Cancun and News

By: Dr. Ricky Rood , 2:12 AM GMT on November 11, 2010

Share this Blog
2
+

Cancun and News

My recent blogs have been long analyses of climate change science and politics and communication and organization. I am delighted to have seen them propagate around, both publically and not – for example American Meteorology Society. It’s very gratifying to see others use and improve on what one does. This entry is going to be far simpler. A little about Cancun Conference of the Parties, Roger Pielke Jr.’s new book, Merapi volcano, and some news from Pakistan. OK, it’s news.

Cancun, Conference of the Parties - 16: A year ago, November 2009, I was planning a trip to the Conference of the Parties in Copenhagen. The Conference of the Parties (COP) are the annual meetings that are part of the governing body of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. Before Copenhagen there was great energy, with some notion that the Copenhagen meeting would lead to a breakthrough on international climate change agreements. Of course, that did not happen and while there was spin that the meeting was a success, most people that I know were not enthusiastic about the outcome. (The Copenhagen Accord) My take of the outcome was that there was symbolic political recognition that global warming needed to be addressed, but no substantive steps were taken to reduce the emissions of greenhouse gases. Plus, the political, economic and technological realities are that we will not see international agreement on reducing emissions anytime soon. It will be much longer before there is any real reduction of emissions. (Here are student blogs and my blogs from last year. UoM and Alma Students, Rood)

I am not going to Cancun. There is a group of students from Michigan and Alma going this year, and again, they will be blogging from the meeting on the Climate Blue website. This year my expectations are (even) lower than last year. The U.S. is further away from a national position than a year ago, and without the U.S. having a coherent voice, then there is no real way to be effective in the U.N. And, of course, there is no real international desire for a climate treaty. The press and the politicians are not playing up this meeting. There will still be thousands of people and lots of action on the ground; people will still look for opportunities and build towards the future.

The intractable nature of greenhouse gas emission reduction policy is one of the reasons that I advocate exposing and scaling up of local and commercial activities ( here).

Roger Pielke Jr: On October 25, 2010 Roger Pielke Jr spoke at the Ford School at the University of Michigan. ( Pielke Seminar) I was the commentator at the presentation. Roger was talking about material in his new book, The Climate Fix. Roger Pielke Jr. is a highly controversial, strongly stated political scientist who is expert in climate change. He is a prolific and early blogger. The gist of his talk was that what we are doing now to develop climate policy does not work, and it is time to consider the underlying reasons why and to do something different. There were those in audience who expected me to take exception to this message, but I did not. My experience over the past five years is that what we are doing on the international level to reduce carbon dioxide emissions is broken and that there are fundamental reasons why. At the center of reasons, we don’t really have any market-viable alternative energy sources and no technological ways to abate the emission of carbon dioxide. This, in combination with our imperatives for economic growth (read, energy use), makes the situation currently intractable. Combine that with the political realities, we do have to do something different. Pielke Jr. provides a more thorough, more quantitative, and controversial analysis of this situation (The Climate Fix).

Merapi Volcano: Some time ago I wrote a piece called Climate, Belief and the Volcano. In that piece I wrote about Mr. Marijan who was the spirit keeper of the volcano. In these recent eruptions Mr. Marijan died.

Pakistan: I am certain to maintain an interest in Pakistan far longer than the average disaster attention span. My youngest sister Elizabeth is Counsel General in Peshawar so I keep an eye on the news. I saw her this past week (a good thing), and it is a tough, tough place to be. Flood wise, there is progress in the Northwest, and there are efforts to plant winter wheat. Sindh, in the South, is still flooded. One thing Elizabeth pointed out to me that the flood had deposited 12 feet of silt in places, and amongst other things the land was now higher than the irrigation systems. UNICEF says they are running out of money, food, and vaccines, and a bad situation is likely to get worse. Attention to the Pakistan flood is moral imperative, a humanitarian imperative, and a security imperative. (Pakistan Flooding: A Climate Disaster, Yours truly on Chicago-based Radio Islam, Rood interview)

Here are some places that my sister has recommended for the humanitarian crisis in Pakistan. Organizations she sees.

Doctors Without Borders

The International Red Cross

MERLIN medical relief charity

U.S. State Department Recommended Charities

The mobile giving service mGive allows one to text the word "SWAT" to 50555. The text will result in a $10 donation to the UN Refugee Agency (UNHCR) Pakistan Flood Relief Effort.

Portlight Disaster Relief at Wunderground.com

UNICEF Donations



Figure 1. Despair of Pakistan’s forgotten flood victims: BBC coverage of continuing flood in Pakistan



Reader Comments

Comments will take a few seconds to appear.

Post Your Comments

Please sign in to post comments.

or Join

Not only will you be able to leave comments on this blog, but you'll also have the ability to upload and share your photos in our Wunder Photos section.

Display: 0, 50, 100, 200 Sort: Newest First - Order Posted

Viewing: 72 - 22

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Quoting DoverWxwatchter:
Freons are very powerful greenhouse gases. From 10,000 x as powerful as CO2 and up. We do not need to inject Freon gases into the arctic atmosphere or anyplace else!


Not to mention that Freon is a trade name for CFCs and thus unobtainable (unless they now label HFCs with the same name).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
How long would it take a catagory 5 hurricane parked in one spot over the Gulfstream to upwell enough cold water to restore the Northern Arctic Ice during the summer to pre-industrial revolution extents?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Heat Stress to Caribbean Corals in 2005 Worst on Record
Caribbean Reef Ecosystems May Not Survive Repeated Stress

November 15, 2010

NOAA diver with a one square meter quadrat examining a bleached reef (Montastraea) colony in St. Croix, USVI in Oct., 2005.

NOAA diver with a one square meter quadrat examining a bleached reef (Montastraea) colony in St. Croix, USVI in Oct., 2005.

High resolution (Credit: NOAA)

Coral reefs suffered record losses as a consequence of high ocean temperatures in the tropical Atlantic and Caribbean in 2005 according to the most comprehensive documentation of basin-scale bleaching to date. Collaborators from 22 countries report that more than 80 percent of surveyed corals bleached and over 40 percent of the total surveyed died, making this the most severe bleaching event ever recorded in the basin. The study appears in PLoS ONE, an international, peer-reviewed, open-access, online publication.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting JFLORIDA:
CB -JHEEEZ!

Anyway the Dengue situation in Pakistan in most assuredly worse than is being reported and state run hospitals don't seem to have the necessary supplies to deal with it:

Journalist dies of dengue fever

As per details obtained from his family members, Saud Malik was admitted to Services Hospital Lahore some five days back with symptoms of dengue fever.

The doctors asked his relatives to take the patient to some private clinic, saying the hospital had run short of necessary platelets kits.


LOL! I know just a figure of speech! Some So2 may work however.BTW just how much cooler could all that deep cold ocean water make the Earth?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
CB -JHEEEZ!

Anyway the Dengue situation in Pakistan in most assuredly worse than is being reported and state run hospitals don't seem to have the necessary supplies to deal with it:

Journalist dies of dengue fever

As per details obtained from his family members, Saud Malik was admitted to Services Hospital Lahore some five days back with symptoms of dengue fever.

The doctors asked his relatives to take the patient to some private clinic, saying the hospital had run short of necessary platelets kits.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Freons are very powerful greenhouse gases. From 10,000 x as powerful as CO2 and up. We do not need to inject Freon gases into the arctic atmosphere or anyplace else!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Would someone please give the North Arctic a shot of more freon so as to cool the Northern hemisphere some more?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
No wonder Michael!
Below 2007 again! Ouch!


Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Moscow breaks fifth record of abnormally warm November

The temperature in Moscow reached 12.3 degrees Celsius (54.14 degrees Fahrenheit) on Monday setting the fifth record for the fall of 2010, the Fobos meteorological center said.

The previous record for November 15 was set in 1923 with a temperature of 11.7C.

Moscow has set four temperature records this month, with temperatures hovering at around 12 C.

Hedgehogs and badgers living in the Russian capital, have been unable to go into hibernation this fall because of the unusually warm weather. Some species of red squirrels have not changed their coats to white yet, and hares are only halfway into their winter attire.

The head of the Russian Hydrometeorological Center, Alexander Frolov, earlier said record temperatures had also been recorded in Siberia and a number of other Russian regions.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Top priority is to cool the oceans then stop GHGs.

img src="">
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
The only way our planet cools now is through massive upwelling events and those must be man made! I just don't see us stopping GHGs.
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Here is a forecast for global surface temperatures over the next 6 months:



Of course, as you can see, it gets cooler next year and the deniers will go wild over that. On the other hand, look at the longer range (only seasonal, not single months):



It gets warmer again later next year. Of course, this model isn't very reliable over land areas and away from the tropics, but what it shows is consistent with La Nina impacts. Also, the forecast in recent days has warmed dramatically, perhaps in response to the current NH heat wave; for example, it had almost all of Asia as much colder than normal in January (similar to January 2008). Oh yeah, and this model lags ENSO WAAAYYY too long; it shows La Nina peaking next March when it may have already done so (Nino 3.4 SST; the PDF correction only applies to the graphs, not forecast maps like this, except for SST anomalies).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Cool it get it?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
img src="">
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting cyclonebuster:
NASA reports 2010 hottest year on record so far
November 11, 2010

Last month, NASA reported it was the hottest January-September on record. That followed a terrific analysis, “July 2010 — What Global Warming Looks Like,” which noted that 2010 is “likely” to be warmest year on record.

This month continues the trend of 2010 outpacing previous years, according to NASA:

Link


UPDATE: Michael in the comments directs us to this map of recent temperature anomalies from NOAA, which shows remarkably warm temperatures over much of Northern Hemisphere:

That is from a comment that I posted there, with the red map that you see below it; also, I have to keep reminding them of the lag between ENSO and temperature, as in the comment I posted there (comment 43, I post with my first name there, although there are some others who use the same name):

Re: La Nina and temperatures

It is important to remember than there is a lag between ENSO and global temperatures; if you look back at the last La Nina, most of the cooling occurred between December 2007 and January 2008 (GISS); 2007 also had warming between September and October:

September 2007: 0.50
October 2007: 0.54
November 2007: 0.47
December 2007: 0.40
January 2008: 0.17

Also, recent temperature anomalies across much of the Northern Hemisphere are astonishing; the following map shows widespread anomalies (for the last 7 days) in excess of 7 degrees C (off the top of the scale) pretty much everywhere; almost all of Asia and most of North America:

http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/ products/ Global_Monsoons/ Figures/ curr.t.weekly.figb.gif

It only shows latitudes below 60 N/S, but I’m pretty sure the Arctic is just as warm, pretty warm elsewhere too. This certainly seems to suggest that something unusual is going on; on the other hand, I have noticed that land temperatures seem to lag ENSO more than overall global temperatures; for example, 2009 was relatively cool over many land areas, including the U.S., which didn’t really warm until March or April this year.



Speaking of which, I calculate the current November anomaly at 0.57°C (based on UAH), 0.07 higher than last year's record (of course, it could drop, as it did last month, which looked like a new October record until the last 10 days).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting MichaelSTL:
Just wow... I can't imagine flooding so severe that almost half a year after it started, many places are STILL flooded - and it may be another half year before it goes down:

Up to six more months of Pakistan flood water: EU official

(AFP) – 2 days ago

ISLAMABAD — A senior EU aid official warned Friday that flood waters could linger up to another six months in Pakistan, where he said the magnitude of the crisis meant people were still going without aid.

"There is nearly water everywhere," Peter Zangl, the director general of the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO), told a news conference in Islamabad after a five-day visit to Pakistan.

Unprecedented monsoon rains triggered catastrophic flooding across Pakistan in July and August, ravaging an area roughly the size of England and affecting 21 million people in the poverty-stricken country's worst natural disaster.

Parts of Sindh province remain under water in southern Pakistan, where people are still camping on roadsides after the floods washed away their homes and swallowed up rice and wheat fields.

"The only perspective of getting rid of the water is evaporation. Depending on depth and climate conditions, this will take between two and six months," Zangl told reporters.


Fact is, something on that scale is probably connected to climate change more than just casually (warming results in more moisture and thus heavier rainfall). The last part in particular is striking - if the water can only evaporate, then that makes an even stronger case for the rains being so unprecedented - otherwise those areas would be lakes if such rains were normal. And yes, the rains were unprecedented, up to 16 feet in several days, and in an area that is already pretty wet (see previous sentence regarding standing water and lakes):

In more than 60 hours of non-stop torrential rainfall, the floods washed all that away. The north-west normally receives 500mm (20in) of rain in the month of July; over one five-day period 5,000mm fell. "It was incredible," said Sameenullah Afridi, a local United Nations official.


To much heat causes to much water vapor which can cause to much flooding! Thanks GHGs! We need to cool it just like the movie. I showed you how to cool it! Now will you all listen to me?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Just wow... I can't imagine flooding so severe that almost half a year after it started, many places are STILL flooded - and it may be another half year before it goes down:

Up to six more months of Pakistan flood water: EU official

(AFP) – 2 days ago

ISLAMABAD — A senior EU aid official warned Friday that flood waters could linger up to another six months in Pakistan, where he said the magnitude of the crisis meant people were still going without aid.

"There is nearly water everywhere," Peter Zangl, the director general of the European Commission's Humanitarian Aid and Civil Protection department (ECHO), told a news conference in Islamabad after a five-day visit to Pakistan.

Unprecedented monsoon rains triggered catastrophic flooding across Pakistan in July and August, ravaging an area roughly the size of England and affecting 21 million people in the poverty-stricken country's worst natural disaster.

Parts of Sindh province remain under water in southern Pakistan, where people are still camping on roadsides after the floods washed away their homes and swallowed up rice and wheat fields.

"The only perspective of getting rid of the water is evaporation. Depending on depth and climate conditions, this will take between two and six months," Zangl told reporters.


Fact is, something on that scale is probably connected to climate change more than just casually (warming results in more moisture and thus heavier rainfall). The last part in particular is striking - if the water can only evaporate, then that makes an even stronger case for the rains being so unprecedented - otherwise those areas would be lakes if such rains were normal. And yes, the rains were unprecedented, up to 16 feet in several days, and in an area that is already pretty wet (see previous sentence regarding standing water and lakes):

In more than 60 hours of non-stop torrential rainfall, the floods washed all that away. The north-west normally receives 500mm (20in) of rain in the month of July; over one five-day period 5,000mm fell. "It was incredible," said Sameenullah Afridi, a local United Nations official.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Warmest January to October Period on Record
Nov 11, 2010; 3:51 PM ET

The period from January 2010 to October 2010 was the warmest Jan-Oct period on record globally, according to NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS). Records go back to 1880.

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
NASA reports 2010 hottest year on record so far
November 11, 2010

Last month, NASA reported it was the hottest January-September on record. That followed a terrific analysis, “July 2010 — What Global Warming Looks Like,” which noted that 2010 is “likely” to be warmest year on record.

This month continues the trend of 2010 outpacing previous years, according to NASA:

Link
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Ouch!
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
Quoting EnergyMoron:


The Purgen project is commericially viable even without subsidies owing to the high cost of electricity in the New Jersey area.

There are a lot of venture capitalists out there who would be more than happy to fund a demonstratably potentially viable energy project.

PG&E just cancelled their wave power trial a few weeks ago...


Again Calculate the Kinetic Energy in the Gulfstream! Ya'll still don't get it yet do you?
Member Since: January 2, 2006 Posts: 127 Comments: 20459
That is a good article dover. Thankfully. I think the denialists are trying to bore us to death now.

I dont even know what they were talking about, and as interesting as roy spencer's commodore 64 in space - 60's satellite lectures are, I cant seem to get into them.


Melting ice is by no means the only sign that the earth is warming.
Thermometers on land, in the sea and aboard satellites show warming.
Heat waves, flash floods and other extreme weather events
are increasing.
Plants are
blooming earlier, coral reefs are dying and many
other changes are afoot that most climate scientists attribute to global warming.



I wish people could be clear in their posts here. Say what you are thinking, reference the studies you are disputing specifically. No individual issue invalidates all of AGW or the consensus temperature proxies or projections.

None.

There is too much out there now. Too much hard evidence.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Quoting MichaelSTL:


I wonder how he explains this:



Interesting also that it shows 2009 (the green line below 2010, but not the lowest one, looking on the right side) mostly below the record high, despite 2009 having the warmest November, this jibes with my 2009-2010 calculations which tend to underestimate 1-year trends (using channel 4, channel 5 is even worse and I also suspect that actual satellite data uses at least those two channels combined for the lower troposphere (~1000-500 mb, channel 4 is 900 mb and channel 5 is 600 mb); other AMSU channels, like channel 6, show cooling, so I suspect they correct for this in the official data to remove stratospheric cooling contamination), and as one of my previous posts shows, UAH has the largest warming trend of any dataset in the past decade.

PS: I ignored Snowlover, just in case he didn't know that yet, along with Sirmaelstrom a long time ago.


Here's the quote of Micheal's failed forecast.

[quote]
thought it was interesting that SSTs have been rebounding over the past week
[/quote]

That's called a spike, Micheal. It happens NATURALLY. It does not mean the cooling of ENSO will not continue.

Here is Micheal's personal attack on me, which accuses me of being a self asserted know-it-all, and a troll. (which ironically didn't get reported)

[quote]
Ummm, I am thinking that Snowlover123 is a multi-banned troll and probably should be ignored (he sounds very familiar). Just look at his comments, acting as it he knows everything while we and especially scientists don't know their you-know-what from a hole in the ground.
[/quote]

Micheal thinks that he can just go attack anyone, and it will be okay. No. The old saying "sticks and stones can break your bones but words can never hurt me" is WRONG! I hope that Micheal is happy- there was no other reason with that post other than to personally attack and to make me cry, which he managed to succesfully do. I hope you're happy Micheal.



And just like Al Gore, he won't debate.

And he has accused me of thinking that I'm too smart, and I know the science. Yet he thinks that he's too "cool" to debate someone. Anyone notice that?

It's funny how he accuses of Spencer of manipulating the data, when the UAH shows a warming trend for the past decade.

Another thing that indicates that this Micheal is hypocritical in him accusing me of being "smart" when in every single one of his posts, he adresses me as "he" not "you" which indicates that he thinks that he is superior over me.

This has a very clear explaination that I would think scientist Micheal should know, but he doesn't. Where is 14,000 feet located Micheal? Is that higher or lower than the surface? I think it's higher. When the oceans cool, it takes several months for the surface to cool, and the 850 mb level in the atmosphere may still be feeling the effects of an El Nino! Then it takes several more months for the 850 mb layer to cool.

And if you want to be a child, go to a playground and bully some little kids, then learn the Golden Rule.

Thanks, and have a great day.

-Snow
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yes, if you look at the past few weeks, globally-averaged SSTs were lower than they were last year on this date. However, if you don't cherry pick--or, heck, cherry pick in the other direction--you'll see that a different story is told. For instance, select 'Near surface layer (ch04)', then place a check mark in every year allowable (1998-2010), and you'll see that 2010 is warmest of all. IOW: "Oh no, snowloverl! It looks like the Global Temperatures have warmed yet again." ;-)

But better luck next time!


I like it how you say that you won't cherry pick, initially, if you only show the warm data.

The response was to Micheal who claimed that the effects of a La Nina were over, and that a rise in Global Temperatures were to be expected.

He was only slightly off though. Instead of warming, it cooled.

-Snow
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
And something about your responses gives the impression that you haven't grasped axial tilt and basic satellite mechanics... ;-)

You are aware, are you not, that if a satellite in a sun-synchronous orbit crosses the Equator at a specified time each day that it is also crossing over other parts of the globe at different times? That is, if, for instance, a satellite in descending orbit crosses the Equator at 4:30 pm, it therefore crossed--and imaged--a spot at 45 degrees north sometime before 4:30 pm, and, conversely, a spot at 45 degrees south sometime after 4:30. Meaning, of course, that regardless of when a satellite bissects a particular longitudinal point, the average temps it senses on both its descending and ascending passes are going to be quite accurate and precise in the long run, and--indeed--don't show the large bias that the non-scientific (that is, deniers/contrarians) would like it to show.

Second, your statement "Temps everywhere outside of the poles are about the same or slightly cooler at 7:30 am than at 4:30 am local time any time of year" is absolutely without merit, so your restating it is either indicative of a lack of knowledge or a surfeit of dishonesty. Case in point: in southern Florida, the air temp at 7:30 am--that is, 80-90 minutes after sunrise--on almost any day in mid-summer is considerably warmer than it is at 4:30 am. Too, your statement that temps everywhere at 4:30 pm are considerably warmer than at 7:30 pm regardless of latitude is just as baseless. Again, depends on the time of the year; using south Florida again, yes, 4:30 pm in January is almost certainly warmer than 7:30 pm...but the same can't be said with certainty when speaking about summer, when afternoon peninsular thunderstorms and a strong seabreeze can mean a slightly cooler afternoon follow by a warmer evening. Bottom line: when one engages in scientific discussions, one should avoid generalizations...especially when those generalizations are grossly exaggerated and easily dismissed. (And if that was taught to you as an absolute in Meteorology 101. your instructor may need some remedial schooling.)

At any rate, you still haven't addressed my core and original statement: that it was intellectually dishonest for the OP to refer to only the PM time shift while omitting the AM portion. That's okay; there's no excusable reason for his having done so, so I don't expect an honest answer anyway.

But better luck next time!

*sigh*

It's only dishonest if it has an effect. The few minutes N to S on a sun synchronous orbit is nothing compared to the ob time issue.

Summer in Florida? Okay, while you have a little point about seabreeze effects in the afternoon for a very small part of the total area of the tropics/subtropics, here is a representative tropics, summer diurnal cycle:


EDIT: Removed the winds and rain parts so the plot would not be too small to see time. Was an uneventful wind/rain day.

Hmm, not sure if these plots are at EDT...prolly. Satellite data, of course, would be reference in UTC and fall at a different time. Is it 4:30/7:30 in standard time or daylight savings? Looking...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
And something about your responses gives the impression that you haven't grasped axial tilt and basic satellite mechanics... ;-)

You are aware, are you not, that if a satellite in a sun-synchronous orbit crosses the Equator at a specified time each day that it is also crossing over other parts of the globe at different times? That is, if, for instance, a satellite in descending orbit crosses the Equator at 4:30 pm, it therefore crossed--and imaged--a spot at 45 degrees north sometime before 4:30 pm, and, conversely, a spot at 45 degrees south sometime after 4:30. Meaning, of course, that regardless of when a satellite bissects a particular longitudinal point, the average temps it senses on both its descending and ascending passes are going to be quite accurate and precise in the long run, and--indeed--don't show the large bias that the non-scientific (that is, deniers/contrarians) would like it to show.

Second, your statement "Temps everywhere outside of the poles are about the same or slightly cooler at 7:30 am than at 4:30 am local time any time of year" is absolutely without merit, so your restating it is either indicative of a lack of knowledge or a surfeit of dishonesty. Case in point: in southern Florida, the air temp at 7:30 am--that is, 80-90 minutes after sunrise--on almost any day in mid-summer is considerably warmer than it is at 4:30 am. Too, your statement that temps everywhere at 4:30 pm are considerably warmer than at 7:30 pm regardless of latitude is just as baseless. Again, depends on the time of the year; using south Florida again, yes, 4:30 pm in January is almost certainly warmer than 7:30 pm...but the same can't be said with certainty when speaking about summer, when afternoon peninsular thunderstorms and a strong seabreeze can mean a slightly cooler afternoon follow by a warmer evening. Bottom line: when one engages in scientific discussions, one should avoid generalizations...especially when those generalizations are grossly exaggerated and easily dismissed. (And if that was taught to you as an absolute in Meteorology 101. your instructor may need some remedial schooling.)

At any rate, you still haven't addressed my core and original statement: that it was intellectually dishonest for the OP to refer to only the PM time shift while omitting the AM portion. That's okay; there's no excusable reason for his having done so, so I don't expect an honest answer anyway.

But better luck next time!
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Speaking of these daily measurements and such, I just noticed that my local fire department apparently has a top flight ob site...including insolation.



(Note, this is NOT representative of any normal day's temp trend)
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
Quoting Neapolitan:

First, my initial response was in reference to the disinclusion of data used to make a point. It's not fair to just state "temps are now take at 4:30 pm instead of 7:30 pm", while omitting the fact that temp measurements are also now taken at 4:30 am instead of 7:30 am. I merely called the OP out on that.

Second, your statement "while temps at 4:30 pm are considerably warmer than 7:30pm, temps at 4:30 am are usually about the same, or slightly warmer than 7:30 am" is baseless when taken out of context. The time of year will dictate whether that's a true statement. So will the location of that measurement.

Third, you've provided a "representative day", that's anything but. The graphs you used are from Tampa, Florida, a city which is not only not on the Equator--the area in question-- but isn't even in the tropics.

Fourth--and perhaps most importantly--we've confined this argument to the Equator, as that's what Dr. Spencer has disingenuously done. But I suppose he and his adherents are hoping that we ignore the fact that the satellite temps cover the entire globe, so a warmer morning temp in the northern hemisphere will likely be offset by a cooler temp in the southern hemisphere, and vice versa.

The deniers are going to need to try a lot harder. I try oh so hard to keep an open and objective mind, but every time they offer another "proof" that the planet isn't warming, a cursory glance shows either dishonesty or incompetence on their part, and that serves to only drive me further onto the side of real science.
What?
Sorry. Temps everywhere outside of the poles are about the same or slightly cooler at 7:30 am than at 4:30 am local time. Any time of year. Any tropical or subtropical latitude. Either hemisphere. Temps everywhere at 4:30 pm are considerably warmer than at 7:30 pm, regardless of latitude (except poles), time of year, method of measurement, location of measurement...unless unusual dynamics are at play, such as a frontal passage.

Net effect: Warmer obs due to time drift.
Meteorology 101. (No really, the surface loses radiation and continues to cool until it begins to receive solar radiation, in earnest. Thus, the lowest temps recorded during the night, anywhere and everywhere, are usually immediately before or soon after the sun comes up.) And, yes, it really was covered in met 101...

Correct, this ob was Tampa. And yes, the diurnal pattern is fairly representative of, well, the diurnal pattern.

No idea where you are going with the warmer/cooler northern and southern hemisphere temp thing...unless you think the difference between the times only applies to one season or another...it doesn't.

Something about your responses gives the impression that you haven't grasped the sun-synchronous orbit and/or the diurnal temp cycle...
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
And how do they explain this?



Remember who Roy Spencer is - why in the world would his data show the MOST warming?! Never mind that I have no idea why the deniers keep bringing this up; how many more times do I need to show that my calculations based on 2010-2009, then adding this to the official anomaly for 2009 (UAH or RSS), results in LOWER temperatures than the official data, at least for the several months that I have calculated it (well, for October, RSS was a lot cooler than expected, but not UAH and the daily data is from UAH anyway; RSS probably uses a different source; of course, for this month, I don't even have to do this yet because every single day has been warmer than 2009, which was the warmest November on record; of course, if the warmest November were say, 1998, then I would NOT compare 2010 to 1998 but instead 2009 and then add the difference to the actual 2009 anomaly).

Sheesh... but typical of the deniers to continuously bring up stuff like this; I suppose they are now extending this to the official satellite records and thus claiming that even Spencer isn't correcting for any bias; and yes, there is a bias, but nowhere near as large as claimed, certainly not "several degrees", not enough to upset my simple calculations; the bias may also not be linear with time as the prior UAH seasonal cycle issue suggests, with the anomalous cycle appearing around 1998-2002 and then stabilizing; I believe this was based on NOAA-15 data given the time period shown; indeed, it starts right in the middle of 1998.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting atmoaggie:
??? I thought everyone with a meteorological interest knew this.

While temps at 4:30 pm are considerably warmer than 7:30pm, temps at 4:30 am are usually about the same, or slightly warmer than 7:30 am. This is everywhere outside of the poles, under normal conditions...

The offset you mention doesn't exist.

First, my initial response was in reference to the disinclusion of data used to make a point. It's not fair to just state "temps are now take at 4:30 pm instead of 7:30 pm", while omitting the fact that temp measurements are also now taken at 4:30 am instead of 7:30 am. I merely called the OP out on that.

Second, your statement "while temps at 4:30 pm are considerably warmer than 7:30pm, temps at 4:30 am are usually about the same, or slightly warmer than 7:30 am" is baseless when taken out of context. The time of year will dictate whether that's a true statement. So will the location of that measurement.

Third, you've provided a "representative day", that's anything but. The graphs you used are from Tampa, Florida, a city which is not only not on the Equator--the area in question-- but isn't even in the tropics.

Fourth--and perhaps most importantly--we've confined this argument to the Equator, as that's what Dr. Spencer has disingenuously done. But I suppose he and his adherents are hoping that we ignore the fact that the satellite temps cover the entire globe, so a warmer morning temp in the northern hemisphere will likely be offset by a cooler temp in the southern hemisphere, and vice versa.

The deniers are going to need to try a lot harder. I try oh so hard to keep an open and objective mind, but every time they offer another "proof" that the planet isn't warming, a cursory glance shows either dishonesty or incompetence on their part, and that serves to only drive me further onto the side of real science.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting cyclonebuster:
"Calculate the Kinetic Energy in the Gulfstream.


The Purgen project is commericially viable even without subsidies owing to the high cost of electricity in the New Jersey area.

There are a lot of venture capitalists out there who would be more than happy to fund a demonstratably potentially viable energy project.

PG&E just cancelled their wave power trial a few weeks ago...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting LowerCal:
Carbon geosequestration will contaminate water supply, study says - SmartPlanet
....
according to Duke University researchers, the carbon dioxide will eventually bubble up into drinking water aquifers near the Earth's surface, driving up levels of contaminants in the water more than 10 times over. ....


Yes, onshore sequestration is bad since it will mobilize faults unless something is done to relieve the pressure... here is an example of an quake caused by just a little bit of injection.

Ashtabula Ohio earthquake

The amount of CO2 that would be injected by sequestration is orders of magnitudes larger than what was injected there.

In order to eliminate the threat of earthquakes (fault movements, which would cause leaks) you would have to eliminate the pressure. So, what are you going to do? Bring 200,000 PPM salt water to surface? Or store CO2 in aquifers where you can use the water?

There is not a whole lot of potential....

With respect to sequestration here is Greenpeace's current position on sequestration technical risks

Greenpeace on carbon storage

I actually agree with their technical assessment of the dangers....

The Purgen project to which I have linked above avoids the problems (very real ones) that the Greenpeace document points out.

Just like there are fresh water aquifers on land there are lots of high permeability formations offshore that have the same salinity as sea water. Thus pressure equilization is simply a matter of releasing sea water into sea water. Events like Tordis mentioned in the Greenpeace report are thus avoided.

The CO2 once again cannot escape because it will form hydrates well below the sea floor mud line should anything unexpected happen. Once again, since the pressure will not be pumped up, it is going to be pretty hard to mobilize a fault.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
"At the center of reasons, we don’t really have any market-viable alternative energy sources and no technological ways to abate the emission of carbon dioxide."

Did some looking into Dr. Pielke and yup, good stuff. Interestingly enough I found something about Purgen on his blog:

Link

I worked on this 2 years ago looking at potential for anthropogenic earthquakes and other nasty stuff... the original plans had to be tweaked somewhat.

Dr. Schrag's insight is very profound here, by the way. You don't want aa whole lot of carbon sequestration on land (with the exception of depleted oil and gas reservoirs). Very bad things can happen. In deepwater, however, the pressure and temperatures are such that hydrates will form even if there is a leak and the leak will plug itself.

Since somebody else mentioned Bjorn Lomborg I decided to read more up on him also. Yup, another realist. I disagree with what Lomborg says about efficiency, however. Quite frankly it is wrong to waste energy, and the reasons we do not get more efficient is not because of the payouts but because of reasons like we would rather have a granite counter in the kitchen.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:
...but you failed to mention that those measurements are also taking place at 4:30 am instead of at 7:30 am. Since the daily data is averaged, it stands to reason that any bias introduced by the warmer afternoon temps would be offset by cooler morning temps.
??? I thought everyone with a meteorological interest knew this.

While temps at 4:30 pm are considerably warmer than 7:30pm, temps at 4:30 am are usually about the same, or slightly warmer than 7:30 am. This is everywhere outside of the poles, under normal conditions...

The offset you mention doesn't exist.

A representative day:
Member Since: August 16, 2007 Posts: 6 Comments: 12463
No doubt Russians are glad that it isn't summer anymore:

Temperature breaks November record in Russian capital

Temperatures in the Russian capital soared to a record high for November on Wednesday, hitting 13 degrees Celsius (55.4 degrees Fahrenheit) by midday, the Moscow Weather Office said.

Overcast skies may prevent the temperature from rising even further above the previous November high of 12.6 degrees Celsius, the service said.

Moscow's average historical temperature in November is about -1 degree Celsius (30.2 degrees Fahrenheit).

Russia was hit by a record heatwave and wildfires ravaged the country until well into October, killing dozens of people and causing a health crisis in the capital.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Neapolitan, I also want to point out that when I use the daily satellite data to make any comparisons or extrapolations (i.e. how warm the current month may be), I compare this year to last year, so any extraneous long-term bias shouldn't be a factor (I also use the official data from last year to calculate the current anomaly); this method has, if anything, underestimated temperatures for this year, at least for the past few months (I'm sure the opposite can happen as well; in fact, I grossly overestimated the RSS anomaly, which for some reason was far lower than UAH; however, for September RSS was slightly higher with UAH being far higher).

Also of note, since November 2009 was the warmest November on record, you can just compare daily anomalies with last year; as long as it is warmer, there is a good chance that November 2010 will be warmer. I also note again that if you look at the record highs on channel 5, last year was at record highs for only a few days, which seems odd; Joe Romm of Climate Progress has derided Spencer because of this and other inconsistencies, as you can see here:

Remarkably, even Roy Spencer’s much rejiggered UAH data for the lower troposphere shows September 2010 as the hottest on record — a full 0.15 C higher than September 1998.


No, it isn't just the daily satellite data (which has been altered several times, specifically channel 5; I also wonder why they haven't upgraded the others yet), but the official monthly UAH data as well:



Also, as for the current month, just look at this(!):



If I had to guess, I'd put the land temperature anomaly for the past week at least 2 degrees C above average, maybe even 3 degrees, so we'd have to have some widespread major cold anomalies soon to just offset that (well, it doesn't show areas N/S of 60 degrees, but this map shows the same for those areas, even warmer, around 5 degrees above average for both the Arctic and Antarctic).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
%u2116 32

Both Ch4 and Ch6 data have a warming bias due to use of the NOAA-15 satellite. The UAH temperature graph does not use this data. Explanation of how the UAH temperatures are derived is given here. The warming bias in Chs 4 & 6 is explained here.


Okay, for a moment lets accept at face value your premise (which is Dr. Spencer's*, as well) that only SST and Aqua Ch05 v2 data should be used. As MichaelSTL showed in comment #32, 2010 was still the warmest on 11/10 of all the years selected--again driving home my point in #16 that it's intellectually dishonest to cherry pick a single data point and use that to argue that "Global Temperatures have cooled yet again."

Lets also assume the time drift talked about by Spencer* and referred to by you is true. You only mentioned that the equatorial temperature measurements were taking place now at 4:30 pm as opposed to the 7:30 pm...but you failed to mention that those measurements are also taking place at 4:30 am instead of at 7:30 am. Since the daily data is averaged, it stands to reason that any bias introduced by the warmer afternoon temps would be offset by cooler morning temps. IOW, it seems to me that Spencer* needs to find another way to dismiss any satellite data that contradicts his anti-AGW stance. But I'm sure he'll come up with something...

At any rate--and for the last time--there was no attempt to mislead on my part by using the surface layer data in #16; I was merely using the same gun as #15 to fire back at him.

* - Your credibility on this science-related forum would probably be greatly enhanced were you to quote from or link to various unbiased scientific sources rather than a single website run by a Big Energy-, Big Tobacco-funded skeptic known for his rejection of evolution and consequent adherence to the anti-science of "Intelligent Design". Just sayin'...
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 32

Both Ch4 and Ch6 data have a warming bias due to use of the NOAA-15 satellite. The UAH temperature graph does not use this data. Explanation of how the UAH temperatures are derived is given here. The warming bias in Chs 4 & 6 is explained here.

Added: Out for the night...will check in tomorrow.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting Neapolitan:

My point was in response to #15's remark that, while global SSTs are cooler than they were last year on this date, the global near surface layer is warmer now than it's been on this date over the past 111 years or so. Therefore, even if your statement were true ("the Discover site's Ch.4 'near surface layer' temperatures carry a clear warm bias when comparing recent years to past years"), the fact that the NSL is warmer now than it was on this date last year disproves the assertion put forth in #15--that is, that "global temperatures have cooled yet again".


I wonder how he explains this:



Interesting also that it shows 2009 (the green line below 2010, but not the lowest one, looking on the right side) mostly below the record high, despite 2009 having the warmest November, this jibes with my 2009-2010 calculations which tend to underestimate 1-year trends (using channel 4, channel 5 is even worse and I also suspect that actual satellite data uses at least those two channels combined for the lower troposphere (~1000-500 mb, channel 4 is 900 mb and channel 5 is 600 mb); other AMSU channels, like channel 6, show cooling, so I suspect they correct for this in the official data to remove stratospheric cooling contamination), and as one of my previous posts shows, UAH has the largest warming trend of any dataset in the past decade.

PS: I ignored Snowlover, just in case he didn't know that yet, along with Sirmaelstrom a long time ago.
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
№ 30

Quoting Neapolitan:

My point was in response to #15's remark that, while global SSTs are cooler than they were last year on this date, the global near surface layer is warmer now than it's been on this date over the past 111 years or so. Therefore, even if your statement were true ("the Discover site's Ch.4 'near surface layer' temperatures carry a clear warm bias when comparing recent years to past years"), the fact that the NSL is warmer now than it was on this date last year disproves the assertion put forth in #15--that is, that "global temperatures have cooled yet again".


I'm not defending the remark in № 15; certainly it was made just to get a reaction. Obviously SSTs are cooler this year than last due to ENSO effects. I merely objected to the use of the NSL data; it is often cited on this board as evidence of warming without noting the bias. It is true that the warming bias between 2010 and 2009 is much less than it would be comparing 2010 and 1998.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Quoting sirmaelstrom:
№s 16,17

While sea surface temperatures are obviously decreasing due to La Niña and № 16's main purpose was to get a rise out of MichaelSTL I'm sure--I still feel compelled to point out that the Discover site's Ch.4 "near surface layer" temperatures carry a clear warm bias when comparing recent years to past years. The afternoon measurements are taken roughly three hours earlier in the afternoon than they were in 1998. As an example, the temperature at the equator is taken at 4:30pm now as opposed to 7:30pm in 1998. This is explained in detail here.

My point was in response to #15's remark that, while global SSTs are cooler than they were last year on this date, the global near surface layer is warmer now than it's been on this date over the past 111 years or so. Therefore, even if your statement were true ("the Discover site's Ch.4 'near surface layer' temperatures carry a clear warm bias when comparing recent years to past years"), the fact that the NSL is warmer now than it was on this date last year disproves the assertion put forth in #15--that is, that "global temperatures have cooled yet again".
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 24 @ JFLORIDA

Including your quotes in italics...

"But I don't read Spencer because he doesn't publish and I don't see where you pulled that graph from."


It is from Spencer's site; I guess I did forget to link it. Sorry. Here is the link. I did link to the RSS graph; if the link I supplied doesn't link directly to the graph for you, it is the first graph in Fig.6.

"They didn't use the observation period as the standard did they?"


Both the UAH and RSS graphs use the 1979-1998 average for the anomalies.

"Oh 23 is anomaly of a particular region and Spencer says 18 is actual global temp??"


Both are as global as is possible; they are unable to sample areas close to the poles. The RSS is 70°S to 82.5°N for the lower troposphere. I can't find the exact latitude range of the UAH graph right now but I suspect it is similar as the satellites used for the data overlap.

"I dont see what we are looking for. I guess the graphs do look alike a bit but they are different things and I dont see the real relation to posts 16 and 17. If you would explain what you wan to say here."


My chief point in № 18 was to clarify that the Discover site Ch.4 "near surface layer" temperatures have a warming bias. I think it is misleading to use this data to compare 2010 and 1998 temperatures. I then provided the UAH graph as a better example for the comparison.

My post in № 23 was to compare the UAH and RSS graphs, as I thought you were suggesting that the graph in № 18 was "cooked". When comparing the two graphs it is important to note that the UAH graph is stretched vertically due to different scaling of the y-axis.






Member Since: Posts: Comments:
Also, regarding the satellite data (excluding SSTs, which aren't really AMSU measurements), while only the two channels (4 and 5) closest to the surface show record temperatures right now (and in many cases, not even warmer than last year, see channel 6, which is not only cooler than last year, but near the bottom of all years since 1998, also the warmest year in that period), those channels are in the lower troposphere, below 500 mb, where warming is expected to be greatest; in fact, the front page even says that it is supposed to cool at higher altitudes:

During global warming, the atmosphere in the lower atmosphere (called the troposphere) is supposed to warm at least as fast as the surface warms, while the stratosphere above the troposphere is supposed to cool much faster than the surface warms.


Also, take a look at which dataset has shown the most warming over the past decade (yes, the same decade when global temperatures are supposedly falling!):



Of course, none of these are statistically significant because the error, up to +/-0.25°C per decade (the trend shown is per year, not decade) is larger than the trend, but there is little doubt that the long term trend is continuing (deniers have made much hype about this, claiming no warming back to 1995 or even earlier, and will likely do the same if 2010 sets a new record). Note also that the satellite data shows a larger warming/cooling from ENSO, as evidenced by 2008 and this year, and the lowest trend is, as mentioned above, from a dataset that excludes the fastest warming parts of the globe, and has even been admitted to underestimate warming from their creators. Here is a comparison of the past year (November 2009-October 2010) with the same period in 1997-1998; HADCRUT doesn't include the Arctic or Antarctic, and some other regions:



Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
A comparison and ocean and land temperatures since 1980 (I colored the land temperatures blue to make it easier to tell them apart, and in the last, I compressed the SST range to match the scale; the graphs can be created here, which also shows you just where the warming has been greatest, and thus why datasets like HADCRUT show far less warming than others):






(ignore the scale on this one, it is only used to compare the individual peaks/dips)

Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting Neapolitan:

Yes, if you look at the past few weeks, globally-averaged SSTs were lower than they were last year on this date. However, if you don't cherry pick--or, heck, cherry pick in the other direction--you'll see that a different story is told. For instance, select 'Near surface layer (ch04)', then place a check mark in every year allowable (1998-2010), and you'll see that 2010 is warmest of all. IOW: "Oh no, snowloverl! It looks like the Global Temperatures have warmed yet again." ;-)

But better luck next time!


Very funny; he seems to forget also that global temperatures are comprised of sea surface temperatures and land temperatures, with the latter warming faster. Also, I strongly suspect that while ENSO affects SSTs more directly, land temperatures have a significant lag, since if you look at the last La Nina, land temperatures remained high until SSTs reached their minimum anomaly in late 2007, then land temperatures fell (leading to the much-hyped cooling in January 2008 that supposedly erased a century of warming, when you go back to the El Nino peak in January 2007). Similarly, the recent El Nino didn't result in exceptional land warmth until later this year, well after SST anomalies peaked.

In any case, pointing out such a short trend is nonsense, and so is overplaying the impacts of ENSO; "Look! - global temperatures will be cooler next year, which means that global cooling is occurring!" (ignoring that the last La Nina year was the warmest La Nina year on record and next year has a good chance to beat 2008; conversely, El Nino years only set records because they tend to be warmer - but El Nino itself has no trend; in fact, 1983 should have been the warmest year based on this, since when all ENSO measures are taken into account, it was the strongest El Nino on record).
Member Since: February 22, 2006 Posts: 94 Comments: 32744
Quoting cyclonebuster:
Ya'll still don't get it yet do you?




???????
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
They do not look anything alike to me. Holding a piece of paper over the midpoint.

But I don't read Spencer because he doesn't publish and I don't see where you pulled that graph from.

They didn't use the observation period as the standard did they? if so thats  more indicative of acceleration in warming if thats anomaly. Or is it?? I dont know what you are looking for.

Oh 23 is anomaly of a particular region and Spencer says 18 is actual global temp??

I dont see what we are looking for.  I guess the graphs do look alike a bit but they are different things and I dont see the real relation to posts 16 and 17. If you would explain what you wan to say here.
Member Since: May 22, 2006 Posts: 188 Comments: 24743
Cont from № 22

Here is the RSS lower tropospheric temperature graph:

From here.

It seems to agree pretty well with the UAH graph. Note that the graph runs from 1979-2010. The x-scale values don't show up in the image but are in the link that follows the graph.

Added: Out for now to watch the Gator game. May check back later tonight.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:
№ 19

The RealClimate link you gave isn't referring to the UAH tropospheric graph. As far I know, there isn't a lot of controversy concerning the accuracy of the UAH temperature graph. I believe the RSS data is similar, although it's a lot harder to find ready-made graphs of that data.
Member Since: Posts: Comments:

Viewing: 72 - 22

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4Blog Index

Top of Page

About RickyRood

I'm a professor at U Michigan and lead a course on climate change problem solving. These articles often come from and contribute to the course.