just a headsup:

MEDIA ADVISORY : M08-176

NASA To Discuss Conditions On And Surrounding The Sun

WASHINGTON -- NASA will hold a media teleconference Tuesday, Sept. 23, at 12:30 p.m. EDT, to discuss data from the joint NASA and European Space Agency Ulysses mission that reveals the sun's solar wind is at a 50-year low. The sun's current state could result in changing conditions in the solar system.

Ulysses was the first mission to survey the space environment above and below the poles of the sun. The reams of data Ulysses returned have changed forever the way scientists view our star and its effects. The venerable spacecraft has lasted more than 17 years - almost four times its expected mission lifetime.

The panelists are:
-- Ed Smith, NASA Ulysses project scientist and magnetic field instrument investigator, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Pasadena, Calif.
-- Dave McComas, Ulysses solar wind instrument principal investigator, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio
-- Karine Issautier, Ulysses radio wave lead investigator, Observatoire de Paris, Meudon, France
-- Nancy Crooker, Research Professor, Boston University, Boston, Mass.
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/sep/HQ_M08176_Ulysses_teleconference.html

It went to Greenland, where temperatures are -30F on the last day of summer.
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/04416/2008/9/21/MonthlyHistory.html

No wonder why there is so much debate and so many feathers ruffled when climate change is talked about.

REPLY: Feathers get ruffled, Mark Paquette, because we have guilt laden power hungry political elitests out there with enough hubris to spew time and again that man is the cause of "glo-BULL warming." End of story! End of Debate! The Debate is over! Cut your CO2 emmissions or else! All in an effort to thwart capitalism. It has nothing to do with science, but has everthing to do with bringing the USA down through redistribution of the wealth. When really the debate is FAR FROM BEING OVER! Especially when we haven't had real summers for 3 years. Espeically when there are no sunspots. Especially when the earth goes through natural cycles! But we can take into account these items. No No No! That would put an end tho their agenda of controling our lives. That's my dear Mark Paquette is when feathers get kerfluffled!

DENY DENY DENY THE MAN MADE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

There is indisputable proof that sunspot activity, top-of-atmosphere solar radiation intensity affect the Earth's climate. There is indisputable proof that certain greenhouse gases absorb longwave radiation emitted from the Earth, thereby producing a radiative forcing effect on the earth's tropospheric climate. There is indisputable proof that large oceanic circulatory oscillations cause interannnual variability in the Earth's climate. Finally, we know that atmospheric transmission varies with dust content and cloud content in the atmosphere, so that there is indisputable proof that volcanic activity affects the Earth's climate.

Depending on which side of the issue you wish to promote, you can highlight any one of these issues, to prove your case. Most people who are interested in these issues are inherently biased, so we rarely receive the truth. Those with an interest in a healthy fossil fuel industry focus on the indisputable proof of sunspot-climate links through centuries and millenia. Those who wish to promote alternative energies, or who need to fund AGW research focus on the indisputable evidence of the radiative forcing effect of greenhouse gases. Both sides take advantage of years that are warmer or colder than normal due to oceanic circulation anomalies, and higher or lower than normal levels of volcanic activity. Truth will only come with time, and undetstanding can only come from detailed simulation of all of these elements together. This has never been done, so the endless debate goes on.

Welcome to the great debate Mark, I'm looking forward to more of your posts.
That article to me seems to be only a weasel item, one designed to put spin on the present cooling. The warmists have known for years it would cool, just as it has before right on schedule, which is why "climate change" was trotted out a few years ago to try and take ownership of the causes of the natural events before the media noticed the cooling. After the extensive reading about this hysteria I've come to the conclusion using common sense that the simplest explanation is usually correct...it's the sun and it's natural. Those who claim otherwise are in it only for fame, power and money. Look at who is promoting this idea the most and then look at which one of those fits.

Mr. Paquette raises a very interesting question- how exactly do we measure global temperature? Due to many rather conflicting main stream media articles on global warming in the last decade, I was very curious about the raw data. Some of the most eye-opening information about measurements of the raw data is presented at www.surfacestations.org Of the 534 rated stations from the US network of weather station, only 4%, yes, four percent, are rated as Class 1 (most accurate data). Fully two-thirds of the surveyed and rated stations are Class 4 and 5, signifying significant temperature measurement errors.

If we are not sure if how we measure temperature of the earth is accurate, how can we even debate whether or not climate change is occuring?

It is necessary to get to grips with accurate scientific measurements.However, I think that with respect to Climate Change where were dealing with changes over multi decades then this is not essential to determine a warming trend or cooling trend in the data.

What is useful is innovative data analysis like below which eloquently indicates trends...

NOAA Study Seems To Confirm Observation....
http://residualanalysis.blogspot.com/2008/08/noaa-study-seems-to-confirm-observation.html

YES! Thank you for bringing up some fundamental flaws in the 'accepted' THEORY of globaloneywarming (just another excuse for a colossal money grab).

You have a lot of questions, Mark. What have you done to try answering them? Have you, e.g., read any part of the recent IPCC Fourth Assessment Report?

Mark Paquette: Welcome. I have a few comments about the Tyee article by Chris Wood. General: It appears to be a poor attempt to explain why temperatures might not rise in future years or decades and continues in that vein by attempting to add to the AGW misinformation by predicting, when the oceans allow it, the warming will come back but with an increased vengeance.

Mr. Wood represents greenhouse gases as a "shell" about halfway through. I almost closed the webpage at that point. If his understanding of climate science was that poor, the rest of his article would be nonsense. And it was.

He writes, "...some scientists think the so-called Atlantic Multidecadal Oscillation may be poised to slip into its slower 'negative' state -- bringing temps down again for a few years." The AMO doesn't slip or switch. Based on the last century, it is a very slow-moving oscillation with a frequency of approximately 50 to 60 years. It contributed to the rises in global temperature from the mid-70s and from around 1915 to the 40s. If the frequency of the oscillation remains constant, it is poised to subtract from it for the next few decades, Unfortunately, the frequency of the AMO does not appear to be as regular as we've been led to believe, so who knows how long the cooling will last. It could be three decades, but it could be substantially shorter or longer.

He also describes the PDO to some extent, but he fails to recognize that it is an aftereffect of ENSO. He also fails to realize that the North Pacific has a thermohaline circulation/meridional overturning circulation cycle similar to the AMO that's independent of ENSO, and that the oscillation in the North Pacific (not the PDO) is in synch with the AMO at times and sometimes it's out of phase. The oscillation in the North Pacific also contributed to the rise in temperature over the 20th century. The South Atlantic and South Pacific also have thermohaline circulation/meridional overturning circulation components at upwelling points and these contributed to the warming as well.

The balance of the article, in effect, discusses that the oceanic oscillations will suppress the appearance of global warming and that during that time, the oceans will be absorbing all the excess heat created by greenhouse gases, all of which will be released again when the ocean cycles switch back. Unfortunately for Mr. Wood, he fails to understand that greenhouse gases radiate at infrared wavelengths and the oceans only absorb infrared for the top few centimeters. Solar irradiance, which reaches down into depths for a few hundred meters, warms the oceans, not greenhouse gases.

Mr. Wood provides a link to the NewScientist website, to an article that is supposed to substantiate his claims. "That snapback moment will come, British scientists calculate, around the middle of the coming decade." Unfortunately, the article requires a subscription. If NewScientist was truly science, I might spend the $6. What prevents me is that every NewScientist article I have read about climate has not been scientific; it has been AGW propaganda disguised with scientific terms.

Mark: This isn't the first of these articles to appear and it won't be the last. Based on the Southern Oscillation Index, it appears we may be in for another La Nina this winter. That should help pull global temperatures down a few more notches from the levels caused not by greenhouse gases, but by the excessive frequency and amplitude of El Ninos from the late 70s and from the other oceanic oscillations all being in synch, all contributing to the warming.

I wonder if Chris Wood takes into account the ARGO data. If so, does he think the excess heat is mysteriously diving deeper than the top 2,000 meters the ARGO floats are measuring? If so, I wonder by what mechanism the heat in the deep ocean will at some point in the future make its reappearance and poke us in the eye? While much is known about the ocean circulation patterns in the upper few hundred meters, it is my impression that we know very little of the circulation in the deep ocean and how much it mixes with the upper portion. If that's true, isn't the notion that excess heat is accumulating in the deep ocean just speculation?

Mark, many thanks for articulating many of the uncertainties that exist in the current climate debate. It doesn't sound like your position is that the science is settled.

The anonymous post 9/21/09 at 9:41PM is mine. I forgot to put in my name.
Sorry about that.

Global warming has gone to Australia, where Perth had it's coldest September temperature on record yesterday.
http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,24382879-948,00.html

Greenland now down to -40F on this fine summer day.
http://www.summitcamp.org/transport/weatherstation/

I can hear the ice melting all the way from Colorado.

Global warming killing hundreds of people in Holland.

http://www.radionetherlands.nl/news/international/5969406/More-Dutch-will-die-due-to-global-warming

With temperatures forecast to average as high as 50F in the coming weeks, my thoughts will be on the desperate plight of Dutch children sweating in their wooden shoes.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html

Cats that aren't freezing to death in Australia's record cold, are going stray because of global warming.
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24360517-661,00.html

Anonymous

If that's true, isn't the notion that excess heat is accumulating in the deep ocean just speculation?

I believe a portion of the sea level rise has been attributed to thermal expansion which reflects the deep ocean heat content. There are independent heat flux estimates which support this attirbution, http://nasadaacs.eos.nasa.gov/articles/1996/1996_oceanheat.html

The notion that a number related to average global temperature can be derived and is a useful construct is mathematically and analytically flawed. ----- "It is impossible to talk about a single temperature for something as complicated as the climate of Earth", Bjarne Andresen says, an an expert of thermodynamics. "A temperature can be defined only for a homogeneous system. Furthermore, the climate is not governed by a single temperature. Rather, differences of temperatures drive the processes and create the storms, sea currents, thunder, etc. which make up the climate".----

Just let�s wait and look.
I think a cooling trend is coming and this winter will be rather cold and snowy.
Anyway I will continue my efforts to reduce my own carbon emissions. I dont think adding manmade pollution to Earth atmosphere is good anyway!

http://www.surfacestations.org/USHCN_stationlist.htm

Interesting graph near the bottom. 67% of the stations surveyed have an error of >= 2c.

Quite funny...

Rubber ducks for melting glacier

To help figure out what's happening inside the fastest-moving Greenland glacier, a US rocket scientist sent 90 rubber ducks into the ice, hoping someone finds them if they emerge in Baffin Bay.

The common yellow plastic bath toys are one part of a sophisticated experiment to determine why glaciers speed up in the summer in their march to the sea, said Alberto Behar of NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.

What is the possible physical mechanism for heat being forced DOWN into the ocean? Cold water is heavier and will sink - not warm water.

Before we even begin to buy into warmer water being below 2000 meters - someone needs to explain a potential mechansim for it.

In regard to �first off�, it has often been mentioned that the correlation between CO2 and T variations at measuring stations does not imply causation. But even comparing 2 variables is meaningless unless other variables and parameters that can influence the results are held constant. In this case, they were not. Many of the measuring stations were at airports where commercial jets were being introduced, runways and buildings were enlarged, air traffic increased tremendously, trees were torn down to make room for runway and parking space enlargement. It seems obvious that the temperatures would increase locally because of the radiation from the pavements, the buildings, and the airplanes, while the CO2 levels would increase locally because of the tree removal. Some insight into these factors could be gained by examining the history of these events together with the temperature variation during those events at some individual airports.
As you mentioned, other possible influences include the accuracy of the measuring instruments, solar variations, and ocean current oscillations. If it is true that Hansen used falsified data to minimize the effect of the urbanization of measuring stations in his calculations, then the integrity of GW scientists needs to be added to this list.

"The reason in this article is that changes in huge ocean currents, ...,are absorbing the excess heat in the atmosphere due to the increase in greenhouse gases and forcing it deep in the ocean and causing cooler deep ocean water to the surface, thus cooling the atmosphere."

Sorry, this cannot happen by any known physically interaction. Back-radiation cannot occur: the emissivity of snow is nearly a 1000 times greater than H20 and CO2.

MG hits the nail squarely upon the head. In fact, I would guess that the poor nail was driven with one blow.

He, or she, is correct in stating that the inherent bias of each debator clouds the opinion in one direction or the other. And, while I agree that a detailed simulation might lead to a better overall analysis, I suspect that humans will be unlikely to ever gain enough accuracy to come to policy decisions based upon real events that would accurately occur in the future. Can't hurt to try though.

My take is that if we were to be able to standardize temp taking procedures, and look at them over a few millenia, we would find that variations we currently see are just a part of nature.

I like the Gore follower's response to the author of the topic of this thread. No insinuations there right?

Nice post MG

Unless you are both - skeptical of AGW, and - believe AGW is possible, you are not a scientist.

Where is global warming? In South Africa where they are facing snow and the coldest September in recorded history.

http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20080921084615870C810928

PH,

Most of Holland in that forecast map you linked is white, meaning temperatures will be about average.

You're really slipping these days.

Steve M,

The criteria for how much error is involved with the temperature stations is subjective. There is no quantitative analysis involved. They basically look at a photograph of each station and "estimate" how much error it has strictly by looking at the photograph. It's sorta like how the CIA gathers intelligence -- and you know how well that works out.

This is too interesting not to post:

Online Experiment With the Latest Hockey Stick

http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2008/09/20/online-experiment-with-the-latest-hockey-stick/

What is the possible physical mechanism for heat being forced DOWN into the ocean? Cold water is heavier and will sink - not warm water.

Before we even begin to buy into warmer water being below 2000 meters - someone needs to explain a potential mechansim for it.

I think the first step is to actually find the heat and then explain it. Since the first hasn't happened, it's not necessary to debate how it could happen.

But I bet I could program a computer model to explain it. Just throw in some various feedbacks, get it peer-reviewed and viola, it's science!

From MisterBob's reference:

"Testing the relationship between ocean temperature and density meant compensating for sea level fluctuations caused by forces other than heating, such as atmospheric pressure, salinity, and barotropic forcing. The team estimated annual mean effects for each, modifying the heat-equals-sea-level-rise equation with factors of error for non-heat-induced amplitude changes. From sea level data for November 1992 to April 1996, the researchers derived annual heat storage rates, computed inter-annual changes and averaged data over the Pacific and Atlantic basins."

OK, let me get this straight. This team eliminated non heat fluctuations using their own estimates, equated the remaining fluctuation with ocean heat content, and then calculated ocean heat content from the TOPEX data from 1992 to 1996? Reasonable and interesting analysis? Yes Proven? Absolutely not.

It is now 2008, there is still no directly measured deep ocean temperature data available, and the latest ocean temp data from ARGO seems to indicate a slight cooling over the last 5 years for the top 2,000 meters.

I stand by my statement that the notion of heat storage in the deep ocean that will somehow reappear in the near future is still speculation.

Brett: Is there a reason you did not accept my post of last night. I am still on the road.
Thanks Kipp

Reply: Kipp, I posted everything that came from you. Maybe there was an error after you composed it.

Global warming has gone to South Africa, which had it's coldest September temperature in history yesterday.
http://www.int.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=1&click_id=14&art_id=vn20080921084615870C810928

mark paquette-in a previous post about nasa new toy satellite both caleb and mister bob talked about spinning toy tops and their wobbles. second to changes in solar output, i believe this to be a major reason for "climate change"

as a spinning object why wouldnt the earth be subject to wobbles and with the disproportionate land mass in the nh vs sh some wobbles could be significant. even a slight wobble would change the nature of suns rays hitting the surface.
aside from having had a camera at a fixed distance from the earth running for the last million years and then replayed this is hard to prove. anlysis of sunrise and sunset time over the last 50 years might be one way and shadow measurements in the polar regions could be ways of determining this

also geologic factors cannot be ruled out. volcanic activity can be responsible for short term climate change wheras tectonic changes can cause gradual longer term climate changes ie uplifting mountains etc

looking forward to your post mark
loub

Bob Tisdale: Spoken quite well, I should say.
MG. "The Healthy fossil fuel energy is an oxymoron".
Steve Bloom:I should think that everyone should read the fourth IPCC report denier or AGW proponent. I read so many false arguments and assumptions, that it makes it difficult to discuss anything. How hard is it to understand that CO@ reacts from the sun's heat and creates a blanketing effect. How hard is it to understand that the Oceans surface will accept CO2, but not the colder levels. Also the carbon cycle talks about sinke. Such as the biosphere that we are destorying, through urbanization and deforestation. Where does this CO2 from fossils fuels go. Into our atmosphere. Ten billion tons per anum, and the older CO2 stays in our atmosphere at 380ppm. From 230 a hundred years ago, it creates Global Warming. It can't escape because the stratosphere is to cold, and is therefore trapped. It keeps backing up, but as the heat from the Earth warms, it is relflected radiated and convectionally brought to the atmosphere by water vapor or humidity. Heat rises.
Now was that to hard to understand. KIPP

if only this were true - or even possible!

"are absorbing the excess heat in the atmosphere due to the increase in greenhouse gases and forcing it deep in the ocean and causing cooler deep ocean water to the surface, thus cooling the atmosphere."

Now an increase in greenhouse gases has defied physics.

Bob Tisdale: a question from a learner? Why is the
la Nina event around Christmas this year. The SO usually causes the El Nino (Christ's Child) around this time. Could this be another anomally caused by global warming, another climatological shift away from normalcy as Global Warming takes root? Last two winters showed no snow in Connecticut, which ususally gets around five to eight snow storms. Also you must have noticed the rain in England this year. They always get rain of course, but this year was the hydrological nightmare for our Brits. Unprecedented.
Thanks, KIPP

Met Office says climate change deniers deluded

Thermometers can't be trusted anymore, when it comes to matters of funding.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/23/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange

Partick Henry:
-40F in Greenland, at that temp, a Scotsman like myself puts on his string vest, bring on the snow!

Kipp: NINO3.4 temperatures peak during the Northern Hemisphere winter regardless of the sign, regardless of whether it's an El Nino or a La Nina. With respect to the other part of your question, there have been attempts to blame AGW for the change in magnitudes and frequency of El Ninos (versus La Ninas), but they've failed. The only thing those studies have proven is, when there are a greater number of El Ninos at a greater magnitude than La Ninas, global temperatures rise, and, vice versa, when there are more and higher magnitude La Ninas, global temperatures decrease.

On to your snow question: I seem remember shoveling snow 4 times last year and needing to call the plow at least once, but I could be wrong; maybe it was 3 times with a shovel and one call for the plow. Precipitation variations here in the US are governed by the AMO and PDO, are they not? England's another story. I don't pay enough attention to their weather to comment.

What is the point in denying man made global warming? You are going to deny global warming itself while all glaciers (except 2 out of 30) are retreating.
Read also what the UK Met office thinks about it:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/sep/22/climatechange.scienceofclimatechange

Mark C, I have posted on this several times and the resident expert Bob t has also, not that I presume to group my name with his as I am simply a layman as far as weather, being an architectural engineer.

It appears that no real distinction is given to the temperature stations for the simple reason that they are 'official' and regardless if one is sitting in the middle of an asphalt parking lot or next to an HVAC exhaust it's readings bolster the preconceived notion that everything is getting hotter.

It also seems that the data being used is only that data that can be fudged to get the correct outcome, not matter how official sounding it is. Hysterics look at the data and the world is slightly a degree from spontaneous combustion, Skeptics look at it and see some cooling and possibly a downturn.

Global warming has gone to Europe, which is being hammered by an early winter chill and snow.
http://wxmaps.org/pix/temp4.html
http://www.snow-forecast.com/maps/static/europe/next3days/snow

Mark:

It's just as subjective as the guys "guesstimating" UHI. I'm just concerned about the quality of the data that is being used to show AGW. So, not only is there the UHI, but the stations are not even within specifications.

Michael McNaughton,

What part of Scotland? We were in The Highlands and Isle of Skye last month + a short trip to Edinburgh.

Mark Paquette --- I recommend reading "The Discovery of Global Warming" by Spencer Weart:

http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html

Review of above:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9F04E7DF153DF936A35753C1A9659C8B63

LOL! Love your posts, PH. But remember, backyard weather doesn't cut it! These places aren't part of the globe. The cooling is due to the warming. The melting polar ice, due to the rapid warming, is causing the cold weather. Weather is not climate and Meat Loaf isn't hamburger....ahahahahahahHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!

DENY DENY DENY THE GLO-BULL WARMING LIE!!!!!!

Oh, by the by, here's some interesting information pertaining to the lack of solar activity:

http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2008/23sep_solarwind.htm

Yet, a Cycle 24 sunspot popped up over the last two days:

http://www.solarcycle24.com

Come on, sunspots! You can do it! You HAVE to do it or we're going to FREEZE!!!......

Patrick Henry:
I live in Fife not far from Dunfermline and Edinburgh.
On the subject of snow shoveling, here in Scotland where we used to expect to be closed in by the snow each year, we have not had a significant snow event that lasted more than a day in about 6 years. The only place that differes from that is the highlands where last year was the best in a long long time. Our ski resorts could do with an extended pereiod of low sunspot activity. An event approaching the little ice age may even bring back curling which used to take place in almost every village and town in Scotland in the 19th Century.

I'm with Bob Tisdale on this and will add my bit as follows:
Cooling, and warming is localized and related to what happens in tropical waters. The effect is most dramatic in winter at latitudes 50�-70� in both hemispheres. Between 1940 and 1978 this latitude band cooled in winter by about 5�C. Between 1978 and 2003 this latitude band warmed in winter by 5�C. The current cooling began in 2004. It will bring frosts and a reduction in the length of the growing season.

Temperature change at high latitudes is related to the warmth gathered by tropical waters and transported by ocean currents. That is in turn related to changes in cloud cover over the rain shadow areas to the west of the continents in the trade wind zone. This is due to changes in temperature between 500hPa and 100hPa where the clouds are made of ice and ultraviolet light impacts ozone. Ultraviolet is a component in solar radiation and its impact depends upon atmospheric density on the dayside, a function of the solar wind.

As the cloud cover has reduced the Earth has warmed and long wave radiation measured at the limits of the atmosphere has increased. For long wave radiation to increase less short wave must be reflected. Clouds are the reflector.

The Green Movement should abandon this foolishness relating to carbon dioxide. It is silly and, if it gets it's way, potentially very damaging.

Carbon dioxide is the basic building block for photosynthesis. With more carbon dioxide in the air we will green the planet. Plants lose less moisture in the process of picking up carbon from the air. Arid lands will become productive. The Earth will be better off as will be all beings that depend upon the growth of plants.

In a cooling environment plants will need all the help they can get.