics/#comments

Another post with NOAA added. Click "climate metrics file" for the text list.

http://atmoz.org/blog/2008/04/21/adding-noaa-numbers-to-atmoztemp/#comments

It's not updated, so maybe he'll find the time to do that. I know some previous months have been revised, also, since this list was compiled.

I still prefer sat temps, though, regardless if they are higher or lower than land/ocean temps.

Weather Watcher:Welcome;
This is like an AA meeting,and one guy in the middle of the meeting stands up and says"I don't drink". The NCDC have a conspiracy against all of you bloggers,or maybe not. Why don't you all write your congressmen and say NOAA hates you.Your right!The results are adjusted,buggered,flawed data,cloaked in mysteries, same old story, Hansonian, alarmist, and of course a lot of VOODOO. And worse,you can find the same results, from the PDO over the last 100 years. Or maybe,the IPCC. At least when Hansen went before congress in 1988, he was being scientifically honest.There are no ski resorts in southern Asia, and the permafrost is melting all over the Arctic, and the Atlantic is cooling. This year in Connecticut,one snowfall,very cold, and no Sun.Just like The IPCC predicted. Birds of a feather, flock together. You are no longer skeptics anymore. You are misunderstood.
KIPP

WeatherWatcher ... those of us that are skeptical of the GLO-BULL warming song & dance are funded by the same group that pays you to post your propaganda ... in other words none, zero, diddly-squat. To imply it is otherwise is to slander, but do what you have to do to further your agenda.
BTW ... how do you quantify " wilder & more dangerous weather "?? Or do you just have a feeling?

Be good,
Rick.

Brett:
The only obvious problem with your blog is that you have never published one graph or any data from the IPCC, or from The United States Climate Change Science Program. You did use a Dept. of Agriculture report, but never one about climate change. This is after all, a Global Warming blog.
Thanks, KIPP

Elmer:
When they were making the map, someone forgot to glue it in the right place.
KIPP

ww,

You start your post off with this nugget: I wish people would respond to your posts instead of using this blog as a platform for their prejudices.

Then you finish off your post with this: The content of many of their comments is nauseatingly biased, and in some cases likely funded by interested parties. Surely, you jest. Hey, pot. Now tell me with a straight face that this comment is not biased, nauseatingly at that.

Why do you and the other warm earthers on this blog constantly have to whine?

Now that I got that out of my system, let's see what else you had to say.

You cannot say that weather is not getting wilder and more dangerous if you pay any attention to anything but your prejudices.

What? One paper with some suspect correlations amounts to wilder and more dangerous weather? I thought this blog was about climate and not weather. So, you change the rules as the situation suits you? Yeah, right.

Warmer weather, global warming; colder weather, global warming; stormy weather, global warming; dry weather, global warming; more hurricanes, global warming; fewer hurricanes, global warming; more sea ice, global warming; less sea ice, global warming; shrinking glaciers, global warming; advancing glaciers, global warming; blah, blah, blah, blah, ad nauseum. I must admit, you guys do have your bases covered. It's a win-win situation you've set up for yourselves and the media has bought it lock, stock, and barrel. Unfortunately, Mother Earth isn't cooperating.

If whining to the moderator and throwing out unsupported feeble attempts to relate everything to global warming keeps you happy, by all means, have at it.

Thank you for your participation.

Brett,
If both sets of numbers are correct and the surface temps are rising and the troposphere temps are cooling, what happens for us humans if the trend continues? My limited weather experience says we will get more severe weather. Am I even close?

Reply: This post is only covers a 1-3 month period, which is much too small a time period to draw any meaningful conclusions.

Brett,

I think you are very kind to suggest that there could conceivably be a situation where the NCDC data and RSS data might BOTH be accurate.

After all, data collected down at the surface could conceivably be different from the RSS data collected in the lower troposphere down to 1000 feet.

You are definitely a peacemaker.

Except for one small problem: You have inadvertently greatly offended the Alarmists, by accidentally making a mockery of their precious models.

The models accept a premise that a thing called "mixing" occurs throughout the troposphere. There is no way, if "mixing" occurred, that temperatures could be "seventh warmest" on the surface and "eighth coldest" at a thousand feet.

Therefore, by suggesting what you have suggested, you have suggested their precious models are wrong. How dare you!!?? That crazy lady over at the Weather Channel will now likely screech that you should lose your license to practice meteorology, and get a job flipping burgers.

In other words, you can't win with these people. Even if you try to be a peacemaker, you'll wind up offending them, and wind up in hot water.

Considering you can't win even when you try to be polite, you might as well be rude. Rather than calling what they produce "adjusted" data, I suggest you call it "corrupted" data.

"You cannot say that world weather isn't getting wilder and more dangerous, because it would not be true."

A true debater does not need to insult nor do they need to include a statement trying to justify their posiiton that is partially true and yet having no statistical importance. "Wild" weather has been going on forever. I have lived all over the US and have seen some dandy years of unusual weather patterns. Big deal. Is there a pattern of crazy weather and more importantly is there a darn thing we can really do about it?

"It only says that the general trend will be upward."

The problem with this statement is that what timeframe makes your statement even slightly possible? If the general trend in a 100 year period seems to suggest cooling is that period of time significant enough in the big scheme of things to be taken very seriously? If there is a general trend for say 1,000 years that does not preclude the possibility that nature will reverse that trend and go the other way.

The global warming issue has several inherent problems. The first being how the surface temperatures are taken. Another is tying CO2 to any increase in temperature and thus making the link to man. It now appears that CO2 can continue to rise while temperatures do not continue their descent, at least in the short-term.

So let's say that for natural purposes the climate is now going into a cooling phase that will last for the next 100 years and yet compiling all the data available and readjusting the numbers the trend is still upwards. Now what? Meanwhile an entire generation or more will have to contend with cooling temps and the big problems that will cause even though long-term for future generations the trend appears to be warming.

I said on another post that where I live currently we are having a very cool spring. It has adversely affected the crops which at best look puny. We just got in our garden which will probably fail because we will run out of daylight length before the crops can mature enough to get good yields. It might get into the 40s tonight. Today it was very much like a cool Oct day. I love it, but with each passing day our growing season is being hurt by these temperatures. Now if we had particularly warmer weather this spring it would not have hurt crop production unless it was just scorching heat. So a few degrees up isn't a big deal, but a few degrees down stops growth. My point is that we keep focusing only on warming trends and how detrimental they may be, but we continue to ignore that cooling trends that might last for quite some time, are even more damaging.

mrsund,

You missed the point - they want the map red instead of blue because that looks warmer.

Your point was not lost on me. The claim that NCDC and GISS pick a cool base period to make the warming seem more pronounced is a common one. That's why I added this:

if they wanted to do that, they should have chosen 1901-1920

Check the graph. 1901-1920 was much cooler than 1961-1990. If they were trying to use red as a scare tactic, wouldn't they have decided that the temperature during that time period was "normal" instead?

Gary Gulrud,

The data across Siberia especially are objectionable, as is the base period

Why is the dataacross Siberia objectionable?

Kricki,

The problem with this statement is that what timeframe makes your statement even slightly possible? If the general trend in a 100 year period seems to suggest cooling is that period of time significant enough in the big scheme of things to be taken very seriously? If there is a general trend for say 1,000 years that does not preclude the possibility that nature will reverse that trend and go the other way.

I think a 100-year cooling trend would be more than adequate, especially since climate models are predicting a significant trend upward over the next twenty years. But given that the major oscillations in climate (a shift in the PDO or Arctic Oscillation, for example) occur over a period of one to three decades, it would take probably at least 20 years of data to make any kind of accurate conclusion. As it happens, we have 30 years of satellite data and 120+ years of surface station data which agree within a reasonable degree that the trend of the last 30 years is upward.

Sorry I joined the party late, but I do want to ask this: If the majority of the blog believe so much in satellite data do they also agree the present administration was wrong to defund scientific satellite observation of the Earth (including atmosphere and climate) in favor of a manned mission to Mars (aka our backup planet if we really screw this one up)?

Brett & cmbclean:

The UHI problems with the remaining Russian stations is well documented at CA; the very worst data on earth.

Keenan notes the problems in China:

http://www.informath.org/pubs/EnE07a.pdf

Dr. Karl has resolutely evaded the issue of a multiple degree bias in this data and instead proposes yet another hardware upgrade in the US.

Your implied ignorance in the matter is disingenuous at best.

Travis,

Forgive me for being cynical and suspicious, but my guess would be that the reason they don't use the 1901 - 1920 period as a baseline is because it would be too obvious. They want to be sly and subtle about fudging the figures.

Also, if they used 1901 - 1920, it might draw attention to the fact those temperatures to the left and blue side are "adjusted" downwards. The post - 1990 temperatures on the right and red side are "adjusted" upwards. Therefore it draws least attention to the "adjustments" if they chose a time-period where the "adjustments" were least necessary.

See? I told you I'm cynical and suspicious. If only they'd stop giving me so many reasons to be that way!

Reply: They are two different methods and the RSS/UAH data measures the lower troposphere while the NCDC uses surface data. Maybe they are both correct.

Brett,

If the AGW because of CO2 theory is correct then the lower troposphere should show trends very similar to surface.

Let's not forget that the AGW'ers believe the Stratosphere is cooling because less IR from Earth is reaching it.

That would mean the IR emitted from Earth would have to be "trapped" in the troposphere. 70% of all CO2 is 5 miles or below.

How can the lower troposphere that contains 70% of all CO2 in the atmosphere cool while the surface warms if AGW theory is correct?

Can anyone explain this one?

Higher TSI or Lower TSI will result in higher or lower surface temps leaving much of the lower troposphere unaffected if CO2 is not a strong or abundant(this is well known) GHG.

There is only .7g/m^3 CO2 at sea level. A cubic meter of dry air at sea level is 1.3kg. We know the abundance, can anyone locate any data on how strong it is?

Thanks,

Steve

David,

"The surface temperature readings are the most accurate, period."

You can't be serious, can you? While technically the thermometers are 'accurate', the placement of the stations and the scarcity of them over wide areas of the earth (like none in Africa and large areas of Asia/India -- plus 0 over the oceans - 75% of the surface area) causing extrapolations of temperature and massive 'adjustments' leave a lot to be desired as far as 'accuracy' goes. The stations in the US (arguably the most coverage) are not placed well, suffer from many problems, the rest of the world is far worse, especially Russia and China.

If you are really interested in learning about this subject you need to spend some time researching the issues surface monitoring presents and why satellite (admittedly not without issues) is the most accurate means we have today to determine global temperature.

Do you have anything to back up your statement above?

Adamant, they like the sats because they like the results better. If the surface record showed warmer, they'd like it instead. Most of all they like the UAH results despite the checkered past.

Anybody who cares to take the time quickly finds out that there are sharp limitations to the satellite data sets, starting with the fact that the instruments involved weren't even designed to collect this type of data.

Of course there are limitations to all of the data sets, but the key conclusion that climate scientists draw is that all of them point in the same direction.

Since we hear quite a bit from Kricki about how there's a trend toward colder temperatures in Wisconsin, I thought this (from the Capital Times in Madison) would be of interest:

Growing pains: Gardeners experiment with less hardy plants
Anita Weier � 6/11/2008 4:38 pm

Nancy Nedveck loves the colorful blooms that grow on agastache and penstemon, two plants that attract tiny hummingbirds. Some varieties of these plants used to be too fragile to grow in south-central Wisconsin, but now Nedveck is happy to be able to offer them among the endless rows of perennials on display at her nursery, south of Oregon.

Thanks to global warming, these and other less hardy plants are surviving and even thriving in this area, said Nedveck, who has owned the popular Flower Factory for 25 years.

"The change over the past 10 years has been gradual," she said, but has accelerated during the last five, as temperatures warm and the growing season lengthens.

An ornamental known as giant silver grass, for instance, would not have bloomed in Dane County in the past but now the longer growing season gives it time to produce its fluffy silver flowers. Japanese maples, flowering dogwood and hardy gloxinia also are now thriving.

What all this means to local gardeners is that the "zone" code on seed packets and planting guides may no longer be accurate. These often rely on a hardiness map put out by the U.S. Department of Agriculture that the government hasn't updated since 1990.

The map puts south-central Wisconsin mostly in Zone 4, but Nevdeck says the area is now more of a Zone 5.

The National Arbor Day Foundation, which just recently released its own zone map, agrees with Nevdeck.

"The map confirms that much of the United States has warmed in recent years," said Mark Derowitsch, public relations manager for the foundation.

But while the zone shift gives local gardeners new courage to experiment with plants they might have shied away from in the past, experts urge caution. Seasons are variable even during a warming climate trend -- as last winter proved -- and such factors as early freezes, snow cover and "micro-climates" in one's own backyard must also be factored into planting decisions.

A zone map, in other words, "is not the be-all and end-all," said David Ellis, director of communications for the American Horticultural Society. "The map is a tool to help gardeners select plants. You have to take into account cold hardiness, heat tolerance, rain levels and other factors that affect how plants thrive and survive."

The National Arbor Day Foundation's 2006 Hardiness Zone Map differs substantially from the 1990 map from the USDA. In the foundation's map, southern Wisconsin is now solidly in Zone 5 and northern Wisconsin is in Zone 4, each one zone higher than in the past. The central part of the state is a mix of the two.

Drawing on data from 5,000 weather stations around the United States, the zones are based on average annual low temperatures using 10-degree increments. Those increments are further divided into 5-degree A and B zones; plants in A zones are able to survive lower temperatures than those in B. The Zone 4 range is from -20 to -30 degrees Fahrenheit. Zone 5 is from -10 to -20 degrees.

Karen Johannsen, co-owner of Johannsen's Greenhouses, said many local gardeners have been successful with Zone 5 perennials that are a little less hardy than Zone 4 plants.

But she warned that there could always be problems with a bad winter.

"Even though it's been warmer, we still get a 20-below plunge just long enough to kill stuff," Johannsen said.

In some areas this winter, for instance, an ice layer under the snow smothered plants and other plants rotted under heavy snow cover, she said.

And because plants are blooming later in the season, they may not go dormant, leaving them vulnerable to winterkill when a cold snap does hit, Johannsen added.

Ellis of the American Horticultural Society said his organization recommends that gardeners visit their local botanical garden to see what is growing there.

"They are usually on the cutting edge as to what can survive, and many have trial gardens for borderline plants," Ellis said.

"Our overall recommendation is to experiment a little with plants that are less hardy than the traditional zones but not to make wholesale changes to the garden."

Jeff Epping, director of horticulture at Olbrich Botanical Gardens in Madison, said he uses hardiness maps as a general guideline.

"I don't use them as the bible because I have killed plants that supposedly are hardy according to the map and I have successfully grown other plants they say are not hardy for us here," said Epping, noting that some Japanese maples in the area did not survive this past harsh winter.

He said it would be reasonable to plant a zone up or zone down.

"If you are a gardener, have fun, and use the zones as a general guideline. But half the challenge is to grow things you're not supposed to," Epping said. "We have plants here that by the books shouldn't be here. But plants don't read books."

Local gardener Jane LaFlash, a member of the board of the Wisconsin Hardy Plant Society, grows hostas, ferns, geraniums, woodland wildflowers, small trees and shrubs in what she calls her "small, very urban and sheltered yard."

"I make the assumption that the nurseries are selling things that are hardy," she said. "They should only sell stuff that is hardy here."

LaFlash said every garden is different.

"You might have a little micro-climate in your yard, or a corner of your garden, and a few miles away there is a different situation."

Ann Munson, the Dane County UW-Extension master gardener, favors a conservative approach and says local gardeners "are in denial."

"They try to buy plants that are hardy for Zone 5. Some winters that works. This winter we lost a lot of things that have been hardy for years."

Evergreens, maples and such shrubs as nine bark, for instance, suffered damage.

People using Zone 5 plants should put them in sheltered locations out of winter wind and winter sun, Munson suggested. Zone 6 plants should probably be avoided, she added.

Several experts, including UW-Madison horticulture Professor Brent McCown, also warned that global warming would likely bring more extreme weather, including periods of heavy rain followed by drought. Also, new pests and plant diseases will move farther north.

"You can plant things you wouldn't have been able to, but the bad news is that the various pests and pathogens also are shifting with these hardiness zones," said John Williams, an assistant professor in the UW-Madison Department of Geography and the Center for Climatic Research.

He also noted that scientists are predicting more extensive zone changes in the future, depending on how much greenhouse gas spews into the atmosphere: "We can expect drastic changes of hardiness zones and the plants we grow and the natural landscape around us."

RE: David

"It's getting hotter."

Without debating your point about land based temp measurements, or putting over emphasis on a 7-8 year trend, NO it is not getting hotter, not since 2001 anyway. Not according to Hadley, RSS, UAH, Argos or even the oddly out of sync GISS.

http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:2001/plot/gistemp/from:2001/plot/uah/from:2001/plot/rss/from:2001

Whether they have or have not properly calculated the climate's sensitivity to CO2 it's getting cooler and nobody predicted it.

Caleb,

Forgive me for being cynical and suspicious, but my guess would be that the reason they don't use the 1901 - 1920 period as a baseline is because it would be too obvious.

I too have my cynical streaks. The possibility had crossed my mind.

On a related note, do you have a copy of the GISS link showing the graph of adjustments vs. time? I know it was one of PH's favorite graphics, but I seem to have lost the link.

GW Steve,

If the AGW because of CO2 theory is correct then the lower troposphere should show trends very similar to surface.

RSS shows a decadal trend of +0.173K in the lower troposphere whereas GISS shows a decadal trend over the same time period of about +0.19K at the surface. RSS also shows that the stratosphere has cooled at a rate of -0.313K/decade. Which part of this is inconsistent with the theory?

How can the lower troposphere that contains 70% of all CO2 in the atmosphere cool while the surface warms if AGW theory is correct?

Can anyone explain this one?

A lack of adequate explanation does not imply falsehood. Also, you seem to be making the assumption that the only short-term source of heat is from outside Earth's atmosphere. What about heat transfer from the oceans? That would certainly manifest itself first and foremost at the surface.

Higher TSI or Lower TSI will result in higher or lower surface temps leaving much of the lower troposphere unaffected if CO2 is not a strong or abundant(this is well known) GHG.

Over what time frame? You're the one who keeps reminding us that convection is one of the atmosphere's main mechanisms for heat transfer. If the surface warms, the lower troposphere will follow. If there was a significant temperature differential between the two as your scenario would suggest, we would see some violent convection as the laws of thermodynamics reasserted themselves. The lower troposphere (or mid troposphere, for that matter) could not remain "unaffected" for very long.

Kricki wrote:

'A true debater does not need to insult nor do they need to include a statement trying to justify their posiiton that is partially true and yet having no statistical importance. "Wild" weather has been going on forever. I have lived all over the US and have seen some dandy years of unusual weather patterns. Big deal. Is there a pattern of crazy weather and more importantly is there a darn thing we can really do about it?'

Wasn't it just a few days ago that I linked the evidence for the increase in "wild" weather (here for the U.S. and starting at page 299 here for global)?

Do you just reject any science that doesn't fit with your preconceptions?

As for what we can do about it, you could start with reducing your own carbon footprint, getting your friends to do the same, and then move on to making sure that all of the politicians you vote for understand the importance of this issue.

GW STEVE:
It's so good to find a real skeptic for a change.I think that you make a good hypothesis. I think water vapour is the largest greenhouse gas, and CO2 is from eight to thirty. The answer I think is that water vapour has a feedback effect and CO2 a forcing one. As you know, real people don't feel good about global warming as they have families and children, and someday grandchildren to think about. But this is what I believe to be true. If Ted gets nauseated,well, so be it! I rather learn Science myself. Some of the CO2, about, seventy to eighty percent are in the oceans. The acidification is killing the Great Coral Reef above Austrailia. Rotting wood from deforestation creates CO2. Much of the bio-diversty will be lost. Probably about thirty percent of our eco-systems will be lost. AGW ain't
nothing to be whining about. How about a sober honest evaluation of the truth and find out where we land. At least we tried to look at the whole picture, and not just what we wished for.
KIPP

Indeed. One level of troposphere had data that showed it as the coldest May on record. Further, every month, except one, of the past year has been lower than the prior year (a trend), sometimes significantly lower. Temperature aberration is barely over normal, at this point.

Anonymous, you say their is an increase in wild weather. You dont think that could be because of more people around to notice it. Or you dont think that these sorts of things have never happened before the Industrial Revolution. Can you prove that over the course of time, that this pattern has never occurred.

I am guessing you can't, so that is meaningless info.

Actually, if AGW was valid, the lower troposphere would have to warm at a FASTER rate than the surface, since it would have to be CAUSING the surface warming. Of course, it isn't valid. More to the point, if we for argument's sake accept the "enhanced greenhouse" hypothesis (often called a "theory," but this is incorrect, since it has never been proven) as fact, given the decreasing effect of adding additional CO2 to the atmosphere at a LOGARITHMIC rate, we have already seen more than half of the additional warmth we will ever see from CO2, and even if ALL warming that has taken place since the Industrial Revolution is from CO2 and nothing else (which is of course pure nonsense), it STILL won't amount to more than a degree. No catastrophe will result, no matter how many computer models say otherwise.

AGW,

Actually, if AGW was valid, the lower troposphere would have to warm at a FASTER rate than the surface, since it would have to be CAUSING the surface warming.

Would you please explain your rationale for this claim? I'm not saying you are wrong, but I'd like to hear your logic. Why does surface warming necessarily have to be caused by a lower troposphere that is warming at a faster rate?

AGWinS: "if AGW was valid, the lower troposphere would have to warm at a FASTER rate than the surface, since it would have to be CAUSING the surface warming."

No, it's not supposed to be causing the surface warming. Also, if you kept up with the science you'd know that the LT now does seem to be warmer than the surface. Sorry to disappoint you.

Which part of this is inconsistent with the theory?

Which period are you speaking of?

A lack of adequate explanation does not imply falsehood.

Nice copout. AGW is quite the strong theory. A lack of adequate explanation does imply "keep your hands out of my wallet". I do not wish to participate in your religion.

Also, you seem to be making the assumption that the only short-term source of heat is from outside Earth's atmosphere.

Yes I am. Can you please name another?

What about heat transfer from the oceans?

Except for geothermal vents all energy comes from the Sun. Perhaps 1 millionth or less of the total energy.

The atmosphere only slows the cooling of Earth. AGW Advocates seem to think that the only important part of the atmosphere are the GHG�s.

That is fallacy. The 4,999.99999999999999999 trillion tons of N2 and O2 are also part of the thermodynamic system. While they do not actively trap IR, they are not without heat. They must attain that heat in some manner.

Convection transfers far more energy to the stratosphere than radiation.

Over what time frame?

Over any time frame. If you apply less energy to a system it will cool, if you apply more then it will warm. Does it cool slowly at night in arid areas or quickly? How about high humidity?

If the surface warms, the lower troposphere will follow.

We are observing the opposite, correct? BTW - As a volume of gas expands, it's pressure decreases as well as temperature from PV=nRT. Convection propagates huge amounts of mass(i.e. energy) to high altitudes. Pressure decreases as altitude increases, therefore temp decreases.

If there was a significant temperature differential between the two as your scenario would suggest, we would see some violent convection as the laws of thermodynamics reasserted themselves.

Violent is subjective. Please describe the behavior of convection better. There will always be a temp differential, but how significant is determined by the altitude.

The lower troposphere (or mid troposphere, for that matter) could not remain "unaffected" for very long.

Please elaborate. Affected how, temp? Please see two answers above. PV=nRT

Thanks,

Steve

Travis and Bloom re: AGW is not Science.

As a matter of fact 1.2 * surface temp., at least that's the model's implementation. Do your own work www.mitgcm.org Boeotians.

and CO2 is from eight to thirty.

8 to 30 percent of the Greenhouse Effect? That is a pretty large difference, how are you arriving at this number?

real people don't feel good about global warming as they have families and children, and someday grandchildren to think about.

When I think about my family now and present, I am concerned that tunnel vision’ed environmental zealots will greatly reduce my wealth over fantasy. They are going to take more of my money and give me nothing of value in return.

Money earned by me is better spent by me. My family comes before yours and everyone else’s. If your’s does not, please start sending me a check. Just a small percentage of your gross income will do.

The acidification is killing the Great Coral Reef above Austrailia.

That statement is incorrect. The oceans have only dropped .075 pH points from 8.149 to 8.074 since 1750.

Probably about thirty percent of our eco-systems will be lost.

That is powerful statement, please elaborate.

AGW ain't nothing to be whining about.

You are correct, but AGW Advocates are whining about it being real, and Skeptics are whining about it not being real.

How about a sober honest evaluation of the truth and find out where we land.

How about a debate? Since whining over the internet is not getting us very far, how about AGW Advocates publicly defending AGW Theory?

Do you not find it odd that NOT ONE of the Climate Scientist greats will defend AGW publicly, nor has ONE AGW Advocate here volunteered to defend it either?

At least we tried to look at the whole picture, and not just what we wished for.

Who is we, what picture, and what wish?

Thanks,

Steve

You dont think that could be because of more people around to notice it.

Veets,

There is a program called “500 Nations” that had an interesting topic in it. A priest, I believe he was with De Soto on some of his explorations, noted that the savages in Florida were foolish for not building grand settlements on the beautiful beaches and river mouth’s. He later noted why, hurricanes.

It is very similar to the tree falling in a forest philosophical quote. “If a hurricane makes landfall with no one around, did it destroy everything in it’s path?”

More people, especially in previously inhabited areas, equals more reports of “wild” weather. This seems to escape many AGW Advocates who tout “wild” weather increasing.

Steve

Why does surface warming necessarily have to be caused by a lower troposphere that is warming at a faster rate?

Travis,

If AGW because of CO2 is correct, then the CO2 in the LT must absorb huge amounts of energy and emit 50% back towards Earth. It takes 5 times the energy to warm a given mass of water 1 degree as it does the same mass of CO2.

At sea level, there is only .7g/m^3 CO2. .7 grams of water only occupies .7cm^3. There are 14,285 .7cm^3 in a 1 meter squared area. Oceans make up 70% of the surface of the planet. There are Zillions of cubic centimeters within the top several meters of oceans where light including IR reaches.

So if AGW Theory is correct, one cubic meter of dry air at sea level must absorb 10 times the amount of energy it takes to raise .7 grams of water 1 degree in order to redirect half of that amount of energy back towards Earth, in effect reducing the escape of energy resulting in a 1 degree increase in surface temp.

It will take 142,000 cubic meters of dry air at sea level density to keep the top centimeter of 1 square meter of water from cooling 1 degree.

Remember only 50% of IR absorbed by CO2 can be re-emitted back towards Earth.

Remember that CO2 only absorbs 3 narrow bands of IR.

Remember that as altitude increases, the mass of CO2 goes down per meter cubed, while the density of water remains the same.

Soil and vegetation have a specific heat of about 1 even. So 2.36 times the energy must be absorbed by CO2 to keep .7 grams of soil/veg from cooling 1 degree.

How is it that so little CO2 compared to what it needs to heat is absorbing so much energy from 3 narrow bands of IR?

How is it that this question is ignored by so many Climate Scientists?

RealClimate refuses to discuss it. Not one Climate Scientist has accepted to defend AGW Theory publicly.

Would you be willing to defend AGW if AccuWeather decided to host a debate?

If so, be prepared to show how CO2 can get so much energy out of so little IR, with so little mass, where only half of which is redirected downward.

I am aware that many AGW Advocates think “A lack of adequate explanation does not imply falsehood.”(this same argument is used by other religions), however in this case without such questions as above being answered let alone discussed, it does imply falsehood.

I do not wish to participate in your religion, why are you all attempting to impress it upon me when you all will not answer very relevant questions?

Do you think my questions are irrelevant? Do you think my rights are forfeit because I refuse to support conjecture that is accepted by many people who simply accept someone else’s poor explanation?

Ignorance is not always bliss, often it can lead to an empty wallet.

While I can still afford to live comfortably, I am growing quite tired of the crap AGW Advocates are pulling in order to prop up a horrible theory.

Why will none of you publicly defend your theory? Why will you not volunteer to defend it?

If you are not willing or prepared to answer the above, then do not question my need for a detailed explanation and don’t pull some “lack of evidence doesn’t mean falsehood” BullS**t.

Steve

GW Steve,

Which period are you speaking of?

The period 1979-2007.

I do not wish to participate in your religion.

AGW is not my religion. I try to approach it from a scientific standpoint and will more than readily admit that people have abused the theory to advance their own agendas, which I find reprehensible. I will also not deny that there are some real nut-jobs out there advocating radical agendas. I don't associate myself with them, and I ask you not to lump me in with them either.

Except for geothermal vents all energy comes from the Sun. Perhaps 1 millionth or less of the total energy.

By short term, I meant something on the scale of months or years, not geologic time. While all heat save that from geothermal sources ultimately comes from the sun, not all solar heat currently stored on the Earth came from the past year, or even decade of solar irradiance. Nor is it all stored in the surface of the land or ocean. The 1998 El Nino demonstrated that heat transfer from oceans can have a more significant impact on the heat content of the atmosphere than it does on the temperature at the surface. Satellite measurements from RSS and UAH showed more significant anomalies than did the surface temps.

AGW Advocates seem to think that the only important part of the atmosphere are the GHG�s.

Those are not my words, and I would thank you not to insert them into my mouth. GHGs are NOT the only important part of the atmosphere.

Convection transfers far more energy to the stratosphere than radiation.

As far as heat transfer from surface to atmosphere goes, I most certainly agree with this point.

Over any time frame. If you apply less energy to a system it will cool, if you apply more then it will warm. Does it cool slowly at night in arid areas or quickly? How about high humidity?

I apologize; I misread that part of your post.

We are observing the opposite, correct?

Not necessarily; such an observation could be possible in the short term, but is it the short term that is significant? Due to the dynamics between land surface, oceans, and atmosphere, atmospheric temps need not perfectly follow each other.

In any case, what is the basis for this claim? RSS, UAH, and GISS (though perhaps not NCDC) all agree that this month was cooler than last month. What time frame were you looking at?

Pressure decreases as altitude increases, therefore temp decreases.

I understand how the Ideal Gas Law applies to atmospheric physics. If it didn't apply, we wouldn't have convection. What I was saying was that BECAUSE of convection, if the surface warms (and I mean longer-term than just the normal diurnal cycle of heating and cooling), the lower troposphere will soon warm compared to its original mean temperature. I did not mean to imply that it will warm to the same temperature (or even at the same rate) as the surface; that is prevented both by the Ideal Gas Law and radiative heat transfer. But over the long term, lower tropospheric temps should trend upward as surface temps trend upward. That is what we see in both the surface and satellite data since 1979.

Thanks for the response,

~Travis

Boeotians.

I've never been called THAT before. If I weren't so amused, I'd take exception! Props to Mr. Gulrud. Thanks for the link.

Travis and Steve, you don't seem to be all that familiar with the pet hypothesis of AGW. The beloved climate models that all the hysteria is based on show warming in the lower troposphere, particularly over the tropics, occurring at a faster rate than at the surface when atmospheric CO2 climbs. The hypothesis, after all, is all about heat energy being "trapped" (actually, the rate at which it is lost into space is reduced, the "greenhouse" analogy being a poor one) by absorbtion in the atmosphere by CO2 and "re-radiation" back towards the surface. If the heating isn't atmospheric, it isn't caused by "enhancement" of the so-called "greenhouse effect," and therefore is not caused by "anthropogenic" activites (namely, CO2 emmissions caused by burning of fossil fuels).

Steve, I didn't talk about what the LT temp was, rather that the "rate of warming" needed to be faster, and if you're talking about a post-Hanson "adjusted" temperature (i.e., "now does SEEM to be") in terms of the LT temp record, THAT has nothing to do with "science."

Would you be willing to defend AGW if AccuWeather decided to host a debate?

Where did that come from?

I do not wish to participate in your religion, why are you all attempting to impress it upon me when you all will not answer very relevant questions?

AGW is not my religion, and most of the extreme viewpoints put out there by some AGW advocates are not automatically my own. Please don't take your frustrations out on me.

I don't have all the answers, and I don't pretend to. I'm trying to have a scientific discussion to advance my own understanding. I appreciate your participation, but please save your barbs for someone else.

Thanks,

~Travis

GW Steve,

If AGW because of CO2 is correct, then the CO2 in the LT must absorb huge amounts of energy and emit 50% back towards Earth. It takes 5 times the energy to warm a given mass of water 1 degree as it does the same mass of CO2.

I agree, but I think you're putting too much emphasis on CO2 forcing. Global climate models focus on much more than just the effects of CO2. In Hansen's model, for instance, non-H2O GHGs account for about 3 W/m^2 of forcing, with CO2 only accounting for about half of that forcing. Even then, there's another 1+ W/m^2 from changes in land use/albedo and other non-GHG sources. So CO2 only accounts for a little over a thrid of the positive forcing in Hansen's models. I haven't seen the breakdown for other GCMs, but I assume it's somewhat similar. So while you are probably right in saying that CO2 alone could not possibly account for the rise we see in global temperatures, it seems like the people writing the models agree with you.

If all that is true, then your earlier statement: So 2.36 times the energy must be absorbed by CO2 to keep .7 grams of soil/veg from cooling 1 degree. needs not be true. It only needs to absorb a little more than 1/3 that amount of energy, which would put it well within its capabilities.

Travis,

Not trying to get anyone riled up, it is just that for several years now many of us have had AGW Advicates waiving their fingers in our (non-AGW�ers) faces, without so much as one study to show how and how much CO2 contributes to the Greenhouse Effect let alone the recent increase in temps that are following a known cool period that followed a known warm period with CO2 levels remaining steady at around 280ppm during the time period.

I chalk it up to bad luck that the Industrial Revolution just so happened to take off when the Little Ice Age ended. But the I.R. may not have happened so soon had the LIA not occurred as hard times invoke innovation.

In any event, CO2 levels start to rise as the LIA ends. Yes there is a correlation between rising temps and rising CO2 levels. In fact there are a couple, here is my hypothesis on two correlations.

The most recent is the I.R. starting as the LIA ends. CO2 levels going up, temps are going up.

Reasons? Burning fossil fuels in abundance and the Little Ice Age ends causing temps to return to normal just as the Medieval Warm Period and the Dark Ages before it. All the while CO2 levels remained the same. The cause for this correlation is timing. I.R. starts as Maunder and Dalton Minimums end.

The other I can think of is CO2 levels going up an down over the glacial timescale. Henry's Law explains CO2 levels going up and down with temp and the Milankovitch Cycle explains why temps went up and down. The cause of this correlation is TSI and Henry's Law.

Does that make sense? Can you break the hypothesis? No offense but AGW is like Swiss cheese and you seem to defend it.

-No studies to show CO2's contribution as noted in Paragraph one.
-All the natural phenomena that explain the warming and cooling for that matter.
-No AGW Advocate will publicly defend the AGW Theory in debate.
-There is too little CO2 and too little IR that CO2 can absorb to generate the energy necessary to keep the planet from cooling, at least anything measurable.
-The atmosphere is pretty much transparent. Think about how dense water is and how far light travels before stopping. CO2 is .038% of a pretty low density gas, 1.3 kg/m^3. So what if it absorbs 3 narrow bands of IR, think about how much other energy is escaping to space unimpeded?

Do none of the above arguments hold any water? Do you not understand my and other's frustration? Billions are being taken from us only to be spent on what is pretty clearly to me fraud.

If anyone can find error in the above hypothesis please let's discuss. I think it is pretty strong and I'm prepared to answer any questions anyone might have.

It is not my hypothesis, many others are also aware and have been for quite some time.

Let me ask you a couple questions.

Do you support the idea that CO2 is a major contributor to the Greenhouse Effect?

Do you support policy to reduce CO2 emissions?

Thanks,

Steve

GW Steve,

I do get frustrated with AGW supporters who try to connect global warming with any possible outcome, regardless of how ludicrous those "connections" may sound. It makes any argument based on the general theory lose credibility by association, even if such a loss of credibility is unwarranted. I think this is nowhere more apparent than on this blog.

My personal view on CO2 is that its increase is both a response and a forcing. I personally do not know how much CO2 contributes to global warming, but as someone with a decent background in math and science, I know that the relationship is not a simple and direct one. My math skills are not strong enough to create a model necessary to describe it. I hope at some point I'll have time to relearn my differential equations. It's been a long time.

I AM certain that human activities aside from GHG emissions have contributed to the recent warming. Our land use practices have significantly altered the landscape (I would submit that our land use practices have had a good deal of influence on the current flooding situation in the Midwest--influence, not cause), and they have had an impact on Earth's albedo, which in turn affects how much solar radiation is reflected away from the surface. Research suggests (Patrick Henry frequently brought this to our attention) that soot contributes to early snow melt, which again affects Earth's albedo. So it's not GHGs, but it IS AGW.

I support policy limiting the emissions of GHGs so far as they do not unduly strain those who can not afford them and if they serve to reduce other pollutants and break our dependence on oil and dirty coal technologies. I am wary of a carbon tax; I think there are other ways that government and private industry can achieve their goals without one. I have previously advocated here for clean coal as a way to achieve this in the short term as other technologies reach maturity, but I also think that the federal government needs to provide more grant money for research. I see oil as a limited commodity, and the longer our economy is based on it, the worse things will be for our society as well as for the environment.

The questions I have about your solar irradiance argument are similar to the ones you ask about CO2: how much has solar irradiance increased since the end of the LIA, how much of an increase would it take to raise the atmosphere 1 degree, and does the relationship between solar irrandiance and surface temps fully explain the rise in temperature since the end of the LIA? If not, what is the discrepancy, and what accounts for it?

Thanks,

~Travis

RE: NCDC courtesy of Eric Gamberg in commentary at Watts'-

"A new 182 pager from our friends at NCDC (�As greenhouse gasses increase, the faster they increase, the more extreme weather and climate events we�ll be seeing,� said Thomas Karl, co-editor of the report and director of the National Climatic Data Center at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration.) sent to Congress as floods in the midwest hit the news to provide corroboration."

http://www.climatescience.gov

This may not meet your standard of "alarmism" but may I suggest that your standard needs re-evaluation. Most of the heating is occuring at the poles, indeed the Tropics have cooled slightly. The differences in temperature are reduced. I believe you posted on such a paper in the past few months.

Doesn't this map prove that CO2 doesn't cause global warming? The United States emitts at least 4 times more CO2 than any other country except China, but this country has actually cooled since the 1961-1990 average.

The mid-east, russia, and surrounding countries(besides china) emitt a small fraction of CO2 per area compared to us, but temperatures there are rising significantly.

Maybe Al Gore and the enviromentalists have got it backwards. Why would the U.S. be cooler than it was twenty years ago if our C02 output is significantly higher now? Maybe it's some other reason(like the sun) why the earth is getting warmer.

In Hansen's model, for instance, non-H2O GHGs account for about 3 W/m^2 of forcing, with CO2 only accounting for about half of that forcing.

About 1.4W/m^2 for CO2, correct? Where did this number come from? Measurement or guess?

~1.6W/m^2 for other non-H2O GHG's? How is that parsed? How were they determined? Measurement or guess?

What is .1% of TSI at current levels? About 1.4W/m^2. How is it that Solar Irradiance that changes by .1% over a 11 year Solar Cycle be negligible and CO2 at the same forcing is significant?

Solar Irradiance has risen greatly since the end of the LIA, how can that be ignored?

It only needs to absorb a little more than 1/3 that amount of energy, which would put it well within its capabilities.

I'd like to see this statement explained in terms of joules. Over the weekend I'll work it out. The oceans drive our climate, land heats and cools quickly especially in arid areas.

Thanks,

Steve

GW Steve;CO2,CH4 and H2O, adsorb IR energy,that the Earth would otherwise radiate into space. They act like a blanket. Infrared radiation that would otherwise pass through an atmosphere goes to the Earth but does not go out of the atmosphere totally. The energy of the IR is transferred to the CO2 molecules causing them to tumble faster, and this transfers some of the energy formerly in the IR radiation to the other gases in the atmosphere by the collisions. They then move faster. This is called being warmer. In the short term I think we should go Nuclear. I want you and yours to fulfill the American Dream.
There are plans for the economy, that allow us to deal with these problems. Have a good weekend!
KIPP
KIPP

History of TSI from the National Climatic Data Center.

ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/paleo/climate_forcing/solar_variability/lean2000_irradiance.txt

JunkScience plotted the numbers

http://www.junkscience.com/Greenhouse/irradiance.gif

One of the components of the Scientific Method is that if a phenomena can easily be explained by a known, then there is not much need to seek an unknown.

If there are problems with the hypothesis I mentioned above, then please share them with me.

Could you imagine how pissed off you'd get if you had Jehovah Witnesses knocking on your door daily, had policticians pandering to them, on the radio, TV, internet, News, teaching JW in school.

See my point? I don't care if the whole world is a Jehovah Witness, I ain't. I don't want my children to be an AGW'er or be forced to tithe or participate in that religion.

BTW - It does sound as though you're a believer.

Look, if AGW is not real as I believe, then that does not mean that this momentum cannot be used to continue an enviromental movement (one that is based on conservation, good land usage practices, etc).

In fact, this movement cannot stop because too many mouths are being fed by it, however, with a little effort, and probably some pain, we can divert the course away from fraud.

A Good thing is thing is that there is already an infrastructure for a sound environemtal industry to thrive upon.

No need for taxes, credits, unfounded laws, GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATIONS(they never go away), instead we have a huge base of people who want efficiency and conservationism and will pay for them.

The Gov't sucks at getting anything done, they will screw it up whether AGW is real or not.

Not.

In any event, take it for what you will.

If you can break my hypothesis then do so, otherwise at least admit my Theory is equal with yours and understand that I anm tired of AGW'ers trying to push their damn religion upon me.

Have a good weekend,

Steve

Kipp,

Do not take offense if I do not respond to you often.

Anytime you attempt to sound technical, it comes out horribly.

I cannot respond to jiberish. If you want me to elaborate, I will, however it will not be to your favor.

I appreciate the good jester about the American Dream, however you seem to support a Presidential Candidate who very proudly says that he wishes to punish me and mine for pursuing it.

Hope your weekend is nice as well,

Steve

GW Steve, his grammar is worse, but Kipp's comments make much more sense than yours. I don't see him denying the sort of physics that's in undergraduate textbooks, e.g. You do that pretty much every day, and then insist notwithstanding all evidence to the contrary that what you say must be true unless it's proven *to your satisfaction* that it's not. It must be nice to live in your own little pocket universe with it's own physical rules, but why do you keep confusing it with this one?

GW Steve,

Look, if AGW is not real as I believe, then that does not mean that this momentum cannot be used to continue an enviromental movement (one that is based on conservation, good land usage practices, etc).

Agreed, but if we had that movement already in place, there would be no need for talk about government agencies or carbon taxes. I only wish that was the case, but I think the price of energy is going to have to rise a good bit more before such a culture becomes mainstream in America. Old habits are hard to break, even when they're burning a hole in your wallet. I am not an advocate of carbon taxes, but I think the talk of them will not go away unless an easier way is quickly found to achieve the same ends.

The graphic you linked to from JunkScience is interesting, but it does not really answer my question. I fully acknowledge that TSI has increased since the LIA, but I wanted to see hard numbers on how much that increase in TSI actually increased temperatures.

I don't think even Hansen disputes that TSI got us out of the Little Ice Age. In this graphic, he shows that GHGs didn't really become a major factor until the 1950s.

What is .1% of TSI at current levels? About 1.4W/m^2. How is it that Solar Irradiance that changes by .1% over a 11 year Solar Cycle be negligible and CO2 at the same forcing is significant?

It would appear from the JunkScience graph that the mean TSI hasn't risen significantly since the 1950s. Temperature might fluctuate a bit between the solar minimum and solar maximum, but if the trend in the mean is neutral (not increasing or decreasing), shouldn't TSI's long-term effect on global temperatures also be neutral? If not, please explain. If so, then how would you account for the rise in temperatures since the mid-20th Century?

Enjoy your Sunday,

~Travis

Agreed, but if we had that movement already in place, there would be no need for talk about government agencies or carbon taxes. I only wish that was the case, but I think the price of energy is going to have to rise a good bit more before such a culture becomes mainstream in America.

I don't advocate artificial means to increase prices. Blaming GW on CO2 with NO proof is artificial.

The graphic you linked to from JunkScience is interesting, but it does not really answer my question. I fully acknowledge that TSI has increased since the LIA, but I wanted to see hard numbers on how much that increase in TSI actually increased temperatures.

Why don't you hold your Priests to the same standards?

Y'all are constantly adjusting observation to fit your crap theory. Since you all will not show any hard numbers, will you agree to leave those of us that do not wish to participate in your religion alone?

I don't think even Hansen disputes that TSI got us out of the Little Ice Age. In this graphic, he shows that GHGs didn't really become a major factor until the 1950s.

Let's quit this internet patty cake and convince AccuWeather to host a debate.

I feel confident that I could debate the great Hansen himself and show that he has no damn clue whether CO2 has caused the .7 increase in temps we ahve seen n 100 years.

I've asked you more than once with no response.

Volunteer to debate the skeptics publicly.

Can you break my hypothesis?

My theory is just as good as yours if not better.

How is it not?

but if the trend in the mean is neutral (not increasing or decreasing), shouldn't TSI's long-term effect on global temperatures also be neutral?

It takes some time to warm, odd how TSI increased in 1950 when anthropogenic forcings took over.

From 1880 to today, TSI went up 2 Watts/m^2. 2 Watts from the Sun is insignifigant while 1.4 Watts from CO2 is a catastrophe.

You can't even show how 1.4 was determined for CO2 can you?

BTW - TSI maximum went up 1 Watt for the Sun since 1950. While it has not continued to rise, it is much like turning up the gas a notch and down a notch when you started at 2 notches down.

Whatever is in the pan will be hotter than before it was turned up.

Any problems with a debate that you can see?

This patty cake is getting us nowhere.

You seem confident in Hansen's work, stand up and defend it for him since he is either above debate or knows it is BS himself.

Do you know why he nor ANY other AGW will publicly defend this mess you all pass off as science?

Thanks,

Steve

Travis,

BTW - Hansen's graph says land usage has a negative forcing.

I thought you mentioned landusage was a positive one.

Steve

GW Steve,

I thought you mentioned landusage was a positive one.

BTW - Hansen's graph says land usage has a negative forcing.

I had implied as much. I was obviously wrong. I WAS correct about soot (Black Carbon), which I mentioned as another source of anthropogenic warming aside from GHGs.

Volunteer to debate the skeptics publicly.

I know my weaknesses. Public speaking is one of them.

You seem confident in Hansen's work, stand up and defend it for him since he is either above debate or knows it is BS himself.

I am not saying that the numbers he presents for his model are correct, nor am I defending them. I simply used them as an example since you asked for specifics, and his numbers were readily available. Since I am not deeply familiar with Hansen's work, I do not know what was involved in coming up with those numbers.

Why don't you hold your Priests to the same standards?

Y'all are constantly adjusting observation to fit your crap theory. Since you all will not show any hard numbers, will you agree to leave those of us that do not wish to participate in your religion alone?

How many times do I need to tell you that it's not my religion? I don't subscribe to everything thrown out there as "caused by" or a "cause of" global warming or mindlessly follow the "priests" and "prophets" you quite obviously detest. I'm quite capable of forming my own opinions and making up my own mind.

I responded to your questions with apparently less-than-satisfactory answers, but you have not even attempted to answer the questions I've actually asked. Instead you have proceeded to answer your own questions, insult my intelligence, and ridicule what you claim I stand for. You wanted to talk quantitative science. I did my best, so ante up some of your own.

How much will a TSI increase of 1.0 W/m^2 increase temperatures? It would seem that this would be a fundamental question to answer before you entered any debate.

Does the relationship between solar irradiance and surface temps fully explain the rise in temperature since the end of the LIA? If not, what is the difference, and what accounts for it?

It takes some time to warm

BTW - TSI maximum went up 1 Watt for the Sun since 1950. While it has not continued to rise, it is much like turning up the gas a notch and down a notch when you started at 2 notches down.

So what's the length of the delay? 5 years? 10 years? 50 years? What causes it to be so long?

These are fundamental questions that must be answered to support your theory. Otherwise, your theory lies on the same type of shaky, qualitative assumptions that you see your caricature of AGW theory resting on.

I had implied as much. I was obviously wrong.

Travis,

I don't believe you were wrong, nor is was it obvious at all. UHI and deforestation both cause increases in local temps, these are the two prominent anthropogenic land usage influences on weather and climate.

You are blindly following this man. He is only a man, and a charlatan at that.

Can you think of an example where land usage changes will cause a drop in temp?

I am not saying that the numbers he presents for his model are correct,
I simply used them as an example since you asked for specifics, and his numbers were readily available.

Travis, I'm confused. You have no clue whether his numbers are correct, but you used them anyway simply because they were readily available? How can I be anything but disappointed in that answer?

How long before the Bishops of AGW get together and start telling all of us who's work can be used and who's cannot? The AGW Bible will come shortly after.

How many times do I need to tell you that it's not my religion?

Until you are convincing. You support policy to reduce CO2 emissions even though you don't know whether they are causing anything. You change your mind about land usage forcing simply because of your "profit" Hansen. If I search through past posts I'll bet I can go on and on how AGW is at least one of your religions.

You may not go to all the meetings but you sure are spreading the message with NO EVIDENCE other than, "lack of evidence doesn't mean it doesn't exist".

Instead you have proceeded to answer your own questions, insult my intelligence, and ridicule what you claim I stand for.

I answered your question on TSI increases, given $50 Billion I guarantee you I could show you hard numbers of TSI to Temp, I was not attempting to insult your intelligence, however it does appear that you are simply taking other people's explanations of phenomena without attempting to understand them yourself, and I did and will continue to ridicule AGW because none of you have ever given a satisfactory explanation for this hysteria that you all are promoting.

How much will a TSI increase of 1.0 W/m^2 increase temperatures?

How ever much it has warmed since 1950.

It would seem that this would be a fundamental question to answer before you entered any debate.

Nice :) How much does 100 ppm CO2 add to GW? Would have been nice to find out before $50 BILLION was sunk into AGW, let alone holding a debate. So far, no measurements have ever been taken. $50 Billion spent and no actual measurements, go figure.

Does the relationship between solar irradiance and surface temps fully explain the rise in temperature since the end of the LIA?

Yes. I can show that there is far too little CO2 and far too little energy in the three narrow bands that CO2 absorbs to account for any measurable reduction in cooling from CO2 that would result in increased temps.

So what's the length of the delay?

Not sure, however, we know the specific heat of water, water vapor, CO2, CH4, etc, while an exact number cannot be calculated a ballpark should be able to be attained. Convection in the oceans and atmosphere make the calculation difficult.

What causes it to be so long?

The high Specific Heat of water, the huge amounts of water, and the mixing of different temp layers of the oceans.

You ask questions that you and your entire congregation of consensus refuse to answer yourselves, yet you seek to impress your religion upon those that do not wish to participate.

Otherwise, your theory lies on the same type of shaky, qualitative assumptions that you see your caricature of AGW theory resting on.

So why am I willing to defend my theory publicly and you nor any of your theory's creators will not? You and your leaders just tell non-believers to believe, I am willing to sit down and explain why my theory works and answer any questions that you have. I browsed the posts and did not find any questions other than how much TSI contributes to temps.

Why haven't y'all answered the same questions?

I will attempt to answer that question by taking TSI changes since 1950, applying that to temp increases since 1950, and see if the numbers match other periods.

If we are on even ground then agree to tell your leaders to stop bothering me and other non-believers with all of your silly nonsense, otherwise quit complaining about me and other non-believers complaining about you all witnessing for your newfound religion.

Do you think none of my arguments hold any water? If so, please explain.

Steve

GW Steve,

Religion first:

You support policy to reduce CO2 emissions even though you don't know whether they are causing anything.

I support several non-taxation policies to reduce CO2 because they are also a means toward energy efficiency, which I believe should be a near-term goal for this country and the world at large. One of the most effective things we could do toward this end is stress energy efficiency in the building codes and provide incentives to homeowners to make their houses more energy-efficient.

You have no clue whether his numbers are correct, but you used them anyway simply because they were readily available? How can I be anything but disappointed in that answer?

I referenced the numbers from a well-used climate model. I don't have the knowledge sufficient to judge whether his numbers are correct. You're disappointed in my answer. Would you rather I had made the numbers up?

UHI and deforestation both cause increases in local temps, these are the two prominent anthropogenic land usage influences on weather and climate.

Actually, in mid-latitudes and high latitudes, replacing forests with crops serves to cool the land since crops tend to reflect more sunlight than trees and the angle of incoming light is not as direct as it is in the tropics. This is not true in the tropics because the sun's rays are more direct. Yes, UHI serves to increase local temps.

Do you think none of my arguments hold any water? If so, please explain

Some do, and I have made an effort to show where we agree. As for the rest, here goes. I asked: how much will a TSI increase of 1.0 W/m^2 increase temperatures?

How ever much it has warmed since 1950.

That's a pretty blind assumption. How can you justify that? Do you have proof that there is no other mechanism affecting global temperatures? Or just your understanding that CO2 can't account for it? AGW theory does not claim that CO2 caused ALL of the temperature increase. There are many other factors involved, I have said as much, and have named some of them.

I asked: Does the relationship between solar irradiance and surface temps fully explain the rise in temperature since the end of the LIA?

Yes. I can show that there is far too little CO2 and far too little energy in the three narrow bands that CO2 absorbs to account for any measurable reduction in cooling from CO2 that would result in increased temps.

I didn't ask about CO2. I asked about TSI. You keep injecting CO2 into your arguments even though it shouldn't be necessary to justify your claims. To the lay observer, it looks like you're arguing that the increase MUST have been due to an increase of TSI since it can't have been the result of increased CO2. Your response is not so much a defense of your theory as it is a critique of someone else's.

...while an exact number cannot be calculated a ballpark should be able to be attained. Convection in the oceans and atmosphere make the calculation difficult.

The calculation is difficult? That sounds a whole lot like my justification for not being able to come up with hard numbers on CO2 data. Why should anyone believe your word over mine?

I will attempt to answer that question by taking TSI changes since 1950, applying that to temp increases since 1950, and see if the numbers match other periods.

I look forward to the results.

Respectfully,

~Travis

GW Steve,

If I search through past posts I'll bet I can go on and on how AGW is at least one of your religions.

If you search through my past posts, you will find that most of them deal with statistical significance of data and trends, correlation of trends, a little bit on energy/fuel efficiency, and some discussion on paleo-climatology and geology. Most of what you will find will say exactly what I have said here: CO2 is not the only forcing mechanism in AGW theory, and until recently it has primarily been a feedback, not a driver of climate changes.

I'm sure if you dig deep enough, you will find something I said at some point that contradicts those statements. If you really want to, go ahead and dig. I hope it's a valuable use of your time.

GW Steve,

If it helps, here's the link to my very first Accuweather post almost a year ago. I talked energy policy.

http://global-warming.accuweather.com/2007/07/researcher_says_renewable_ener_1.html#comment-13563

Travis,

Not going to argue whether you're in this religion or not anymore. I erred in bringing it up. I will try my best to keep to science rather than bringing my opinions into the argument.

I look forward to more engaging debate.

Regards,

Steve