Latest comments:
Somewhat misleading (to saythe least)
On your info. page "Tuvalu, actual sea level rise" http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/tuvalu-actual-sea-level-rise-154.php you show a graphic from a BOM Pacific sea-level report. The graphic is headed "Actual measurement of sea level from Tuvalu:", but that's NOT what it represents. The report says: 4.2.1. Sea level anomalies The sea level anomalies (Figure 11) are derived by removing the predicted tides (including seasonal and annual cycles) and a linear trend from the sea level data. The anomalies highlight irregular events, such as the effects of the 1997/98 El Niño during which sea levels became significantly lower than normal (20-30 cm) at many of the SEAFRAME stations. The linear trend has been removed, so it illustrates nothing in the context it's presented in. Being a sceptic means telling the truth and totally avoiding misrepresentation.
Skeptics by Peter Sawyer
I was really happy to read this contribution from Peter Sawyer. I subscribed to his publication Inside News from 1987 to 1993 and I was really sorry that I could not provide him with more financial support so that he could continue his seemingly One Man Campaign against Big Brother who was alive and well in Australia at the time and still is! Does anyone know how I can contact Peter Sawyer as I have some interesting news to pass on to him - my website is http://www.capd.com.au and I can be contacted at info@capd.com.au - Regards to you both - Laurie Myers, Christian Activist, Sydney, Australia 28 January 2012
To Jorge
I agree, the Nino3,4 "corrected" temperature data would not change much in the overall picture because such changed (mistakedly) normally are year to year changes. Since Nino3,4 cannot represent all oscillations in world temperatures (Some are better represented in the Atlantic etc.) Then R koefficients etc are not an easy approach: What Koefficient would be "correct" when we know that Nino3,4 cant possibly give a 1,0 koefficient as explained? For now the match on fig. is the best argument i can think of to confirm that Nino3,4 variations are not year to year changes. But im open for suggetions! K.R. Frank
To the "FAIL" / unknown commenter
Your personal opinion was answered at JoNovas: http://joannenova.com.au/2012/01/does-the-pdo-drive-global-temps-and-is-there-a-siberian-connection/ You are welcome to answer. K.R. Frank
FAIL
FAIL http://itsnotnova.wordpress.com/2012/01/15/surprise-the-pdo-oscillates/
Figure 1
Frank: I'm wondering how Fig. 1 would look without the Nina3.4 correction. I suspect it won't look hugely different, since global temperature anomalies tend to be strongly self-correlated, month to month. Do you have correlation coefficients for all Fig. 1 dependent variables on time? I wouldn't expect strong correlation between land surface temperatures and SST's anywhere. It's just not that easy to transfer heat from gas to liquid, or vice versa. There may be something here. I'm just not sure if the "wiggle-matching" has fully revealed it yet. Keep looking. Thanks. jorge
aerosols.. more:
Here distribution of human emitted aerosols in the atmosphere: http://medias.obs-mip.fr/igac/html/book/chap4/fig.benkovitz.1.gif Especially the cooling effect should be seen in the most populated parts of the world, a smaller fraction of the Earth. These areas are mostly dominated by Urban errors i temperature stations, so the net effect of human activities in these areas is hardly a cooling effect. K.R. Frank
Human aerosols/sulphates
- Personally I find the "evidence" behind the significant cooling effect from human sulphate emissions to have zero weight, as explained here: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/sulphatesaerosols-human-emissions-21.php So why "demand" that F&R include this in their writing?? because the pro-IPCC side in the debate so strongly claims that these aerosols are important. You cant use human aerosols only when it fitsyour argument. If F&R do NOT include these, then they should write that they do not find sulphate aerosos from humans to have any cooling effect worth mentioning. Now THAT would be fun... The decline in human emitted aerosols 1980-2000 is compareble to the increase 1940-60, when they are supposed to explain the cooling. Thus, it is very relevant to mention these now, even though it would mean colder "real" temperature trend after 1980. K.R. Frank, and thanks for input.
Question... about sulfur. Have there ever been any studies done that estimate the effects of sulfur emissions?
Armagh temperature series of N. Ireland
Hi Peter Azlac and thankyou again for inputs! I have been overloaded doing the RUTI USA - quite exciting - but im slowly eating my way through all your links and inputs still. The Armagh paper is BRILLIANT, possibly the best candidate of an Irish NON-COASTAL temperature series in not too urban location, brillliant. And the Amargh series do once again confirm that these non-coastal locations generally has colder trend than Coastal, now also to be observed in Irdeland - allthough differences are not overwhelming. I will move on to the next links you ahve provided. K.R. Frank Lansner
More on zonal climate change
Re my earlier comment about global warming being zonal, we now have confirmation from Briffa in the latest ClimateGate II emails that the long run stations show both warming and cooling on a zonal basis! date: Mon Nov 13 14:36:53 2000 from: Keith Briffa subject: warming trends to: rbradley@geo.umass.edu Ray I have asked Tim to email a map (actually 5 maps) of surface temperature trends for the globe, (4 northern seasons and annual) . They are based on all grid boxes with at least 70 years of data between 1901 and 1999. They are in colour - with anything green, blue or purple showing negative trend (not robust trends but it won't matter). The bottom line is that if you show the annual map in the Synthesis paper, there are quite a few areas that have not warmed. Incidentally, the significant trends are indicated as areas enclosed in black lines, and southern Greenland and the oceans to the east of it have clearly cooled (though most boxes are NOT significant. Other cooling areas are extreme south east USA ;west central South America; east central Africa and south east China. Probably 95 per cent of the area with data has warmed though. If you just plug in all areas with at least 25 years coverage , very large areas of the map cool. I am now thinking and talking about the regional projections with Tim. Keith -- Dr. Keith Briffa, Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, United Kingdom Phone: +44-1603-592090 Fax: +44-1603-507784 Note that another email casts doubt on the significance of any of the data in the temperature series through understatement of uncertainties and inappropriate use of statistics: “Wilson: I thought I’d play around with some randomly generated time-series and see if I could ‘reconstruct’ northern hemisphere temperatures. [...] The reconstructions clearly show a ‘hockey-stick’ trend. I guess this is precisely the phenomenon that Macintyre has been going on about. …. any method that incorporates all forms of uncertainty and error will undoubtedly result in reconstructions with wider error bars than we currently have. These many be more honest, but may not be too helpful for model comparison attribution studies. We need to be careful with the wording I think.” Note that using PCA analysis Rothamsted manage to turn the raw data that shows the historical warming and cooling trends ( into a “hockey stick” graph: (http://www.worldclimatereport.com/archive/previous_issues/vol4/v4n20/cutting.htm http://www.rothamsted.bbsrc.ac.uk/aen/ecn/AirTemp.htm I know these cycles are real because I was born in the UK in 1940 and have lived through two of them! Also note that email 0010 discusses a paper by Thompson claiming that the dip in temperatures after 1940 was due to wartime measurement errors reducing the real warming by 0.3K! Though in another email Jones claims that both warming and cooling are caused by burning coal! http://www.real-science.com/phil-jones-magic-coal. There are several other emails of relevance but I will leave those to you.
peter azlac
You ask: the question is: Howcome the Earth is capable of withdrawing CO2 still faster than the humans can produce it? The answer may lie in two directions: 1. According to the analysis by Salby not all of the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide comes from anthropogenic sources but also from undersea volcanic activity involving the flow of basalt type rock and we do not have an accurate measure of this activity excepting to find that it has increased with lower sunspot activity probably linked to planetary gravitational effects. This means we cannot distinguish with any accuracy the sources of the increased atmospheric carbon dioxide, especially as the fossil fuel balance calculations ignore wood and dung burning in third world countries. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/08/05/the-emily-litella-moment-for-climate-science-and-co2/#more-44593 2. The other is that in recent years we have seen a substantial increase in crop yields - leading to some 6% increase in biomass worldwide with the associated capture of carbon in root systems, wood etc. The latest data from the Japanese Ibuki satellite that measure net carbon dioxide emissions by country supports this view as it show the NH developed countries to be net absorbers of carbon dioxide and it has been calculated that US emissions are accounted for in the measured increases in growth of their forests. An increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide to 1200 ppm is calculated to increase the growth of trees by some 85% and that of cereal and other crops by up to 35% - a fact well known by the glasshouse industry. http://www.jaxa.jp/press/2009/05/20090528_ibuki_e.html http://www.gosat.nies.go.jp/ These views are supported by the fact there was a falloff in the temperature trends in all surface and satellite series after 2002 that atmospheric carbon dioxide only correlated with MAST between 1977 and 2002: http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_October_2011.pdf http://www.climate4you.com/Text/Climate4you_October_2011.pdf
Thanks again, Peter!
- A Comment regarding how many and how few stations it takes to make a fair estimate of temperature trends: Angel and Koshover used just 43 stations from radio sondes over the NH, and they got a result pretty mch like Jones 1982, checkout fig 3.1: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part2-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-183.php So! IF you choose stations with scientific care and skill, then it does not take that many stations to come up with something useful. However, if you have an agenda, few stations are much easier to use when producing a result to fit this agenda. AND I see no scientific argument why not use ALL available stations with fair quality of data? The AGW is NOT under funded, so why not use the veru best and largest data foundation if you have nothing to hide? K.R. Frank
AGW "theory" and Pan Evaporation
Yes I am aware of the scope of your project and appreciate the effort you are putting into it. My comments are an attempt to help broaden this scope. As to the UK records for the lower half of the country, the Met Office reference I gave you lists 18 on the map but, apart from Oxford, Lowestoft and Southampton, all of which have significant UHI problems, they are all, with a couple of exceptions, short records from the 1940’s onwards and most also have UHI problems – Rothampsted is the only long run site where the population change is known and so can be corrected for. I am sure that many more records exist but not readily available; for example all of the Government agricultural experimental stations, like Rothamsted, will have detailed records but only from the 1940’s. Other long term records are probably from private estates but not readily available. This brings up another point. According to BEST a 2% sample of their records (c.a. 700 sites) gives the same result as the full 39,260 sites and I have seen elsewhere that it only takes 60 sites at random from the GHCN database to replicate the GISS, CRU and NOAA temperature series. That being so, one is tempted to suggest that they are all similar because they are measuring noise but if not it means that we only need the long term records from around the World to give an adequate picture provided they are representative of the climate zones. At the very least BEST should make this analysis before they claim that their slice, dice and weight method has validity. In this respect the late John Daly has such records at his site (http://john-daly.com/ http://john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#North%20America%20%28excl.%20Arctic%29 ) many of which show either a cooling trend or no trend during the 20th century. A check on AGW “theory” can also be made from the pan evaporation records used in the control of irrigation worldwide – since, according to this “theory”, increased atmospheric carbon dioxide will cause an increase in surface temperature (though they use MAST) and increase the evaporation of water. In fact the records show no such increase up to 1990: http://www.science.org.au/natcoms/nc-ess/documents/nc-ess-pan-evap.pdf You will be interested to compare the map of transpiration for Australia with your division of that country into areas of similar temperature change: http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/averages/climatology/evapotrans/text/evapotranspiration-paper.pdf
UK temperature series
The UK does have a network of stations run by the Met Office - the other part of HadCRUT to the CRU. You can find details here: http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/climate/uk/about/archives.html They compile series for different parts of the UK but whereas CET agrees with CRUTEM and the other UK series it does not do so for the series covering the same area: CET versus Meteo http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/09/05/cet-vs-meto-a-problem-with-temperature/ CET versus CRUTEM http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/crutem3/diagnostics/regional/CET/ Concerning my comment on the need to analyze temperature trends zonally in order to understand the implications for crop production, here is a reference to a global crop atlas that indicates the relevant crop zones: A world atlas of crops: http://dapa.ciat.cgiar.org/crop-atlas-of-the-world/ Finally I gave a reference to the work of Lubos Motl but I should have pointed out that this work does something similar to you in organizing areas with similar temperature trends through the use of Voronoi graphs. He finds most of the cooling trends to be in the oceans - which are a more realistic site to measure long term temperature trends because of their high heat capacity. These areas show some links to trends on land for NW USA and SE Australia though not for Europe, Africa and Asia, again suggesting zonal effects, at least over the time frame of these data.
Thankyou Peter Azlac!
You present a golden chest of links and info which im thrilled to check out carefully. More, I have the impression that you have understood exactly that RUTI is in an evolving state, and thus will be expanded with both more results, data availability, discussions, compares etc. Right now im doing "RUTI USA", which itself is extremely exciting, but also time consuming. Just to be 100% sure: You do know that the present article builds on data mostly shown in more details in the general RUTI project? http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php OR You can also find much more from RUTI in the LEFT column. I will comment more on all your inputs as soon as I can get a chance from RUTI USA, however one comment on the English lower stations, noncaostal that are all air bases: Yes, this is true, However, 1) What scientific reason is there fore GHCN to show all these tiny periods of data? 2) When you remove these (useless) stations, the whole central lower UK seems to have hardly any stations, perhaps ecxept CET. At least of somewhat rural character. Is this realistic? K.R. Frank Lansner, And thankyou or input - that i will check out further.
Start discussions, give comments
| General comments and discussions | 09:03:00, 12th February, 2010 |
| Read More | |