Powered by TypePad

« Taking Charge! | Main | Tiger Woods Update »

November 29, 2009

Comments

Pofarmer

As it happens, real terrestrial greenhouses are NOT warmed by this mechanism because their heat transfer process is dominated by convection and conduction rather than radiation.

Are you saying that there aren't convection and conduction in the Atmosphere?

Sue

Sue, it's simple physics: If you push something hard enough, it will fall over.

Well I've been pushed to the point of falling over. And it was simple, if that was the plan. Just use words like "12% of 27 million would be 3.24 cubic kilometers of decreased volume and 12% of 36 million would be 4.3 million cubic kilometers. That means the 2.5 million cubic kilometers of Greenland aint enough to fill the shrinkage." Does it to me everytime. ::grin::


boris

"Conflating scalars and vectors? Oh. My. God."

Since there exist such things as climate cycles I drew an analogy with "orbits". True, orbits are two dimensional and climate cycles are not so I guess I should have chosen some other easy to visualize well defined but not very useful average to avoid your ridicule.

The one dimentional (temp) vector sum of all climate cycles on the planet, may in fact be as useless as the two dimensional vector sum of planet velocities. If that is true than the scaler magnitude at any instant is equally useless.

Rick Ballard

"I am lost as a goose."

Sue,

If we were in the same physical location together, we could constitute the beginning of a flock. Good ol' English ain't quite precise enough to express "what's going on" in a manner which can be understood to those of us who aren't fluent in elementary calculus and basic physical properties.

The whole of the scam is entirely dependent upon that fact.

Charlie (Colorado)

If you must go to the ridiculous, then, I think I made my point.

That it wouldn't stand up if considered as you said it? You bet. *I* wasn't the one that suggested temps in growing regions were the only important ones.

Thing is though, at one time Greenland WAS green. At one time, not all that long ago geologically, there were temperate to tropical plants growing in what is now Siberia. At one time, where there is now only Tundra, fairly recently, there were forests. So, when the IPCC calls for a 1 or 4 or whatever degree rise, even that isn't all that scary in geological terms.

I mostly agree with this; the "runaway greenhouse turns Earth into Venus" thing just requires the whole climate system to behave differently than it did many times in the last umpteen million years.

Strawman Cometh

Damn, it's not showing, so I'll say it again.
srp, I did not see your post until after I posted.

Charlie (Colorado)

Wouldn't a real measure of average temp have to take numerous readings and integrate them over a day?

Well, the "average temperature" they use is mostly done with several temps per day and averaged over a year or more, with rolling averages and the like.

srp

Bubba Gump and I think alike even though we express ourselves differently.

As for policy, I always ask AGW fanatics why it matters whether the "A" is attached. From a policy perspective, the anthropogenic source of any climate change is irrelevant; all that matters is the cost and benefit of taking action to regulate it.

Thought experiment: The world has a thermostat dial welded to the lectern at the General Assembly. Now imagine a reasonable process for setting that dial--husbands and wives can't even agree in their own living rooms. Now think about what happens if turning the dial itself requires billions or trillions of dollars depending how far you twist it. I don't see much chance of rational or desirable outcomes from this setup.

Extraneus

Shouldn't climate "scientists" be discussing the Earth's optimum temperature? Po talked about Greenland and Siberia once being lush, but I'm sure Finland and Canada were also happier during warmer times. Might some warming be better overall than today's average temperature?

Just more evidence of fraud that they don't talk about this, of course.

Sue

Rick,

The whole of the scam is entirely dependent upon that fact.

Then it's a good thing Al Gore was involved. It was all I needed to dismiss it as anything but a scam.

Strawman Cometh

Po,
If I may, what he's saying is that greenhouses work by blocking convection. Greenhouse gases are poorly named - their effect is through absorption and re-radiation.

srp

Po: What I'm saying is that the shedding of heat from the Earth into the vacuum of space is radiative--because it's a vacuum out there. Shedding of heat from a greenhouse to the atmosphere is conductive because the molecular vibrations are transmitted directly.

Pofarmer

If you must go to the ridiculous, then, I think I made my point.

That it wouldn't stand up if considered as you said it? You bet. *I* wasn't the one that suggested temps in growing regions were the only important ones.

Well, C'mon, if you look at the way the system works, MOST of the warming is going to be at the high lattitudes, even though MOST of the ENERGY enters near the equator. Why? There's this great big humungous thing called an Ocean, and there are these huge things called Storm Systems, and Trade Winds. All of this works to pump heat from the equator to the poles. So, what you get, is fairly constant temps at the equator, and mainly fluctuating temps the further away from it you get. Well, at least that's what Stephen Wilde over at Watts up has to say about it, and it sounds about right to me. The earth has all kinds of coping mechanisms for excess heat. But, back to the average temperature, if the temps at the equator remain pretty constant, and the high lattitude temps raise 10 degrees F, then, that is in fact, a mainly beneficial rise, even though they'll be screaming about we're all gonna die because the avg temperatures rose 3 or 5 or 8 degrees or whatever. So, yes, the concept of Average temperatures, within useful parameters existing on the planet, is pretty well useless. What matters is GDU's at a given location. Most everything else can be adjusted for.

Mustang0302

Adios, Huckster!

Pofarmer

Well, the "average temperature" they use is mostly done with several temps per day and averaged over a year or more, with rolling averages and the like.

Yeah, not really. All you have is a min and a max at a given time of day, at least in the U.S. They then use rolling averages to "smooth" them out.

Po: What I'm saying is that the shedding of heat from the Earth into the vacuum of space is radiative--because it's a vacuum out there. Shedding of heat from a greenhouse to the atmosphere is conductive because the molecular vibrations are transmitted directly.

Nothing like getting avalanched(I really gotta work on the dishes for a minute, O.K.)

Yes, I realize that, BUT, the atmosphere has very efficient systems for moving large volumes of warm air up higher into the atmosphere where they can give off that heat.

Gmax

So Sue what you are saying is that you are a pushover? I am so confused. LOL

Boatbuilder

There is a very good book, "Arctic Dreams," by Barry Lopez, which has much to say about this issue. Lopez is an excellent writer and his subject is the natural and human history of the far north--Greenland, Northern Canada, the lands which ring the Arctic Ocean.
He writes in 1986. He writes of native settlements and European exploration and outposts--far North of current limits, apparently-- and of the fluctuations of animal populations due to warming and cooling periods. He laments the effect of the long cooling period then apparent on such things.
He won The National Book Award.
He has no apparent axe to grind--except that he is clearly an environmentalist (the term once had much more positive associations--as did "liberal," now that I think about it).
I recommend it highly. And I suggest that you recommend it to any friends who buy the AGW alarmist line. No less an eminence than Edward Abbey described him as "...both a first-rate writer and an uncompromising defender of the wild country and its native inhabitants."
(I'm going to reread it now--it's been a few years).

Strawman Cometh

I'm reposting from an earlier thread:

One of the issues researchers face in constructing recent temperature trends is the effect of urban and other heat islands have on the recorded temp. Many recording stations are poorly placed.
Some of the "data smoothing" that is done with the raw temp data is to employ an algorithm to cool down the urban temp's using data from nearby reporting stations.
Steve McIntyre has tried, unsuccessfully, for years to obtain the raw data and algorithms used in these published papers. I recall one post where he was able to obtain elsewhere what he thought, and demonstrated, was the raw data. From the raw data and the published graphs and tables, he forensically reconstructed the algorithm, and showed that instead of bringing down the temp of the the heat islands, the publisher used an ALGOREthm to raise the temps of the surrounding monitoring stations.

Pardon the pun.
And do do the dishes. I installed a new faucet and two new light fixtures.


matt

dammit, Steyn ripped of my headline...LUN somewhere

Sue

Gmax,

Well I'm glad I confused you guys for a change.

God left me out completely when he passed out the mathematical gene. Fortunately, I was standing in the common sense line.

Rick Ballard

Want a laugh? Scroll to the bottom of the An Overview of the Global Historical Climatology Network Temperature Database and check the Acknowledgements We would also like to thank Philip Jones for his review of this article and for insightful discussions over the last
several years.
and References

Jones, P. D., 1994: Hemispheric surface air temperature variations:
A reanalysis and an update to 1993. J. Climate, 7, 1794–1802.
——, 1995: Land surface temperatures—Is the network good
enough? Climate Change, 31, 545–558.
——, R. Raper, R. S. Bradley, H. F. Diaz, P. M. Kelly, and T. M.
L. Wigley, 1986: Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature
variations: 1851–1984. J. Climate Appl. Meteor., 25, 161–179.
——, T. J. Osborn, and K. R. Briffa, 1997: Estimating sampling
errors in large-scale temperature averages. J. Climate, 10,
2548–2568.

That's just about the whole "the dog ate my data" CRU. I sure am glad the GHCN has such independence from CRU.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

I asked about this earlier and all I'm hearing is about melting ice. There are other very important factors at work on climate. Why is this ignored?

The Great Ocean Conveyer Belt

The oceans are in constant motion both from winds that generate waves and currents and from the pull of gravity that creates the tides. A factor not as well known, thermohaline circulation, occurs deep within the ocean and acts like a conveyor belt as oceans absorb, store, and redistribute vast amounts of the Sun's heat around the globe. Without this, places at the same latitude across the globe would generally have the same average temperatures. However, because of this circulation, Norway ? located at similar latitude to Manitoba, Canada ? has an average annual temperature that is nearly 20°F warmer.

Thermohaline circulation is driven by changes in the density of sea water. The conveyor belt transfers warm water from the Pacific Ocean to the Atlantic as a shallow current and returns cold water from the Atlantic to the Pacific as a deep current that flows further south. Beginning in the central Pacific, it travels past the north coast of Australia and around the southern tip of Africa before moving up into the Atlantic. By the time it heads up the Atlantic it turns into the Gulf Stream. As it passes Europe, the surface water evaporates and the ocean water cools, releasing heat to the atmosphere. This release of heat is largely responsible for the relatively warm temperatures enjoyed by Western Europe. As the water becomes colder, it increases in salinity and becomes dense, sinking thousands of meters below the surface. The deep water slowly travels south through the oceanic abyss, eventually mixing upward to the surface in different parts of the world up to 1,000 years later. ...more

DrJ

I've read through the paper by Gerlich and Tscheuschner, albeit for a first read only.

For those who care, there are a very few good points in it, but in sum it is very weak. There are a number of sleights-of-hand, and a willful misinterpretation of known results (like the laws of thermodynamics). If I were reviewing it for publication, I would reject it outright, and suggest that it be reduced to a 10-pager summarizing the key results and why these are so. Ten pages should suffice for their points.

Man is there a lot of fluff in this one.

narciso

So there was a reason why the science fictiony elements, present in Day After Tomorrow was so fake, well it was. Of course I was just about to link that Mustang. You almost feel sorry for the Huckster, but you know I manage to hold that back. A child rapistand a cop killer, you don't get lower than that

DrJ

I should follow on to note that Lindzen, cited early, is quite good.

Pofarmer

OH, and on the subject of average temperatures. One of the reasons that the global average temperatures for this year have been high, is because the SST(sea surface temperature) readings have been high? Why have the SST's been high? Mainly because of a lack of Hurricanes, which cause pretty big upwelling of cooler water. An inquisitive mind might look at this as a GOVERNING mechanism, for a cooler atmosphere. IE, there is less energy coming into the atmosphere/ocean system, so, less hurricanes, so the oceans are trying to maintain temperatures by staying warmer at the surface. So, one of the things that is showing a warmer "average" may, in fact, be an indicator of cooling.

Pofarmer

Thanks Dr.J.

Ignatz

Here's a link to a WUWT post by Willis Eschenbach describing the basic physics of the greenhouse effect.
Reading the comments is a pretty entertaining study of several people too stupid to realize just how stupid they are.

Charlie, isn't the theory of a global average temperature much more easily defined than the practical one? Your example of a million non adjusted thermometers is not what we have in the real world. As usual the devil is in the details; in this case The Devil and Mr. Jones.
HADCRUT purports to give us one with its gridded cells, but immense numbers of them don't even have records in them; the value for them is extrapolated from nearby grids which do. They claim to include sea surface temperatures but don't. They claim to remove cities over a certain size but don't. In practive an average global temperature that is useful or means anything is a lot more difficult than it sounds and the averages we have been provided by HADCRUT, GISTEMP etal are growing more suspect by the day. Even the recent satellite records have gone through revision after revision.
Here's another post, coincidentally by Willis at WUWT detailing many of these issues. It may have been linked before as it details the Karlen efforts to get some answers from Trenberth. Willis' comments are excellent.

Pofarmer

"Even the recent satellite records have gone through revision after revision."

And, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they been revised because they were disagreeing with the land based temps?

narciso

In more cheery news, the mouse roared back at the lion, in Honduras, today

Ignatz

--And, correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't they been revised because they were disagreeing with the land based temps?--

Po,
They (there is more than one record keeping outfit for the sat records; UAH and RSS being the two I know of) are still in slight but growing disagreement with the land based temps, especially in the tropics. RSS is closer to land based records than UAH.

The most notable correction was to raise the UAH records which did bring them into closer agreement with surface records. However Roy Spencer a leading sceptic who runs UAH agreed that they had been in error previously and the correction was justified. Keep in mind satellites don't directly measure temps but are an inference which requires tons of adjustments.

jimmyk

Adios, Huckster!

Mustang0302, good catch. That's quite a story. Perhaps some good will come of this horrible tragedy.

(For those of you who didn't click the link: The suspect in the killing of four police officers in Washington state had an earlier sentence commuted by Gov. Huckabee.)

Jim

I'd like to know CRU's square footage both before and after the fateful move. Did they actually lose space?

Charlie (Colorado)

Charlie, isn't the theory of a global average temperature much more easily defined than the practical one?

Sure, but that's an issue that broadens the error bars; what was being argued, or at least what people were saying, was that "global average temperature" wasn't a meaningful concept.

So think about, say, taking a minimum and maximum temp at a bunch of locations, roughly evenly distributed mover the land area of the Earth. We know, more or less from first principles, that there is an average temperature. We know from observation that temperature varies continuously over geographic areas -- if we move a fast-acting thermometer from Honolulu to Minsk, there won't be any places in between where the temperature jumps a large amount over a small distance. (If you insist, I'll define that precisely in terms of the first derivative of temperature with respect to location but it'll come down to the same thing.)

We also know that if we take a zillion temperature samples at each measurement site, the average of those zillion samples will lie somewhere between the min and max, by the Mean Value Theorem if nothing else.

The point is, then, that if we were to define the "real" average temperature in terms of a measurement of every point over the surface of the Earth, averaged over a long time, and compare it to the value we get from discrete measurements at separated points, we can be certain the "real" value and the calculated value are "relatively close". We can also, statistically, determine roughly what the chances are of it varying more than some amount.

So when they compute an "average" temperature, you have to understand that as meaning "measured average, which 19 times out of 20 will be between some lower and upper limits around the theoretical real average."

Charlie (Colorado)

Here's Ignatz's second link, demangleated.

cathyf

OT -- I don't know about the rest of you, but I just finished making reduced turkey stock for next year's gravy & stuffing. Started with about 4 gallons of water and the turkey carcass, and ended up with about 3.5 cups of magnificent magic elixar!

glasater

is anyone shorting carbon offsets yet?

I've had a few fantasies along those lines the past few days:)

Strawman Cometh

Cathyf,
I had three pots simmering Friday: The carcass, A pasta / steamed veg water saving, and the bone yard. As the meat comes off the carcass, shred and throw in the p/svw. Crack bones to expose the marrow, throw into the bone yard with skin and gristle, simmer for 20 minutes, strain twice into p/svw, add more fresh ro water and put back on simmer. Continue cycle for four hours. Add onion, garlic, celery, rice, barley, dried shitakes, various herbs, salt. Simmer another hour.
almost a gallon of great soup.

Pofarmer

And, in other news, the U.S. dollar index resumes it's nosedive. Ouch.

Ignatz

--So when they compute an "average" temperature, you have to understand that as meaning "measured average, which 19 times out of 20 will be between some lower and upper limits around the theoretical real average."--

Well that's what I mean that the devil is in the details. Certainly they will not tell us the average is 20 degrees off of what it really is, but within that upper and lower limit is room for all sorts of mischief, especially as amplified by time (dubious reconstructions) and even more importantly trend.

Thnx for demangleating that link. Not sure how I hybridized it.


Sara (Pal2Pal)

I don't get HBO, but Jeralyn is touting this concert:

Sunday Night TV : Rock and Roll Hall of Fame

narciso

That's a pretty good lineup, recall that horrible attempt at musical criticism last December, but John Legend, doesn't seem to fit.

Mustang0302

Huck Ducks Responsibility.

Neo

Ocean Area (335258000 sq km)
Area of Greenland 2,166,086 SQ KM

Greenland represents 1/154th of total Earth oceans

To raise the oceans by 7 meters, the ice would have to completely cover Greenland to a depth of 1083 meters or 3553 feet. Since obviously not all of Greenland is covered by ice, it would have to be more.

I seriously doubt that there is over a 1km of ice covering all of Greenland.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Mustang: I didn't save the link, but earlier I saw a statement from the prosecutor in Arkansas, who said they were strongly recommending that Huck not give the guy clemency. Huck is saying the opposite in your link.

narciso

This is a depressing microcosm of what we saw in Ft. Hood just a few weeks ago. liberal authorities went against common sense and release a killer and a rapist, One half expects Dirty Harry to have a cameo, cop killer, anti American terrorists, all we need is Disco and the 70s will be back in full force

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Narciso: It's worse than that:

"No Guts to Jail the Nuts": Man Wanted in Connection to Killings of 4 Police Officers Sunday in Tacoma Washington

Mustang0302

Sara, read my last as 'Huck attempts to duck responsibility.'

Huck ducked quickly. If that goblin Clemmons turns out to have been the shooter, Huck won't be able to duck low enough.


BR

A Kim sighting?

I'm just catching up with this thread, reading on pg 1.
Jack, in yours at 9:44 am where you mention Jones is like Madoff, and link to the great UK Booker article, there's a commenter at 11:52 pm London Time (6:52 pm JOMtime):

==============================
"Global Warming" is the Bernie Madoff environmental scam
==============================

Hee!

PD

Since Huck appears on FOX and is accessible to their other shows, it will be interesting to see whether anyone else on FOX presents him with the contradictory accounts of the parole board recommendations and asks for an explanation. And whether they will ask him for specifics regarding the vague statement, "Should he be found to be responsible for this horrible tragedy, it will be the result of a series of failures in the criminal justice system in both Arkansas and Washington State." Such as, was granting him clemency one of those failures?

PD

*If* Clemmons is indeed the perpetrator, of course.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

Mustang: I was referring to your last link to the Politico article. In there, Huck said he was getting recommendation for clemency from all over including the parole board. Yet, the article I saw had the prosecutor saying that he was doing everything he could to recommend against clemency. Seems someone isn't telling the truth. Why would Huck ignore the prosecutor?

Sara (Pal2Pal)

From Vanderleun's link I just gave to Narciso:

Among Clemmons more recent "achievements" that should long ago have placed him in a concrete cage at the bottom of the sea include:

* a pending charge of second-degree rape of a child.
* eight felony charges in all out of Washington state.
* punching a sheriff's deputy in the face
* gathering his wife and young relatives around at 3 or 4 in the morning and having them all undress. He told them that families need to "be naked for at least 5 minutes on Sunday."

Clemmons' previous criminal distinctions include, "at least five felony convictions in Arkansas and at least eight felony charges in Washington. The record also stands out for the number of times he has been released from custody despite questions about the danger he posed."

PD

Conservative Wins Honduras Vote After Coup

TEGUCIGALPA, Honduras — Ruling party candidate Elvin Santos has conceded defeat to conservative rancher Porfirio Lobo in post-coup Honduran elections.
BR

Oh, PD, marvelous news!

PD

Disappointing to see FOX describe Zelaya's ouster as a "coup" in that snippet, since it was Zelaya acting illegally.

narciso

So this really looks a lot like Horton redux or a more recent example, that guy Brian Nichols in Atlanta some years back, who shot up the Courthouse. His treatment seems a textbook case of the definition of insanity:
'doing the same thing over and over, but expecting a different result

VanderLeun as always connoiseur of the bizarre in his neck of the woods, but also the coiner of that increasingly apt phrase
"Republicans they thirst for death" and a Sarah supporter since she was picked. South
Florida seems sane, compared to other places
(LOL)

daddy

Am not a scientist, but have always been intrigued by the question of how much brand new cosmic dust arrives in our athmosphere each day from outer space.

According to various websites like ">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/07/060727180833.htm"> this one or ">http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080902075227.htm"> this one from Science News Earth gets the equivalent of about 220,000 pounds, or approximately a 747 Jumbo Jet full of space dust dumped into the athmosphere each day.

Most of that dust supposedly originates from the Asteroid Belt, and supposedly takes about a month to touchdown after first entering our athmosphere.

If my numbers are correct that equals to about 80,000,000 pounds of space dust dusting the planet per year, and it appears from the Antarctic ice cores it's been a pretty steady accumulation for at least the last 30,000 years.

I simply toss this out there as I saw there was discussion on this thread by other non-science guys like me about sea levels possibly rising and falling as a result of volcano's and lava etc. That stuff seems to me to be a fluctuation in Earth's relatively closed system, whereas this annual input of space dust seems to me to be an external addition to Earth's system, so a new and different variable added to the mix. I don't know what that addition of 80 million pounds of new dust per year for 30,000 years might do to sea levels or land mass increases, or Global Temps etc, but would like to know.

Anyhow, at least from my reading of these 2 Science News stories, they don't yet know how to deal with this space dust variable, nor how to work it in to the equations of GW or rising sea levels.

I hope my mentioning this did not seem stupid, but I have not noticed this topic mentioned in all these CRU data reports and just thought I'd bring it up. It seems to me unusual that our health scientists "know" that second hand smoke in the next house over can negatively effect some schoolkid down the block, yet a jumbo jet of dirt dumped in the athmosphere per day for 30,000 years hasn't yet been analyzed for its possible efects on global climate.

sylvia

"To raise the oceans by 7 meters, the ice would have to completely cover Greenland to a depth of 1083 meters or 3553 feet"

Yes interesting that we are actually trying to calculate the rise in water levels. I've always heard it trumpted, but has anyone ever shown me the figures? No.

Well I guess next we need the figures of the average depth of the ice in Greenland.

But to put GW in perpective, we know that in the past that Greenland was green. So a lot or most of that ice was melted. Such as the early middle ages. So where was the huge increase in sea levels back then? Have we ever heard of half of England or N. AFrica being under water during that period. I don't beleive so. So something is wrong with the calculations.

sylvia

Sarah interesting thought on the conveyor belt in the oceans. I think I heard somewhere that the Rocky Mountains are responsible for the winds that create the Gulf Stream that warms Europe. I'm not sure if people know the effect the freah water would have on all of that.

Also, Daddy an intersting idea on space dust. I've also heard that the earth and the Milky Way are of course always traveling through space, and as they do so, they come in more or less contact with other heat producing stars, which also effects our temps. Now that would really make it complicated!

sylvia

Here's a good fact page on Greenland's glacier. LUN. So apparently the ice IS that thick.

Okay, so if that is the biggest problem with GW, how about we make a Great Wall of Greenland, and build a 7 meter concrete wall around the premieter of Greenland to hold all the water in if it melts. It will be the world's largest swimming pool.

Problem solved.

sylvia

Testing. Hate the time lag on posting.

Sara (Pal2Pal)

And does anyone have a clue what is going to happen when the poles reverse? Earth is already way past due based on evidence of past reversals.

Stephanie

2012, Sara...

Jack is Back!

Remember this name - David">http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/copenhagen-climate-change-confe/6678469/Climategate-University-of-East-Anglia-U-turn-in-climate-change-row.html'>David Holland - the Telly tells us why.

And shouldn't some beside CEI also do the same here? False Claims, Fraud, Larceny, whatever - its a crime.

Even Penn State is embarrassed enough to start its own investigation into Mann.

sylvia

Wait, never mind. I wasn't thinking there. We'd have to make a 1K high wall around Greenland. Little tougher to do. Or maybe a few 1/4 K pools spread out around Canada.

Manuel Transmission

A couple of comments to put the current sea levels into context:

At the end of the last ice age (10-12K yrs ago), the average sea levels around the world were on the order of 400 ft. below today's. That was a combination of the weight of all the ice on land AND the elastic deflection of the earth's crust under that load.

Today, areas of the globe such as Sweden are still rising from the rebound of that weight loss.

I was at Lans aux Meadows in Newfoundland a couple of years ago and learned that the Viking encampment was about 1 meter lower than today relative to the local sea level. So 1000 yrs ago, during that very warm period, they had lower sea levels -- no doubt a combination of many things including the gradual rise of the land mass.

Janet

The Washington Post has nothing on this whole scandal. Two short, bland articles when it first came out...last Sat. and Sun. and an editorial that made excuses.
Rather than spin, they are gonna ignore.
The enemy is the media.

rse

This cartoon succinctly pulls together all the scamming of America centered in DC right now.

LUN

clarice

Conrad Black--the age of unreason and green fraud.
BTW the water level around Tuvalu is dropping.
LUN

Jane

Hey Charlie - is it your birthday?

Happy Birthday!

Kevin B

The average temperature of the Earth might be a useful metric if it could be shown to be a measure of the energy balance of the Earth with respect to incoming Solar energy over a period of time.

To be able to do that requires a fixed, global coverage over a long enough period of time to be useful. That is, you would need the same set of instruments, (whether they be thermometers or proxies), in the same places and all calibrated regularly to a standard measure over geological stretches of time. We don't have that. We haven't installed that to provide future climate researchers that level of instrumentation.

Instead we have a hodgepodge of instruments in a large variety of places sometimes with drastically limited spacial coverage using different instruments over time. Sometimes the coverage is down to a few tree ring series in Siberia or upside down lake sediment cores in Finland. Often the instruments are moved or the local conditions are changing in ways that change results in undeterminable ways. Even now the network of instruments is changing in number, location and local conditions in indeterminate ways.

To claim that anyone can take this hodgepodge, homogenise it, produce a series called Average Global Temperature and then determine anything useful from it is optimistic to say the least.

(Oh, and someone somewhere upthread said CO2 absorbs IR radiation. A question worth investigating is what happens next.)

hit and run

Jane:
Hey Charlie - is it your birthday?

Happy Birthday!


Or,Happy 257 Days Until Your Real Birthday,Charlie!

ben

I think many here who are trying to make sense of the data are missing the point. The data is irrelevant to the global warming alarmists. The issue is "settled" and even overwhelming data contrary to the established "truth" would not make one iota of difference. No amount of evidence can convince truthers that GWB didn't order explosives to be placed in the WTC. How could someone as evil as GWB not do it? The global warming alarmists "know" that our society is detrimental to the health of the planet. Global warming is a handy tool to get the world economies to self-destruct and to achieve a larger goal. They would just as soon give up on the greatest propaganda weapon of all time, the doomsday scenario, as suddenly announce they think capitalism is wonderful. It won't happen. The global warming alarmist movement is huge, well-funded, too big to fail. Data can't get in the way.

hit and run

However,we did miss an important Official Birthday Celebration yesterday.

Or at least you did.

I celebrated.

I just forgot to remind all of you to do so.

Clarice,Today is your Official Birthday,the Sunday before your actual birthday.This allows the peasantry to celebrate on a day off.

Posted by: PeterUK | November 30, 2008 at 05:30 PM

The actual birthday is in a couple of days.

Let me be the first,Clarice...

HAPPY BIRTHDAY!!!

Official or not,I'm celebrating all week.

clarice

You're too cute, Hit.
Thanks.

clarice

I think the media cannot hold their fingers to the dike forever and as the news filters out they will lose all credibility along with the scientists who perpetrated this fraud and the politicians who cling to it.

As for what this does to science in general in the public mind, it would be nice to think people will be less credulous about science story reporting which is often done by people who have no idea what they are writing about and like Moonbat just take someone's word for it. I fear, however, the hoax will affect even real scientists in negative ways.

Thomas Collins

Umm. The calendar readings as to the birthdays of CHACO and clarice seem to be in some dispute. Do we have the raw data, or is the data among the missing items from East Anglia? :-))

In any event, whether the climate is warming or cooling, the sea levels falling or rising, and the ice caps melting or expanding, best birthday wishes to CHACO and clarice!

boris

"CO2 absorbs IR radiation. A question worth investigating is what happens next"

Generally the vibrational energy of the CO2 molecule is increased. Molecules vibrate like strings, springs, and tuning forks.

The extra energy dissipates to surrounding gas molecules by collision which heats up the area.

Jane

Happy Birthday Clarice. I'm willing to celebrate all week too, if Hit is.

clarice

HEH--Dec 2, the actual date, is more than enough for me though it was a special treat to see PUK's post of last year. (Made me go to VIMH to listen to a few of his songs.)

Janet

Okay. If all this science climate talk isn't complicated enough...now we've got complicated birthday talk!
Or,Happy 257 Days Until Your Real Birthday,Charlie!

Charlie (Colorado)

I seriously doubt that there is over a 1km of ice covering all of Greenland.

Look it up. On average it's over 2km, and it's close to 3.5km on those great honking ice ridges in the middle.

caro
Some scientists believe that global warming may be about to push the ice sheet over a threshold where the entire ice sheet will melt in less than a few hundred years. If the entire 2.85 million km³ of ice were to melt, it would lead to a global sea level rise of 7.2 m (23.6 ft).[2]

Again, this comes from the IPCC. Can it really be trusted now? Just asking!

caro

I should have said this is from Chaco's Wiki link above.

Rick Ballard

DrJ,

Thanks for looking at the paper - I'll file it in the appropriate "too good to be true" receptacle.

Charlie,

Warwick Hughes has an interesting social network depiction re the CRU emails. You might consider a piece relating it to the social network graphic descriptions found beginning on PDF page 39 of the Wegman Report. I really don't believe that the public understands the true small size of the Climate Mafia at all, nor do I believe that they have any idea of the makeup of the Inner Circle of Jerks who seek to control the flow of information through intimidation and extortion.

DrJ

Rick,

I was being kind yesterday. On reflection it really is the nonsense that some claim. It is much worse than what is going on at CRU.

I can't believe that a pair of authors put so much time into something that either is grossly dishonest or reveals the authors to be terrible scientists. I do hope they already have tenure -- this alone would be grounds not to grant it.

Charlie (Colorado)

Okay, according to Wolfram Alpha, the Earth's mass is 1.3171x10^25 lb. So 80 million lbs is 0.000000000000000061 percent of the total.

I don't think it makes a big difference.

Rick Ballard

DrJ,

If you liked Lindzen, you'll probably enjoy Spencer. He has a very good layman's primer in the Global Warming 101 tab and his technical papers have a clarity of expression similar to Lindzen's. Whenever I read a Climate Scientologist's assertion that "there is no other explanation" I think of Lindzen and Spencer.

Charlie (Colorado)

Rick, I agree. I've got a "state of play" post coming for Thursday, and I'll include the social network into that if I don't do something separate beforehand.

Charlie (Colorado)

Again, this comes from the IPCC. Can it really be trusted now? Just asking!

Caro, I wouldn't trust them, but in this case we've recreated the approximate number from other sources, so it's probably pretty good.

Now here's a question for you: what's the total energy input needed to melt 2.85 gazillion cubic meters of ice?

(Answer: lots and lots. I wonder if this makes sense?)

Ralph

Chaco,

Good point about the total energy requirement to melt that ice. Such energy would have to come from the heat in the atmosphere. I'll try to look up the atmospheric mass of the earth, and do a "reality check" later.
I've never seen the issue addressed, but given the fact that the emails mention their lack of a decent energy balance, it's worth exploring.


Rick Ballard

Charlie,

I think it's actually "lots and lots cubed".

Just to be precise.

Charlie (Colorado)

I think it's actually "lots and lots cubed".

Nah, the cubed step factors out because of density.

vol (cm³) × density (g / cm³) × specific heat (erg/g/ kelvin) × Δtkelvin gives ergs.

DrJ

Not to be a snit, but let me be a snit: I'd bet the energy required to melt the ice is primarily latent heat (phase change), and not sensible heat (as you cite). Doesn't matter for the units of course, but we have impressionable minds here.

boris

DrJ is correct on the first two counts.

Phase change is a different formula.

Dunno about the "impressionable minds here" though. Seems a bit dismissive.

I'd quibble with the German physicists being "much worse than what is going on at CRU." DrJ has already admitted that physicists take a stricter interpretation of thermodynamics than scientists who just want a reasonable answer or approximation. The paper seemed rather over the top making assertions they don't back up (apparently) ... but much worse than CRU ???

On what planet?


bgates

80 million lbs is 0.000000000000000061 percent of the total.

Yeah, but that happens every day, so over 4 billion years it would be up to almost 0.000009%.

Ignatz

--I can't believe that a pair of authors put so much time into something that either is grossly dishonest or reveals the authors to be terrible scientists.--

There are an astounding number of numbskulls with too much time on their hands attributing every fluctuation of earth's climate to, in a manner reminiscent of Professor Irwin Corey, everything from the barycentric center of the solar system to the magnetic field of the earth to infinitesimal changes in total solar irradiance. Most of them are harmless crackpots, and there may even be a grain of truth accidentally embedded in some of their goofiness, but they do tar serious sceptics in the same way activists like Jones, Mann and Hansen tar objective climate scientists.

sbw

Charlie, the $64*10^3 question about the heat to melt the Greenland icepack is:

Where is the heat coming from?

If, for instance, as has been postulated, it is coming from below ground instead of the air, then addressing anthropomorphic global warming doesn't necessarily stop the melt. We may have a magma problem instead.

clarice

If you're struggling to explain the CRU fiasco to people who haven't been paying attention, this article may help:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/11/30/crugate_analysis/

The comments to this entry are closed.

Wilson/Plame