Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [climatechangedebate] Hot summers and global warming: Another scientist's view

Expand Messages
  • Dick Kahle
    Bob, Total irradiation in w/m2 is only a small part of the solar effect. There are other ways the sun affects climate. These include changes in the balance of
    Message 1 of 39 , Aug 9, 2012
    View Source
    • 0 Attachment
      Bob,

      Total irradiation in w/m2 is only a small part of the solar effect. There are other ways the sun affects climate.

      These include changes in the balance of the radiation between different frequencies (especially in the UV range), the changes in the solar wind and it's effect on the heliosphere, the changes in atmospheric circulation from the stratosphere that affect the troposphere, the changes in the geomagnetic field with longer term solar cycles that affect the amount of cosmic rays that make it into the troposphere, etc. There is evidence that all these changes have a cumulative effect that can not be represented by the simple w/m2 of total solar irradiation that the IPCC only looks at.

      I already posted a study showing the long term, thousands of year, proxy records of the strength of solar activity, which I repeat, is defined by much more that total solar irradiation. What other area would you like to see a study on?

      Dick

      On Thu, Aug 9, 2012 at 12:40 PM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:
      Bruce,
       
      You have a point about Sunspots, but you need to quantify your green line in watts/square meter.
       
      The Ocean heat content is increasing,
       
       
      and a lot of AGW energy is latent (hidden) in melting many cubic miles of ice at the rate of about
      80 kCal per kg.
       
      The latest from Dr. Roy Spencer:
       
       

      Latest Global Temps

      Latest Global Average Tropospheric Temperatures

      Since 1979, NOAA satellites have been carrying instruments which measure the natural microwave thermal emissions from oxygen in the atmosphere. The signals that these microwave radiometers measure at different microwave frequencies are directly proportional to the temperature of different, deep layers of the atmosphere. Every month, John Christy and I update global temperature datasets (see here and here)that represent the piecing together of the temperature data from a total of eleven instruments flying on eleven different satellites over the years. As of mid-2012, our most stable instrument for this monitoring is the Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU-A) flying on NASA’s Aqua satellite and providing data since late 2002.

      The graph above represents the latest update; updates are usually made within the first week of every month. Contrary to some reports, the satellite measurements are not calibrated in any way with the global surface-based thermometer records of temperature. They instead use their own on-board precision redundant platinum resistance thermometers calibrated to a laboratory reference standard before launch.

       
      bob

      --- On Thu, 8/9/12, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...> wrote:

      From: C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrjr@...>
      Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Hot summers and global warming: Another scientist's view
      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
      Date: Thursday, August 9, 2012, 8:34 AM

       


      “Last year, following an intensive research effort involving a dozen scientists, I concluded that global warming was real and that the prior estimates of the rate of warming were correct. I’m now going a step further: Humans are almost entirely the cause.”


      “My total turnaround, in such a short time, is the result of careful and objective analysis by the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature project, which I founded with my daughter Elizabeth. Our results show that the average temperature of the earth’s land has risen by two and a half degrees Fahrenheit over the past 250 years, including an increase of one and a half degrees over the most recent 50 years. Moreover, it appears likely that essentially all of this increase results from the human emission of greenhouse gases.”

      I will assume that it is sincere.

      But
      isn’t he assuming that a correlation proves causation? He said:

      “We tried fitting the shape to simple math functions (exponentials, polynomials), to solar activity and even to rising functions like world population. By far the best match was to the record of atmospheric carbon dioxide, measured from atmospheric samples and air trapped in polar ice.”


      Such a match could just as easily suggest that increasing temperatures causes an increase in atmospheric CO2. And I think that it is fundamentally wrong to simply graft Mauna Loa data in Hawaii on to the end of a polar ice record from either Greenland or Antarctica . Those are fundamentally different types of data. I realize that they use the small overlap for calibration but I have to take that with a grain of salt.

      “Just as important, our record is long enough that we could search for the fingerprint of solar variability, based on the historical record of sunspots.”

      I am very skeptical of any temperature record going back 250 years. The technology and coverage just wasn’t there. Measuring temperatures going back that far is like measuring the size of smoke. 70% of the earth is oceans. The ocean temperatures in the old record were measured primarily in the shipping lanes by throwing a bucket over the side. Ocean temperatures reflect ocean oscillations and the release of energy stored in the oceans more than they do air temperatures. We can see that when we compare the temperature record to the major ocean cycles. Particularly the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO). 

      I have looked for the 11-year or 22-year sunspot cycle in the temperature record and couldn’t find it. My conclusion was that the sunspot cycle could not be a strong influence in the short term.

       

      There was an increase solar activity that started in the early 1900’s.  It peaked around 1960 but remained higher for longer than any time in the sunspot record. It is important to note that our ability to see smaller sunspots is better now. But looking just at the 20th century, solar activity during the second half and up until the last few years was higher than during that first half. If we look at the longer term temperature trend, it matches solar activity pretty well. Solar activity started to increase in the early 1900’s and so did temperatures (according to surface based temperatures).

      70%
      of the earth is the oceans and oceans can store the solar energy it absorbs. Land mostly radiates what it absorbs as I understand it. I often compare that storing of energy in the oceans as being like the trickle charging of a battery. And natural ocean cycles as periodically discharging some of that energy. That would include the ENSO, the PDO, the North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) which is reflected in the AMO, etc. My own simple model suggests that there would be a cumulative solar effect. This would be a weak trend over the long term. The ocean oscillations provide the more abrupt changes. If Dr. Muller is going to compare solar activity to temperatures, he needs to consider the energy stored in the oceans and not just the sunspots.

      That’s
      the green plot in the chart below. This chart is old, I need to update it.




      Bruce

      C. Bruce Richardson Jr.
      Houston , Texas

      From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Dick Kahle
      Sent: Wednesday, August 08, 2012 9:11 PM
      To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
      Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Hot summers and global warming: Another scientist's view

       

       

      I love it. The "wanna be Kings of AGW" are calling each other on exaggeration. Remember Mann slamming Muller on his simplistic attribution work.

      Dick

      On Wed, Aug 8, 2012 at 9:01 PM, C. Bruce Richardson Jr. <cbrtxus@...> wrote:

       

       

      latimes.com

      Hot summers and global warming: Another scientist's view

      By Rosie Mestel
      Los Angeles Times
      1:53 PM PDT, August 8, 2012
      A report by a longtime global warming researcher has concluded that recent extreme summer weather was linked to climate change. The study by a team led by James E. Hansen, director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was published Monday in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
      Here's more on the study from Richard Muller, physics professor at UC Berkeley, who for years was a climate-change skeptic but recently declared that he is now convinced that not only is global warming real but that human beings are the overwhelming cause of it.
      Convinced he may be, but on Tuesday he said that the report by Hansen was overstating the case. "I agree with his findings, but I think he presents it in a way that greatly exaggerates what the result is,” Muller said on "The Madeleine Brand Show."
      Here's an excerpt from the interview explaining what he means by that:
      "If we are a degree warmer, which is what he and I agree we have warmed up in the last 50 years -- one degree warmer -- then you will have more heat spells, they'll be a little bit hotter, more records -- but they'll only be one degree. When he says expect more heat waves, what that means is, if you were used to a heat wave of 101 degrees, now you'll have a heat wave of 102.”
      Hansen termed this as a 100-year event now becoming  a 10-year event, and Muller doesn't disagree. But, Muller says, it's again worth noting that this much-more-frequent event is just 1 degree warmer.
      In an opinion article in the Washington Post, Hansen linked the findings to the "deadly European heat wave of 2003, the fiery Russian heat wave of 2010 and catastrophic droughts in Texas and Oklahoma last year."
      Muller said that there is "not even a hint" that global warming can be specifically linked to those events.


      Copyright © 2012, Los Angeles Times

       


    • Robert Maginnis
      Calvin,   My Raytek has a 1 to 8 field of view, but there are units with optics to get a narrower view.    Here is a better one, with spectral range of 8 to
      Message 39 of 39 , Aug 14, 2012
      View Source
      • 0 Attachment
        Calvin,
         
        My Raytek has a 1 to 8 field of view, but there are units with optics to get a narrower view. 
         
        Here is a better one, with spectral range of 8 to 14 microns.  Of course, if it had a narrow 15 micron range, we would be seeing the temperature of the CO2 in nearby air.  I think te clouds I was looking at were a mile up, but they would be warmer if they were lower.
         
         
        hunter,
         
        Here is an explanation of 'greenhouse.'
         
        and a recent article:
         
         
        bob
        --- On Tue, 8/14/12, Calvin <calvin@...> wrote:

        From: Calvin <calvin@...>
        Subject: RE: [climatechangedebate] Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
        Date: Tuesday, August 14, 2012, 9:04 AM

         

        Bob…

         

        I like what you’ve done with the IR thermometer.  I am looking to get one myself.

         

        Were all of your cloud measurements at 32F?  How many measurements?  It looks like the field of view is 1 to 8 or 1 to 10: did you take that into consideration?   Of course, you need not on an overcast day.

         

        Calvin.

         

        From: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com [mailto:climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of hunter seeker
        Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:27 AM
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted

         

         

        Bryce,

        Exactly.

        So the sky gets cooler.

        That means CO2 alarmism is correct?

         

         

        From: Bryce Johnson <brycenuc@...>
        To: climatechangedebate@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 1:04 AM
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted

         

         

        Bob:

        You could have "owned" the knowledge you got from your $200 Raytek by just looking up the high-altitude clear sky temperature and the cloud temperature. How are you using that vast knowledge in your defense of CAGW?

        Bryce

        On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 6:24 PM, Robert Maginnis <bobmagi@...> wrote:

         

        Ian,
         
        Thankfully, my education in grade school science and high school and college physics had lab work or demonstrations, so that it wasn't just belief.
         
        I don't have a degree, but I was the 'go to' guy for difficult problems in commercial and fishboat refrigeration.
         
        One of my best diagnostic tools, which became available for $200 about 20 years ago, was a RayTek infrared non contact thermometer.
         
        Onetime years ago, I pointed it at a hot summer clear blue sky, and it had a reading below the minus 8 F. or whtever low end of the scale.
         
        I also pointed it at clouds on winter or summer days and usually observed about 32 F.
         
        At that point I OWNED the knowledge about long wave infrared radiation, even if the RayTek was looking at 13 microns instead of 15 micron LWIR obstructed by CO2 and H2O.
         
        So Ian, I'm not just a dittohead of the wamists, no more educated than the dittoheads of Rush Limbaugh, I actually study these things, and don't have much respect for uneducated 'beliefs.'


         
        bob
         

        --- On Mon, 8/13/12, Ian McQueen <mailto:imcqueen%40nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

        From: Ian McQueen <mailto:imcqueen%40nbnet.nb.ca>
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted
        To: mailto:climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com

        Date: Monday, August 13, 2012, 11:07 AM

         

        

        Bob-
         
            Your belief that warming is due to AGW is belief, not verifiable fact. That is the problem.
         
                Ian
         
         

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Robert Maginnis
        To: mailto:climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 2:12 PM
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted

        Ian,
         
        Of course AMO PDO ENSO have an effect.  That is why we have noise on top of the gradual rise of temperature due to AGW.  Arrak tried to smear Hansen.  I'm just calling him on it.
         
        bob

        --- On Mon, 8/13/12, Ian McQueen <mailto:imcqueen%40nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

        From: Ian McQueen <mailto:imcqueen%40nbnet.nb.ca>
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted
        To: mailto:climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com
        Date: Monday, August 13, 2012, 8:54 AM

         

        
            A warmer PDO or AMO wouldn't have any effect? Or has Romm actually solved the mystery as to why these vary between warmer and cooler?
         
            I don't know Arno Arrak and have no idea if Hansen is borrowing his ideas or not. If he is, how does it affect your posting? You wouldn't possibly be trying to smear Arno by innuendo, would you?
         
                Ian
         
         

        ----- Original Message -----
        From: Robert Maginnis
        To: mailto:climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Monday, August 13, 2012 12:49 PM
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted

        I notice that Arno Arrak tries to elevate himself by claiming:
         
         "....Hansen has now taken note of my prediction and is using it to do his own prognostications for the next year without acknowledging it."

        as if there weren't anybody else working on it:
         
        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/enso_advisory/ensodisc.html
         
        http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/precip/CWlink/MJO/enso.shtml
         
        We know that warm currents from the Atlantic and also from water from the Pacific helps melt the Arctic ice, but the water is warmer due to the reduced net IR losses at the surface thanks to GHGs.
         
        Joe Romm's article of June 7:
         
        http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2012/06/07/496006/noaa-says-50-chance-el-nino-will-develop-in-second-half-of-2012-which-nasa-says-would-lead-to-rapid-warming/?mobile=nc
         
        bob
         

        --- On Mon, 8/13/12, David Wojick <mailto:dwojick%40craigellachie.us> wrote:

        From: David Wojick <mailto:dwojick%40craigellachie.us>
        Subject: Re: [climatechangedebate] Rate of arctic summer sea ice loss is 50% higher than predicted
        To: "mailto:climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com" <mailto:climatechangedebate%40yahoogroups.com>
        Date: Monday, August 13, 2012, 3:27 AM

         

        Good to see that someone else has noticed that the only warming in the last 32 years has been the single step up, but it is coincident with the super ENSO (not just the El Nino). So whatever is happening to Arctic ice it is not due to GHG warming, since there is not any.

        David

        Sent from my IPad

        On Aug 12, 2012, at 10:04 PM, "Ian McQueen" <mailto:imcqueen%40nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

         

          As I was looking for something else I came across: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/04/01/pielke-sr-on-the-muller-testimony/  In it was the following comment. All of it is worth reading, but as for Bob's posting, it is especially worth reading the last sentence.
         
                Ian
         
         
         
        Arno Arrak says:
        April 1, 2011 at 9:29 am
         
           

         

         

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.