Steve McIntyre has discovered that the NASA's GISS temperature rankings have been wrong. The old data shows GW in the late 20th century however the actual data shows GW peaked in the 1930's.
That information relates to the USA and not to the global temperature anomaly. It has been well understood for some time now that the US was anomalously warm during the 1930s. It appears that it was equally anomalous compared to the late 20th C. However globally this shift has made little difference.
So when you say that "the 'hockey stick' curve is a lot flatter than it was. It may even be upside down." you realy need to point out that this is false given that the global impacts of these modifications are only 0.01oC.
This is just one inaccuracy amongst many. As for it only being 0.01 decC it is not, the weight of the GW period has moved to the 1930's and in fact this is also supported by tree ring data that was omitted by the IPCC. See: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1579
The (a)inaccuracy is one thing, (b)sexing up the facts another and (c)formulation of policy based on (a) and (b) something else again.
Originally posted by APL: This is just one inaccuracy amongst many. As for it only being 0.01 decC it is not, the weight of the GW period has moved to the 1930's and in fact this is also supported by tree ring data that was omitted by the IPCC. See: http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1579
The (a)inaccuracy is one thing, (b)sexing up the facts another and (c)formulation of policy based on (a) and (b) something else again.
I think you're wrong APL. Gavin Schmidt from Realclimate says:
QUOTE and the global mean temperatures are basically unaffected (since the problem was only with US temperatures which cover less than 2% of the globe). No changes in the models will happen because of this. - gavin UNQUOTE
Originally posted by APL: This is just one inaccuracy amongst many. As for it only being 0.01 decC it is not, the weight of the GW period has moved to the 1930's and in fact this is also supported by tree ring data that was omitted by the IPCC. See:
So we should believe someone who makes a living by say there is AGW? He was unlikely to come out and admit he is wrong. LOL.
The (a)inaccuracy is one thing, (b)sexing up the facts another and (c)formulation of policy based on (a) and (b) something else again.
I think you're wrong APL. Gavin Schmidt from Realclimate says:
QUOTE and the global mean temperatures are basically unaffected (since the problem was only with US temperatures which cover less than 2% of the globe). No changes in the models will happen because of this. - gavin UNQUOTE
Originally posted by CobblyWorlds: TT2, as GISS use a grid-box method for global temperature, a method that includes oceans. Dr schmidt is correct in citing 2% of total planetary area.
Sure, but isn't temperature variation larger over land masses than the oceans, making an error in the land based measurement more significant. This whole issue has opened up the temperature measurement subject in general. There are reports of measurement stations located in parking lots and near air conditioner exhausts in the US. Both of these increase the temperature measured and violate the specifications for accurate data acquisition. Then there is the question of temperature measurements in many parts of the world such as Africa, Asia and South America. Are the measurements being taken in mostly urban areas, or are they representative of the total rural and urban area. This whole incident, and the tendency of the researchers to not disclose their temperature calculation algorithms, casts much doubt on the accuracy of their findings in many peoples minds. Like it or not, the burden of regaining credibility lies with the people who are providing this data, and full disclosure at a minimum is needed.
So let's see. The country with the largest number of air conditioners, the biggest amount of economic development in the 20th Century, and probably a poorly consistently managed set of weather stations happens to have had the least amount of warming in the 20th Century.
On the other hand, the UK, with temperature records going back to the 1750's, control over much of that time being held by the armed forces who have a strong interest in good weather observations (eg. on the date of the D-Day landings), and have a large number of additional independent weather observers/nerds, happens to have experienced strong warming of about 1C in the 20th Century.
Both the two main global analyses agree in many respects, and most of the data is freely available for analysis by whoever wants to do so.
So let's see. The country with the largest number of air conditioners, the biggest amount of economic development in the 20th Century, and probably a poorly consistently managed set of weather stations happens to have had the least amount of warming in the 20th Century.
On the other hand, the UK, with temperature records going back to the 1750's, control over much of that time being held by the armed forces who have a strong interest in good weather observations (eg. on the date of the D-Day landings), and have a large number of additional independent weather observers/nerds, happens to have experienced strong warming of about 1C in the 20th Century.
Both the two main global analyses agree in many respects, and most of the data is freely available for analysis by whoever wants to do so.
Furthermore it was already known that the US mainland had not warmed as much as the global average. So any change to it will not be as proportionately substantial.
For myself, the GISS global temperature trend is stated as 0.18degC, I never bother with that, ~0.2degC is a good enough description, the "~" implying approximately. Anybody wanting certainty in this matter should go swing a yo-yo (simple newtonian mechanics).
From APL's first post here I've just noticed this: "What this means is the 'hockey stick' curve is a lot flatter than it was. It may even be upside down." See what I mean? Desperately scratching around for anything to justify a pre-determined position. Ludicrous.
So let's see. The country with the largest number of air conditioners, the biggest amount of economic development in the 20th Century, and probably a poorly consistently managed set of weather stations happens to have had the least amount of warming in the 20th Century.
On the other hand, the UK, with temperature records going back to the 1750's, control over much of that time being held by the armed forces who have a strong interest in good weather observations (eg. on the date of the D-Day landings), and have a large number of additional independent weather observers/nerds, happens to have experienced strong warming of about 1C in the 20th Century.
Both the two main global analyses agree in many respects, and most of the data is freely available for analysis by whoever wants to do so.
Furthermore it was already known that the US mainland had not warmed as much as the global average. So any change to it will not be as proportionately substantial.
For myself, the GISS global temperature trend is stated as 0.18degC, I never bother with that, ~0.2degC is a good enough description, the "~" implying approximately. Anybody wanting certainty in this matter should go swing a yo-yo (simple newtonian mechanics).
From APL's first post here I've just noticed this: "What this means is the 'hockey stick' curve is a lot flatter than it was. It may even be upside down." See what I mean? Desperately scratching around for anything to justify a pre-determined position. Ludicrous.
What's my take on all this. In brief, the AGW science is very shaky, but that doesn't mean let's do nothing. I think two major steps to alleviate the CO2 emission problem are greatly improved efficiency of automobiles and weaning ourselves off of coal use for electrical generation. Whether one is pro or anti the AGW view, there is much to gain from these 2 steps for everyone. More efficient cars means getting off dependence on foreign oil, and getting off coal means the benefits of decreasing the other bad emissions from this source. I think the automobile efficiency solution is taking place and will happen on its own. Getting off coal is going to take a change of heart from the "Green" folks. Say what you will, we are going to have to go Nuclear to do it. The "Greens" put a stop to nuclear in the 1970's, and they are going to have to rethink this and learn from the experience of France, Japan, and now Norway on how to handle this issue correctly. The new fission plants on the drawing board, and reprocessing nuclear fuel, although expensive, are the only real near term solution. In the meantime we have an interesting situation to sit back and watch. The latest (Aug 2007) issue of Scientific American gives a summary of the IPCC 2007 findings and gives a predicted scenario of warming thru the years 2020-2029. They say temps are going up at the rate of .2 deg C per decade. In the meantime many of the proponents of solar variation as the chief source of GW predict that the max warming has happened and that cooling will begin and become apparent in the 2020's. So let's go nuclear, drive those more efficient cars, sit back, and wait to see who's right.
I agree to going nuclear. I don't agree to sitting back and doing nothing though. The cooling predicted may buy us a little time, but it's not very much, given how much time we've already wasted.
It doesn't change the fact that there is currently more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any point in the past 500,000 years, and the positive feedback from that is probably going to kick in some time.
Those claiming a solar role for the recent warming (~0.6degC in the last 30 years) lost the argument years ago.
1) Stratospheric cooling - would be expected with an enhanced greenhouse effect. Stratospheric warming - would be expected with an increase in solar irradiance. The Stratosphere is observed to be cooling - CFCs are only part of the reason.
2) Diurnal Range - the difference between maximum day and minimum night temperatures. The behaviour of this suggests a radiative cause (yet solar irradiance has not increased during the recent warming). And diurnal range behaviour can be explained in terms of CO2 increases and sulphate aerosol changes. It can't be explained by solar effects. (Due to trapping of infra-red the enhanced greenhouse effect is predicted to cause a greater night time warming than during the day - hence a reduction in diurnal trend as observed).
3) Globally, ground insolation is only at around the levels recorded in the 1960s, yet global average temperature has gone up by almost 0.6degC over that period.
4) Direct observation of Total Solar Irradiance (PMOD dataset) which correlates well (~70%) with Wentzler's Kitt Peak Magnetograms shows no solar irradiance trend over the last 30 years. Observation of neutron counts shows no trend in cosmic ray flux that could explain the global warming or the global cloud cover changes of the last 30 years.
Cooling?
Given that the ~0.6degC warming of the last 30 years has happened without an increase in solar irradiance, and that the warming prior to that was nowhere near as that (even with the increase of ~2W/m^2 in solar irradiance over the first part of the 20th century).
And given that sunspot numbers peaked at about >200 in the 1950s, around 1900 they were peaking about 100, and there was a 0.2degC rise of global average temperature over that period. Then even a Maunder Minimum type event doesn't seem likely to be able to more than temper the warming trend.
So it doesn't seem that the predictions of a cooling around 2020 are likely to amount to much in terms of impact on global average temperature.
Some scientists? Would that be about 3? Landscheidt, Patterson, and Abussamatov (I think that's his name). I can't find others officially claiming the 2020 minima of the Schwabe cycle will cause cooling. NASA don't event seem interested in offering an opinion on a cooling, although they have modelled the Schwabe cycle minima.
In short we'll see, but I am not betting on a cooling, and with atmospheric persistence of CO2 measured in centuries for our current emissions, such a cooling would be a blip.
Originally posted by Lucibee: I agree to going nuclear. I don't agree to sitting back and doing nothing though. The cooling predicted may buy us a little time, but it's not very much, given how much time we've already wasted.
It doesn't change the fact that there is currently more CO2 in the atmosphere than at any point in the past 500,000 years, and the positive feedback from that is probably going to kick in some time.
Going nuclear and increasing automobile efficiency is far from doing nothing. It will take a huge effort to overcome the fear of nuclear that arose in the 70's. Here is where the AGW proponents should get to work in my opinion. So you have any other suggestions besides these 2 to reduce CO2 emissions?
And, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would have thought most of the AGW proponents on this forum think that nuclear is probably our best bet for the generation of good clean energy in the future.
Here is where the AGW proponents should get to work in my opinion.
Cool where do I sign up?
Can I have a few kilos of high level nuclear waste? Like James Lovelock I'd have it buried at the bottom of my garden and I'd generate electricity from it.
When you look at an incident like Chernobyl it's cause was procedural. A similar incident had already happened elsewhere, but the authorities hushed it up! What they should have done was disseminate the info and incorporate what was learned from it into procedures. So Chernobyl was rooted in the sort of failings we need to avoid, and in general I'm sure we do.
The Windscale fire was an earlier aberation, caused by the stupidity of using air cooling with graphite moderator.
From what I see now we have a very safe nuclear industry, the last remaining mistake - we built so many on low lying coasts.
There is no reason I can see for not funding a nuclear programme - but the market seems to have shown that a nuclear power programme will have to be at least in substantial part a public funded project. Left to it's own devices the market chooses short term and unreliable sources i.e. Russian gas.
Here is where the AGW proponents should get to work in my opinion.
Cool where do I sign up?
Can I have a few kilos of high level nuclear waste? Like James Lovelock I'd have it buried at the bottom of my garden and I'd generate electricity from it.
When you look at an incident like Chernobyl it's cause was procedural. A similar incident had already happened elsewhere, but the authorities hushed it up! What they should have done was disseminate the info and incorporate what was learned from it into procedures. So Chernobyl was rooted in the sort of failings we need to avoid, and in general I'm sure we do.
The Windscale fire was an earlier aberation, caused by the stupidity of using air cooling with graphite moderator.
From what I see now we have a very safe nuclear industry, the last remaining mistake - we built so many on low lying coasts.
There is no reason I can see for not funding a nuclear programme - but the market seems to have shown that a nuclear power programme will have to be at least in substantial part a public funded project. Left to it's own devices the market chooses short term and unreliable sources i.e. Russian gas.
I agree with most of what you say. Two comments:
1. The nuclear waste (spent fuel rods) can be reprocessed (re-enriched) and then be reused. This eliminates about all the nuclear waste, especially the high level waste. This is what France and Japan are doing right now. That is why you don't hear about burying the waste in the Alps or Mt.Fuji or anyones garden.
2. The Russian nuclear incidents occurred in their version of nuclear reactor which of all things, does not have a Containment Structure. This design is about as short sighted as one could get. Reactors in the West and Japan have a containment building which forms a second shield in case of any failure or leakage from the primary. There are second and third generation fission reactor designs that have been developed since the 70's that offer significant efficiency and safety improvements. All it will take now is the will, and promotion of governments to get this going. And yes, promotion includes funding, but how many things are more important to a nation than having an adequate, clean energy supply?
Sorry to have to disagree, but I think safety is more of an issue with my description of using nuclear waste (a description copied from James Lovelock (Revenge of Gaia - I think). In the UK we don't use waste as described - we use it to warm up the water in cooling ponds.
A lack of containment may have contributed to the massive leak of radioactivity. But a massive explosion did blow apart what containment there was. Such an explosion had narrowly been averted by operators at another plant - Soviet paranoia meant the crucial lessons from that previous near-miss were kept secret. From my reading that was arguably the cause of the accident. The operators could have averted an explosion had they been aware of the risk of it given what they were doing (the details of which escape me now).
But the base message is there: Contrary to what some denialists claim, not all of us convinced of the clear and present danger from climate change are sack-cloth luddite environmentalists (in fact at this time I think the vast majority are not like that).
Originally posted by APL: Steve McIntyre has discovered that the NASA's GISS temperature rankings have been wrong. The old data shows GW in the late 20th century however the actual data shows GW peaked in the 1930's.
Originally posted by APL: Steve McIntyre has discovered that the NASA's GISS temperature rankings have been wrong. The old data shows GW in the late 20th century however the actual data shows GW peaked in the 1930's.
Originally posted by APL: Steve McIntyre has discovered that the NASA's GISS temperature rankings have been wrong. The old data shows GW in the late 20th century however the actual data shows GW peaked in the 1930's.
