2010 Global Temps

[BethesdaWX]

Bump to Skier

Can you please respond to all the points I brought up below? It depends upon what one considers "global". Stratospheric cooling due to decreasing WV goes hand and hand with the warming tropapause. Water Vapor also induces about 95% of the GHG effect.

Thanks

Its all relative. Higher water vapor reside in higher temperatures, and a warmer world would support more water vapor, since CO2 is supposed to be dominant. CO2 warming would argue for higher water vapor levels, which we have not seen. The only thing that could lower the water-vapor levels would be a change in forcing somewhere. Also, Stratospheric water vapor plays a whole different role than that in the tropopause (I'll get to that below).

No matter how much water vapor there is, if its a cloudy day, you'll be cooler than on a sunny day, with or without high water vapor. Water vapor itself doesn't shield the earth from Sun, but clouds do. Low level clouds, being in the troposphere, would have a larger effect on SURFACE TEMPS. When those clouds decrease, the warming effect would be evident,more so that water vapor would be.

Also.....Water vapor decline in the stratosphere would definitely put on a cooling effect of the upper atmosphere, causing stratospheric cooling that we've been seeing (the upper atmosphere is very sensitive to even the slighrest changes in water vapor), which ends up altering our global patterning below. Stratospheric cooling also goes hand in hand with a warming tropopause. Its all in a balance

[nzucker]

Joe D'Aleo is not a climate scientist and could never get published in a peer reviewed journal on the subject because his articles are full of mistakes and logical fallacies.

Lomborg is an economist.

Roy Spencer is only a moderate skeptic if I remember correctly and he also has never published solid literature disputing AGW.

D'Aleo is a meteorologist which seems like the type of person we should be trusting on climate issues. Interestingly, meteorologists are most likely to be skeptical of global warming when the public is polled by profession. Hmmmm...

Lomborg is an environmental economist. He looks at how climate change should be weighed against other areas of society requiring economic attention like the AIDS crisis. So his opinion is definitely valid. He seems to think other areas deserve more attention than the current roar over climate change. Hmmmm...

Amazing how you twist any point in order to be able to refute it. You say there are no scientists who are credible skeptics, someone names one, and you go "Well, he's not really a scientist." Load of crap you put out there, sickening.

[skierinvermont]

Bump to Skier

Can you please respond to all the points I brought up below? It depends upon what one considers "global". Stratospheric cooling due to decreasing WV goes hand and hand with the warming tropapause. Water Vapor also induces about 95% of the GHG effect.

Thanks

Its all relative. Higher water vapor reside in higher temperatures, and a warmer world would support more water vapor, since CO2 is supposed to be dominant. CO2 warming would argue for higher water vapor levels, which we have not seen. The only thing that could lower the water-vapor levels would be a change in forcing somewhere. Also, Stratospheric water vapor plays a whole different role than that in the tropopause (I'll get to that below).

No matter how much water vapor there is, if its a cloudy day, you'll be cooler than on a sunny day, with or without high water vapor. Water vapor itself doesn't shield the earth from Sun, but clouds do. Low level clouds, being in the troposphere, would have a larger effect on SURFACE TEMPS. When those clouds decrease, the warming effect would be evident,more so that water vapor would be.

Also.....Water vapor decline in the stratosphere would definitely put on a cooling effect of the upper atmosphere, causing stratospheric cooling that we've been seeing (the upper atmosphere is very sensitive to even the slighrest changes in water vapor), which ends up altering our global patterning below. Stratospheric cooling also goes hand in hand with a warming tropopause. Its all in a balance

I responded once already pointing out that globally changes in WV are more important than changes in cloud cover. The difference between a sunny day and a cloudy day in NYC is a totally different phenomenon than a 1% decline or increase in cloud cover globally.

Also, I believe that your graph of WV is incorrect. From the sources I have looked at water vapor has been increasing, as expected.

[BethesdaWX]

D'Aleo is a meteorologist which seems like the type of person we should be trusting on climate issues. Interestingly, meteorologists are most likely to be skeptical of global warming when the public is polled by profession. Hmmmm...

Lomborg is an environmental economist. He looks at how climate change should be weighed against other areas of society requiring economic attention like the AIDS crisis. So his opinion is definitely valid. He seems to think other areas deserve more attention than the current roar over climate change. Hmmmm...

Amazing how you twist any point in order to be able to refute it. You say there are no scientists who are credible skeptics, someone names one, and you go "Well, he's not really a scientist." Load of crap you put out there, sickening.

Being a Meteorologist is actually much more complicated than being a climatologist. Being a Met, you understand how individual weather patterns work, QPF/temp enhancement from water/oceanic temps and how the weather follows them.

Being a MET you actually have almost all the tools to forecast climate...excpet Huge Gov't funding, taxpayer dollars, and "consensus"

[skierinvermont]

D'Aleo is a meteorologist which seems like the type of person we should be trusting on climate issues. Interestingly, meteorologists are most likely to be skeptical of global warming when the public is polled by profession. Hmmmm...

Lomborg is an environmental economist. He looks at how climate change should be weighed against other areas of society requiring economic attention like the AIDS crisis. So his opinion is definitely valid. He seems to think other areas deserve more attention than the current roar over climate change. Hmmmm...

Amazing how you twist any point in order to be able to refute it. You say there are no scientists who are credible skeptics, someone names one, and you go "Well, he's not really a scientist." Load of crap you put out there, sickening.

Lomborg is an economist.. his opinion is only worthwhile on the economics of climate change not the science and physics of climate change of which he has no training in.

Most meteorologists are not trained in the relevant physics.. their opinions are not really any more important than any other layman's. Especially not somebody like Joe D'Aleo who could not get published on climate change because his articles are full of errors and logical fallacies.

There really are no more than a couple crackpots in the field who dispute the main findings of AGW. I am not "twisting" anything. There are no credible experts who dispute AGW, exactly as I said. Lomborg is an economist with no training on the subject, and D'Aleo is a met whose articles are full of errors and mistakes and is treated as a crackpot because he is one.

[BethesdaWX]

I responded once already pointing out that globally changes in WV are more important than changes in cloud cover. The difference between a sunny day and a cloudy day in NYC is a totally different phenomenon than a 1% decline or increase in cloud cover globally.

Also, I believe that your graph of WV is incorrect. From the sources I have looked at water vapor has been increasing, as expected.

Can you post these sources? So, if one source says more watrer vapor, then that one is correct automoatically... because it supports AGW, right?

This would then support more warmnig which we have not seen at all?......Interesting.........

[skierinvermont]

Being a Meteorologist is actually much more complicated than being a climatologist. Being a Met, you understand how individual weather patterns work, QPF/temp enhancement from water/oceanic temps and how the weather follows them.

Being a MET you actually have almost all the tools to forecast climate...excpet Huge Gov't funding, taxpayer dollars, and "consensus"

Well then I welcome them to write an article and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

[skierinvermont]

Can you post these sources? So, if one source says more watrer vapor, then that one is correct automoatically... because it supports AGW, right?

This would then support more warmnig which we have not seen at all?......Interesting.........

Well the source I am looking at does show a bit of decrease in WV after 1998 (it really spiked in 1998). But overall it shows it increasing since 1980, unlike your source.

My source is the graphs on page 272 and 274.. what's yours?

http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter3.pdf

[BethesdaWX]

Well then I welcome them to write an article and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

Go ask them then. Mets don't care about public opinion like Climos Do, alot of politics involved in Climo ,so, alot of publicity, and alot of Big-Gov't backup

[BethesdaWX]

Your first one is the Global Ocean Mean....

Second one, the IPCC doesn't give their data..... and are the only ones to show the Obviously Adjusted Trends

[nzucker]

Well then I welcome them to write an article and publish it in a peer reviewed journal.

They can't....as the Climategate scandal showed, non-mainstream opinions "aren't welcome" in the peer-reviewed journal.s

[BethesdaWX]

They can't....as the Climategate scandal showed, non-mainstream opinions "aren't welcome" in the peer-reviewed journal.s

Very True. Why would they need to supress public opinion/FOI if the science is so sound? The science is almot non-existant, and the SM has been tossed literally out the window.

[skierinvermont]

They can't....as the Climategate scandal showed, non-mainstream opinions "aren't welcome" in the peer-reviewed journal.s

Not at all.. what you are referring to is a few scientists got pissed off that an article which was full of holes and has been thoroughly debunked was allowed to be published. Peer-review is supposed to prevent gaping errors like this. Any solid paper disputing AGW could easily be published.

[skierinvermont]

Your first one is the Global Ocean Mean....

Second one, the IPCC doesn't give their data..... and are the only ones to show the Obviously Adjusted Trends

Ocean's are 70% of the earth's surface area... I doubt that the global trend would be much different. I will have to do some more investigation into this and see why our two sources differ. Can you post your source?

[BethesdaWX]

Not at all.. what you are referring to is a few scientists got pissed off that an article which was full of holes and has been thoroughly debunked was allowed to be published. Peer-review is supposed to prevent gaping errors like this. Any solid paper disputing AGW could easily be published.

Then you obviously don't understand Climategate, or haven't read the emails.

How about the "1940's blip"? Ever read up on that one?

[skierinvermont]

Then you obviously don't understand Climategate, or haven't read the emails.

How about the "1940's blip"? Ever read up on that one?

Post the emails where they try and suppress the publication of skeptics. This should be relatively easy for you.

[BethesdaWX]

Ocean's are 70% of the earth's surface area... I doubt that the global trend would be much different. I will have to do some more investigation into this and see why our two sources differ. Can you post your source?

Sure

heres the collected data I use

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

[skierinvermont]

Sure

heres the collected data I use

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

That doesn't tell me the source (IE what study it comes from). It's on the internet it must be true! Nevermind, I will find it myself.

[BethesdaWX]

Post the emails where they try and suppress the publication of skeptics. This should be relatively easy for you.

Look for yourself.

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/mail/

Anyjow, here is the email on the "1940's blip"

From: Tom Wigley

To: Phil Jones

Subject: 1940s

Date: Sun, 27 Sep 2009 23:25:38 -0600

Cc: Ben Sante

<x-flowed>

Phil,

Here are some speculations on correcting SSTs to partly

explain the 1940s warming blip.

If you look at the attached plot you will see that the

land also shows the 1940s blip (as I’m sure you know).

So, if we could reduce the ocean blip by, say, 0.15 degC,

then this would be significant for the global mean — but

we’d still have to explain the land blip.

I’ve chosen 0.15 here deliberately. This still leaves an

ocean blip, and i think one needs to have some form of

ocean blip to explain the land blip (via either some common

forcing, or ocean forcing land, or vice versa, or all of

these). When you look at other blips, the land blips are

1.5 to 2 times (roughly) the ocean blips — higher sensitivity

plus thermal inertia effects. My 0.15 adjustment leaves things

consistent with this, so you can see where I am coming from.

Removing ENSO does not affect this.

It would be good to remove at least part of the 1940s blip,

but we are still left with “why the blip”.

Let me go further. If you look at NH vs SH and the aerosol

effect (qualitatively or with MAGICC) then with a reduced

ocean blip we get continuous warming in the SH, and a cooling

in the NH — just as one would expect with mainly NH aerosols.

The other interesting thing is (as Foukal et al. note — from

MAGICC) that the 1910-40 warming cannot be solar. The Sun can

get at most 10% of this with Wang et al solar, less with Foukal

solar. So this may well be NADW, as Sarah and I noted in 1987

(and also Schlesinger later). A reduced SST blip in the 1940s

makes the 1910-40 warming larger than the SH (which it

currently is not) — but not really enough.

So … why was the SH so cold around 1910? Another SST problem?

(SH/NH data also attached.)

This stuff is in a report I am writing for EPRI, so I’d

appreciate any comments you (and Ben) might have.

Tom.

</x-flowed>

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\TTHEMIS.xls”

Attachment Converted: “c:\eudora\attach\TTLVSO.XLS”

[BethesdaWX]

That doesn't tell me the source (IE what study it comes from). It's on the internet it must be true! Nevermind, I will find it myself.

The link and data are on there

[skierinvermont]

That's a pretty ridiculous email I agree Bethesda.. however not the one I asked for. I asked for emails showing evidence that skeptics were blocked from publication. The only example of this occurring in the emails I have seen is when several scientists got (righteously) pissed after a journal published a blatantly flawed article.

[skierinvermont]

The link and data or on there

Yes all I get is a picture. That doesn't tell me what source it is from. It's on the internet it must be true! Nevermind, I will find it myself.

[BethesdaWX]

That's a pretty ridiculous email I agree Bethesda.. however not the one I asked for. I asked for emails showing evidence that skeptics were blocked from publication. The only example of this occurring in the emails I have seen is when several scientists got (righteously) pissed after a journal published a blatantly flawed article.

I will get to it, but there are so many emails to go through, it will take me all night! I'll do it tomorrow morning. Believe it or not, I have better things to do than debate AGW all day

[skierinvermont]

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

For future reference Bethesda, this is not a source that you provided me. This is a list of links to images. Big difference. Properly sourcing your material means linking to the original study or agency from which the data or argument are derived.

[BethesdaWX]

http://www.leif.org/research/files.htm

For future reference Bethesda, this is not a source that you provided me. This is a list of links to images. Big difference. Properly sourcing your material means linking to the original study or agency from which the data or argument are derived.

I've done that too. I actually got the GCC data from a published PDF image, but I'm having trouble opening it in the browser. I'll try back later

[nzucker]

That's a pretty ridiculous email I agree Bethesda.. however not the one I asked for. I asked for emails showing evidence that skeptics were blocked from publication. The only example of this occurring in the emails I have seen is when several scientists got (righteously) pissed after a journal published a blatantly flawed article.

That type of email should be enough to discredit totally these people. What a joke the manipulation of data has been.

[BethesdaWX]

That type of email should be enough to discredit totally these people. What a joke the manipulation of data has been.

It definitely makes one think.... is this how our global data is being handled?

There are alot more too, if you want to look through the whole set,

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/mail/

[skierinvermont]

That type of email should be enough to discredit totally these people. What a joke the manipulation of data has been.

Right... one email from one person discredits all "these people" for all of eternity.

The email in question also is not as bad as it seems... he is not out and out asking for data manipulation. He is simply commenting on what data would most fit the AGW theory. I am not surprised that such discussions have taken place.

It is hard to understand exactly what he means by these comments as well. Clearly he is commenting on what data would best fit the AGW theory. But is he suggesting the data be manipulated? Clearly the email implies that at least up until that point the data had not been manipulated (hence the conundrum). It may be more along the lines of "this is what I would expect.." and not actually asking for manipulation. The temperature record globally hasn't changed since then and retains the "1940s blip" so clearly the manipulation did not take place.

[BethesdaWX]

Right... one email from one person in 1994 discredits all these people for all of eternity.

Depends.

There are alot of them. Not just the "famous" ones, but throughout the set, the snippets turn into something Huge, and discusting.

[nzucker]

It definitely makes one think.... is this how our global data is being handled?

There are alot more too, if you want to look through the whole set,

http://www.climate-gate.org/cru/mail/

I will try to look through these later...I'm working on a job application that's quite urgent right now so I can't spend too much time worrying about global climate change. It's freezing here in Middlebury, that's all I need to know to prepare for tonight

Right... one email from one person in 1994 discredits all these people for all of eternity.

It's a whole series of emails....add to that falsified temperature predictions, repeated errors in the GISS dataset from the same man who made the high predictions, extreme predictions about hurricanes/natural disasters that have turned out to be utter B.S. etc. Not exactly a pretty picture from those who are supposed to be scientists and guardians of the truth.