RealClimate logo


The Bore Hole

Filed under: — group @ 6 December 2004

A place for comments that would otherwise disrupt sensible conversations.

1,945 Responses to “The Bore Hole”

  1. 751
    GSW says:

    @John,

    Thanks for the response again. I understand your point, but I think many here are overstating the significance of an anomaly lasting only a few weeks, context or not. The Weather is not Climate argument.

    If you present anomalous “Warm” events as “evidence”, then you must also accept anomalous “Cold” events as contrary to the same degree. Not to do so is simply “Special Pleading.

    I’d argue that these short term anomalies are not good indicators either way. This current event is unlikely to make any perceptable difference to the Global temperature anomaly for the month, which will be unremarkable, let alone the year.

  2. 752
    GSW says:

    [Apologies SERVER ERROR the first time?]
    @John,

    Thanks for the response again. I understand your point, but I think many here are overstating the significance of an anomaly lasting only a few weeks, context or not. The Weather is not Climate argument.

    If you present anomalous “Warm” events as “evidence”, then you must also accept anomalous “Cold” events as contrary to the same degree. Not to do so is simply “Special Pleading.

    I’d argue that these short term anomalies are not good indicators either way. This current event is unlikely to make any perceptable difference to the Global temperature anomaly for the month, which will be unremarkable, let alone the year.

  3. 753
    GSW says:

    [RETRY – 2nd Time]
    @John,

    Thanks for the response again. I understand your point, but I think many here are overstating the significance of an anomaly lasting only a few weeks, context or not. The Weather is not Climate argument.

    If you present anomalous “Warm” events as “evidence”, then you must also accept anomalous “Cold” events as contrary to the same degree. Not to do so is simply “Special Pleading”.

    I’d argue that these short term anomalies are not good indicators either way. This current event is unlikely to make any perceptable difference to the Global temperature anomaly for the month, which will be unremarkable, let alone the year.

    An example of an anamolous “Cold” event in China, 2008. Special Pleading?
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2008/02/04/idUKPEK161570._CH_.242020080204

  4. 754
    Salamano says:

    Looks like the WMO is putting out the same sort of declaration of 2010 being the “Warmest year”…

    http://www.wmo.int/pages/mediacentre/press_releases/pr_943_en.html

    Looks like there’s some muddying of the waters going on, as this lends credence to the idea that previous attempts to point to 1998 as the ‘warmest year’ have validity where it shouldn’t.

    They also promo’d that the pace of global warming has ‘accelerated’, but at least here they back up to just comparing the past 40 years to the over-all trend of 130 years. Done this way, the trends for Global Warming will probably ‘accelerate’ and ‘decelerate’ as we go forward (just like it has in the past for various 40-year periods). The main take-away should be that all the 40-year trendlines point positive and indicate warming– but I guess the WMO wants to create a sense of urgency, perhaps implying that this acceleration will continue.

    In general, I think the taking of 10-year decadal samples is rather arbitrary (you don’t have to just pick 1991-2000 or 1981-1990… why not 1989-1998 and 1999-2008 ;) … There are probably ways to mess with the statistics to show “decadal” trends of deceleration even in the recent time frames. Don’t you think the WMO press release is lending legitimzation to the idea of taking decadal trend samples and highlighting ‘warmest’ years despite the propensity to criticize the same plays by sceptics?

  5. 755
    simon abingdon says:

    #549 Susan Anderson.

    You say “we make choices that are not necessarily evidential”. You’re talking about politics, Susan, not science. Evidence is the defining bedrock of all science.

    You go on to criticise reductionism. Susan, the reductionist approach has, perhaps more than any other insight, been wonderfully fruitful in illuminating how the world works in many different disciplines.

    But (there’s always a “but”) I would venture to suggest that while the climate, as the IPCC has said “is a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible” it is also because the climate is a fundamentally synergistic system.

    Susan, I’m sure you would benefit greatly from an acquaintance with the phenomenon of “synergy”. When you experience that “aha” moment of understanding what it means, you may become just a little less hubristic in your opinions. (Your final comment in #550 is perhaps a step in the right direction).

  6. 756
    Svet says:

    To be fair, I don’t think that a lot of sceptics say that “global warming has disappeared” in the last ten years. Rather, I think their argument is more that there hasn’t been a significant increase in the last ten or so years. To my layman’s eye, the graphs that you have shown appear to support that argument.

    It is frustrating how often the two sides appear to argue past each other. Are there not two facts that we can agree on?
    1) The temperature has remained high for the last ten years.
    2) The temperature has not increased significantly in the last ten years.

  7. 757

    As an archaeologist, I view climate variation from a different time scale than that discussed here. 17, 20, 50, 100 years is an eye-blink in geologic time, even in the evolutionary history of Homo sapiens. When we look at long series data, such as the Vostok ice core records, it’s clear that the current warming phase is the most recent warming in a cycle that goes back 1.5 million years. We’re about to the top of the cycle, ready for the long plunge into the next “ice age” that will bottom out in about 20,000 years.

    Coupled with Peak Oil and the incipient decline in fossil fuel resources, human contributions to Global Warming will decline within the next 100 years. If human activity has delayed the onset of the next cooling period, this will certainly come to an end within the lifetime of many people now alive. That doesn’t mean glaciers will start marching across Fargo, North Dakota in the foreseeable future. Rather, it means that Anthropogenic Global Warming will not continue indefinitely, atmospheric CO2 levels will decline as the cooling ocean absorbs the excess, and the Earth will slide gently into the next cycle of Global Cooling.

  8. 758
    Fred Staples says:

    For those who prefer facts to assertions, here are a few.

    Those trend lines obligingly calculated by EXCEL pass through the mean of the data set – the average temperature and the mid-point of the time series.

    The trend line itself is calculated by minimising the sum of the squares of the differences between the data and the trend. So, the trend line is disproportionately influenced by the data near the beginning and the end of the chosen period.

    Look at the UAH data from 1978 to date.
    The zero line is close to the mean, actually 1981 to 2010. From 1980 to 1996 (26 years) the trend is negative. From 1997 to 2002 the trend is sharply positive, and that step (more or less maintained to 2010) is entirely responsible for the overall trend, (which is significant) from 1978 to date of 1.4 degrees per century.

    So it is easy to choose a period to support or contradict AGW if you look only at the last 30 years. But radio-sonde data is available over the long term.

    Go to the HADAT chart from radio-sondes at all altitudes (if AGW exists it is a Top of the Atmosphere phenomenon). Agree that there was no warming to worry about for 50 years to 1998, that everything moves together, and that there has been no warming for the past 14 years.

    Go to the HADAT site, transfer to their “frequently used graphics” page, and look at the lower stratosphere temperatures. You will see that there has been no cooling for the last 18 years.
    The crucial fingerprint of AGW is simultaneous warming in the troposphere and cooling in the stratosphere. Can anyone see it?

  9. 759

    It certainly has been instructive, Jim, to see such self-serving arrogance, elitist hubris, and general dysfunctional intolerance on a list alleged to consist of climate “scientists.” Nothing scientific here, folks. Move along.

    No wonder the general public does not accept the AGW premise when led by the likes of these.

    Since my comments are censored on this list, those who have asked questions will have to discuss this with you, the assumed gatekeeper and protector of this group. Wouldn’t want to have them exposed to the unwashed with access to a computer, now would we? Reality might seep in.

    Evidently, some privileged few are able to read the “boreholed” (cute) posts that are hidden from public view . To those who are allowed to read this, I left academe for the very attitudes expressed so eloquently on this list. I decided to live in a world slightly more real than that hiding behind esoteric discussions on computer models calculating the number of CO2 molecules that could balance on the head of a pin. I’ve never regretted my decision.

    In this world outside the elitist halls guarded by self-serving gatekeepers, air, water and soil pollution continue apace, critical habitat for non-human species continues to be reduced by human economic growth, natural resources for all species continue to be exploited for exclusive human use.

    I wish that Global Warming (TR) were real and would take effect with a vengeance in the near future, not in some far-off mythical world inside computer programs. Perhaps a comet or CME will do the job instead. Whatever works.

    The Earth abides.

  10. 760
    PKthinks says:

    I must say this is a very good article for explaining the simple ways data cherrypicking and graphical presentation can misrepresent observations, would be very good reading for some journalists

    However I think it works both ways and good as it is there is a little self righteous hubris within

    How would you react to the following a sceptical blog say

    “I just came across an interesting way to eliminate the impression of slowing of the warming trend . A trick used to argue that the global warming is continuing at the same rate as the latter part of the 20th century, and the simple recipe is as follows:

    •Extend all of the measurements as far back into the 20th century as possible, at least 1979.

    •Plot annual averages of these 17 years to get fewer of data points and disguise true monthly averages.

    •A good idea is to show a streched plot with longer anomaly axis vertically to enhance temperatures.

    The third point used to excellent effect in the third graph (from 1979)by the way

    :-)

  11. 761
    PKthinks says:

    I must say this is a very good article for explaining the simple ways data cherrypicking and graphical presentation can misrepresent observations, would be very good reading for some journalists

    However I think it works both ways and good as it is there is a little self righteous hubris within

    How would you react to the following a sceptical blog say

    “I just came across an interesting way to eliminate the impression of slowing of the warming trend . A trick used to argue that the global warming is continuing at the same rate as the latter part of the 20th century, and the simple recipe is as follows:

    •Extend all of the measurements as far back into the 20th century as possible, at least 1979.

    •Plot annual averages of these 17 years to get fewer of data points and disguise true monthly averages.

    •A good idea is to show a streched plot with longer anomaly axis vertically to enhance temperatures.

    The third point used to excellent effect in the third graph (from 1979)by the way

    :-)

  12. 762
    GSW says:

    @Richard, Erica,

    It really depends what the original paper was trying to show. I think Ben Santer had a paper out last year to counter “It hasn’t warmed for 10yrs argument therefore the models are wrong” argument.

    My recollection of it is- Even in individual Climate model runs there are periods ~10yrs with no warming, so it is unexceptional. Santer suggests a minimum of 17yrs would be required before it could be said there was a problem with models.

    My only reason for suggesting this is the coincidental recurrence of the 17yrs figure.

  13. 763
    observer says:

    Re, Bob of #62

    You might want to read #50 again and reconsider your post.

    Observer

  14. 764
    JohnH says:

    •A good idea is to show a streched plot with longer time axis.

    Sorry, but that one’s just laughable. You think that the deniers have stretched the horizontal axis, but the standard presentation of global temperature data routinely expands the vertical axis by a factor of about 100.

    I understand why it’s done, and scientists are able to discern the difference between temperature and anomaly, but when you put graphs out for the public that show a massive spike in global temperature, do you think most of them realize that it’s a change of less than 0.5%? Wouldn’t it be more honest to occasionally show an actual temperature graph alongside the presentation of the anomalies?

  15. 765
    GlenFergus says:

    Aren’t these estimates compiled from monthly raw data? Not “hourly and daily”, and only annually in retrospect (after computing the monthlies). So what could be wrong with choosing to plot monthlies in the first instance?

    Regardless of what trend you choose to fit or how you choose to fit it, a clear advantage of plotting at the finest temporal scale available is that you get to see the inherent variability. And you avoid imposing arbitrary averaging steps like calendar years commencing on 1 January. For example, you might just manage to avoid assigning absurd significance to an extreme El Niño, the effects of which just happen to fall neatly within one calendar year.

    Here’s the post-1970 record plotted as monthlies. Have a close look at 1998…

  16. 766
    Dan H. says:

    Erica,
    The 17 years came from the Santer paper:

    http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2011/2011JD016263.shtml

    The work was performed using UAH and RSS atmospherice temperature data. Many people seem to have misapplied these results to various other temperature records. The results concluded that 17 years was the minimum time frame needed to separate a warming signal from the noise. The addition of the most recent RSS data increases that time frame to 19 years. As Richard said above, there is no magic number with which to calculate temperature trends. We must simply examine the data and determine what trends exist, and over what time frames.

  17. 767
    Chris says:

    You guys who think you can predict the climate with your silly little climate models……….you are so funny.
    How do you think you have done so far?

    It is obvious that NO-ONE understands what drives the climate. Some people can make isolated observations…sure. But has anyone reached an overview strong enough to forecast the climate. Not even close.

    :-)

  18. 768
    Frank says:

    I would say it’s a matter of clarity of definition rather than semantics.

    Global temperature increase is exactly what it says it is, and should be used without ambiguity.

    As you well know, warming is a wider concept which, for example,can result in a change of state as well as a temperature increase.
    Conflating these is just confusing and does not help win the communication battle.

  19. 769
    Oakwood says:

    Allow me to appeal to authority: the IPCC

    http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/SREX/images/uploads/SREX-SPM_FINAL.pdf

    In fact, a report which presents very similar graphs to those presented in this article.

    Observations of Exposure, Vulnerability, Climate Extremes, Impacts, and Disaster Losses

    “There is low confidence in any observed long-term (i.e., 40 years or more) increases in tropical cyclone activity…
    There is medium confidence that some regions of the world have experienced more intense and longer droughts, in particular in southern Europe and West Africa, but in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia….
    There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods at regional scales …..overall low confidence at the global scale regarding even the sign of these changes.”

    It carries on like this. Often low confidence, at most medium confidence of evidence of observed extreme weather linked to GHG emissions.

    The article therefore seems to contradict the conclusions of the IPCC.

  20. 770
    GlenFergus says:

    What was wrong with my post guys — polite, measured, sensible, cut. In any case, to reiterate, the only thing wrong with the data presentation criticised here is the short and selective record depicted. The other matters (plotting monthly data, “stretched plot with longer time axis”) are at best neutral and arguably even desireable (monthly data gives a sense of the inherent variability, which is lost by lumping as annuals).

  21. 771
    Lorne50 says:

    Wow Wow Gavin how can you let something like this on your site ? Time to move on to some place else I guess The science here is going down the drain.

  22. 772
    BeeMaya says:

    I like the probability graphs: Take the a) at mean increase – then
    we out of cold days. take b) variance increase – only 1/4 of cold
    days are left in a year. The best is for us take a)+b) and we have
    only 1/20 of cold days a year left. No problem to understand. All
    winters will shrink to 1/20 in length, lets say: previous 100
    winter days will shrink to 5 winter days a year, the mathematics
    gives the obvious prove.
    But how does this fit to “its getting cold because its getting
    warm”? Would this mean that recent cold winters DECREASE the
    mean/variance increase or the increase can be reversed by global
    warming?
    Thanks for the answer! BM

  23. 773
    GSW says:

    Roger Pielke Jr – quite impressed with SREX report.

    “Kudos to the IPCC — they have gotten the issue just about right, where “right” means that the report accurately reflects the academic literature on this topic.”

    http://rogerpielkejr.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/handy-bullshit-button-on-disasters-and.html

  24. 774
    Isotopious says:

    If one was genuinely concerned about climate change extremes and deadly weather events, and the effect on the world’s poorest people, etc, then one would have to acknowledge that it is inappropriate to attribute recent climate change (such as trends in sea level) to humans.

    The reason such an acknowledgement is required is simple, if one is wrong in ones assumptions, then any action taken on the basis of those assumptions will most likely be ineffectual.

    Take for example Cholera, an infection of the small intestine caused by the bacterium Vibrio cholera, which claims around 115,000 lives a year, and is often related to deadly weather events.

    John Snow (15 March 1813 – 16 June 1858) was an English physician and a leader in the adoption of anaesthesia and medical hygiene. He is considered to be one of the fathers of epidemiology, because of his work in tracing the source of a cholera outbreak in Soho, England, in 1854.

    Snow was a skeptic of the then dominant miasma theory that stated that diseases such as cholera or the Black Death were caused by pollution or a noxious form of “bad air”.

    It had nothing to do with “bad air’, rather, the people of Soho were drinking their own sewerage.

    If not for Snow’s skepticism, many more lives would have been lost….

    So let’s not make this dreadful mistake of assuming humans are the dominant driver of climate trends. It is much safer to simply acknowledge that it is a possibility, rather than near certainty. People who call others names simply because they are skeptical of the dominant theory of the day are no better than the arrogant twits who though it was “bad air”.

  25. 775
    Salamano says:

    Isn’t the idea that “we know the link is there”, “it stands to reason that it should be there”, “we just haven’t found the exact right way of proving it yet, but it doesn’t mean there is no link”, etc…

    …The same sorts of phrases that have come out of the mouths of folks who ‘know’ there is a link between child immunizations and various psychological/neurological/medical conditions?

    Perhaps both linkages will eventually prevail?

  26. 776
    vukcevic says:

    Here I compare two extremes of unusual similarity, each about 50 years long.
    http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/CET1690-1960.htm

  27. 777
    Adrian Smits says:

    The current temperature of the lower troposphere is at or very near its 30 year average so talking about global warming causing these recent records is nonsensical! [EDITOR’S NOTE: This barely even deserves to be in the borehole]

  28. 778
    Camburn says:

    I always figured that some scientists would finally understand that they don’t know the diff between + and -.

    It has become readily apparent through the years that the signs have been all goofed up.

    I mean, Arctic Sea Ice disappearing by 2012 as an example.

    Glad to see that there is some interest in admitting error and seeing how bright the sun is.

  29. 779
    steve jones says:

    We need to go SOLAR, WIND and ANTI-GRAVITY as soon as humanly possible!!!

    See chapter 7 in the online book,
    SAVING THE PLANET:

    http://pulsar774.tripod.com

    Forget the Deniers, we have work to do!!!

  30. 780
    Kasuha says:

    Looking at figure 5 in the pdf, it’s clear their simple model matches observations… or does it? It sure matches observations available to them at the time. But current values are actually rather different.
    That just leads me to one of two conclusions – either their model does not match reality (because it matches wrong observations), or their model is another excersise in regression, which can be interesting on the interval studied, but has very limited validity outside it.
    Now, their conclusions in figure 6 don’t really seem to match reality too well – trend for the whole 1975-2000 period is clearly wrong. In my opinion that supports the regression option.

  31. 781
    Steve says:

    about shooting yourself in the foot:
    compare Hansens model 1981 with Hansens model 1988 and CMIP5
    conclusion: models don’t work

  32. 782
    D C says:

     

    There is a simple explanation as to why temperatures are not following carbon dioxide levels.

    Seeing that a microwave oven produces low frequency radiation far more intense than carbon dioxide could ever do, and yet its radiation is not absorbed* and converted to thermal energy in ice, what makes anyone think that radiation from carbon dioxide could warm all the snow and ice covered areas of the planet?

    The mechanism by which microwave ovens heat water molecules is totally different from the excitation of atoms which happens when high frequency solar radiation warms water. The oven emits radiation at a very specific frequency which happens to resonate with natural frequencies of the water molecules which then “snap” or “flip” through 180 degrees and back again in synchronisation with the passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. The molecules in water do have the space to do this, and when they flip there is frictional heat generated by collisions of the molecules. In ice there is not sufficient room to move and flip like this.

    There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply because electrical energy was added to the system.

    But the fact that the ice was not melted demonstrates the phenomenon of “resonant scattering” in which radiation is not reflected, not transmitted and not absorbed with conversion to thermal energy. See Section 5 of my publication here.

    * Try this home experiment:

    Obtain two identical small microwave bowls which do not get warm in the microwave oven. Ensure that they both fit in the oven together. Obtain a small ice cube tray and fill it with filtered or distilled water. Pour that water into one of the bowls. Then refill the tray with similar water and place the ice cube tray in your freezer and both the bowls in your frig overnight. Next day, empty the ice cubes into the bowl without water, then place both bowls in the microwave oven and operate for about 60 to 80 seconds depending on the volume of water – try to bring the water nearly to the boil. Observe that the ice has not been affected – you might even try comparing its temperature with other ice in the freezer. To do this, pack the ice samples in a tall insulated mug and insert a meat thermometer with a metal spike.

    Why wasn’t the energy in the radiation shared equally between the water and the ice? If you pour the hot water into the bowl with the ice it will easily melt the ice within a couple of minutes, so this demonstrates that sufficient energy did enter the water.
    There’s a simple explanation as to why temperatures are not following carbon dioxide levels.

    Seeing that a microwave oven produces low frequency radiation far more intense than carbon dioxide could ever do, and yet its radiation is not absorbed* and converted to thermal energy in ice, what makes anyone think that radiation from carbon dioxide could warm all the snow and ice covered areas of the planet?

    The mechanism by which microwave ovens heat water molecules is totally different from the excitation of atoms which happens when high frequency solar radiation warms water. The oven emits radiation at a very specific frequency which happens to resonate with natural frequencies of the water molecules which then “snap” or “flip” through 180 degrees and back again in synchronisation with the passing waves of electromagnetic radiation. The molecules in water do have the space to do this, and when they flip there is frictional heat generated by collisions of the molecules. In ice there is not sufficient room to move and flip like this.

    There is no violation of the Second Law of Thermodynamics simply because electrical energy was added to the system.

    But the fact that the ice was not melted demonstrates the phenomenon of “resonant scattering” in which radiation is not reflected, not transmitted and not absorbed with conversion to thermal energy. See Section 5 of my publication here.

    * Try this home experiment:

    Obtain two identical small microwave bowls which do not get warm in the microwave oven. Ensure that they both fit in the oven together. Obtain a small ice cube tray and fill it with filtered or distilled water. Pour that water into one of the bowls. Then refill the tray with similar water and place the ice cube tray in your freezer and both the bowls in your frig overnight. Next day, empty the ice cubes into the bowl without water, then place both bowls in the microwave oven and operate for about 60 to 80 seconds depending on the volume of water – try to bring the water nearly to the boil. Observe that the ice has not been affected – you might even try comparing its temperature with other ice in the freezer. To do this, pack the ice samples in a tall insulated mug and insert a meat thermometer with a metal spike.

    Why wasn’t the energy in the radiation shared equally between the water and the ice? If you pour the hot water into the bowl with the ice it will easily melt the ice within a couple of minutes, so this demonstrates that sufficient energy did enter the water.

     

  33. 783
    Icarus says:

    Do we know enough about the climate of the past 2,000 years to say:

    1: Whether warming and cooling periods (e.g. the ‘MWP’ and ‘LIA’) were regional or global;
    2: If global, what magnitude of forcing caused them?

    Cheers…

  34. 784
    Matt Skaggs says:

    The correlation between the data and the projection is indeed compelling. Showing superiority over naive projections is one good test. A second good test would be to show that this in not merely the Jeane Dixon Effect (JDE). The key factor in rejecting the JDE would be to show that no one else in the timeframe of, say, 1975-85, predicted (a) a similar temperature rise for different reasons, or (b) a temperature flatline or decline that nevertheless accounted for CO2 rise. Only after a full rejection of the JDE can we assume that climate science was indeed already capable of making meaningful projections in 1980.

  35. 785
    Dan H. says:

    John,
    Yes the minimum temperatures have risen significantly, as opposed to the maximums. Most of the record highs in the 30s still stand. However, the extremes of the 30s were much more disruptive to plants and animals due to the lack of precipitation, which has also risen recently. When comparing recent and past weather, the temperature extremes and drought extent of the 1930s far exceeds anything we have experienced recently. This was my beef about statistics earlier; many people using starting dates in the 50s or 70s to show a particulat trend. Completely ignoring what occurred prior.
    Both the extremes now and then appear to be the result of blocking events. A lot more people died in the dust bowl.

  36. 786
    BIGTIX says:

    Others claim the weather stations were in the remote areas in the past. Consequently output data had been recorded properly. But now we know that some 90% of weather stations are located in urban areas. Therefore the related reports show warmer climate. The temperature in urban areas has been documented in the charts and reports.
    The amount of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere has risen to 390 ppm. Scientists have reached consensus in this case. Climate change has caused some scientists consider the solar activity as the main reason for global warming. They don’t believe that the fossil fuels would make the global warming.
    I think they are doing well. IPCC must alter the weather stations locations. These stations could be transferred to remote areas and outside the cities. We always do need reliable information. Besides, IPCC would be able to give reliable reports. Much of the skepticism among the scientists are because of wrong records made by the stations. I think all the parties together should never let the others to divert the issues to wrong matters. The reason is that global warming is in tipping points.
    My father was an employee of one of an American oil companies. In 1965 the family moved to the Middle East. This region is tropical. I was 16. The summer times were too hot. Its highest temperature to date was 39 degrees Celsius. Now the temperature is about 52 degrees Celsius at the same season.
    In other words, along 47 years there was 13 degrees C increase in the weather temperature. That means 27.66 degrees Celsius per 100 years. Or, the annual mean increase would be 0.2766 ° C per year. This location still is located outside the urban area.

  37. 787
    vukcevic says:

    @ Hank Roberts & Steve Fish
    I have no idea who is Pat Frank or Dunning or Kruger, and I really do not care, and have no intention of finding out.
    How the scientific process works is of no concern of mine, I look at data and if I find something unusual I draw attention to it. I’ve posted 4 or 5 links in this thread, if you find the contents disruptive to the ‘accepted collective thinking’ may be it is because science is not a religion.

  38. 788
    BIGTIX says:

    The Solar System, where we are now?
    The gravitational facts of other planets cause the ellipse of our orbit to slowly spin around the Sun. It takes about 112,000 years for the ellipse to revolve once relative to fix stars when considered together with two forms of perception add. And it takes about 21,000 years for the solstice to go from aphelion to aphelion. The dates of the perihelion and aphelion advanced each year on the Sun core an average of one day per 58 years.
    The eccentricity of Earth orbit is a measure of how round or how oval shape is. Over thousands of years the eccentricity of orbit varies as a result of gravitational attractions among the planets primarily Jupiter and Saturn. The orbital eccentricity cycles with a period of 100,000 years.
    As the eccentricity of the orbit evolves the semi major axis of orbital ellipse remains unchanged, so the length of the sidereal year remains unchanged.
    As the earth travels in its orbit the duration of seasons depends on eccentricity of the orbit.
    When the orbital eccentricity extreme, the seasons that occur on the far side of the orbit are substantially longer in duration. In addition the axial perception there’s the axial tilt. The angle of Earth rotational axis makes with its orbital plane. It’s currently about 23.4 degrees and is declining. This tilt varies from 22.1 degrees to 24.5 degrees. It makes one complete tilt and back every 41,000 years. This changing tilt is directly related to Ice Ages on Earth. The last max tilt occurred in 8700 BC and the next min tilt will happen in 11,800 AD. The inclination of earth’s orbit drives up/down relative to the present orbit having a period of about 70,000 years. Orbit also moves relative to the orbit of other planets as well. By calculating the plane of unchanged total angular momentum of the solar system we can define the overall plane called the invariable plane. It is approximately the orbital plane of Jupiter. The inclination of earth‘s orbit has a 100,000 year cycle relative to the invariable plane. This 100.000 years cycle closely matches the 100,000 pattern of ice ages.
    A year on earth is directly determined by all the various orbital motions of the earth. So if someone tells you how many years old they are, you might ask them is that sidereal, tropical or anomalous years.

  39. 789
    Peter says:

    Can you please put a prominent permanent link to the Borehole at the top of the page? It’s the only thing worth reading on this site. It’s the only thing you CAN read without getting dung on your keyboard.

    You DO know that all of your climate data revisionism is being documented all over the net, eh? keep digging! you’re going to need a deeper borehole. dumbasses.

  40. 790
    Norman says:

    Tokodave @195

    I did some research on the electrical grid disturbances. Here is a link to what one person found who actually talked with the person who set up the grid graph.

    http://www.coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2009/06/update-on-climate-chart.html

    It is a similar response when I emailed a NOAA meterologist concerning a rapid increase in wind speed reports from thunderstroms. I posted my email and his response in post @ 99.

    I will agree that the number of record highs vs record cold is increasing. But the evidence available does show the globe is warming so you should see more record highs vs lows. This does not indicate more extreme weather is on the way. Just warmer weather.

    What do you define as “very heavy precipitation” and how much of an increase is it? Is it significant enough to show a clear trend or is it highly varialbe from year to year?

  41. 791
    Norman says:

    Tokodave

    I found some more material concerning extremes.

    Here is an abstract and gives advice on being careful when making determinations about weather and climate changes.

    http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract;jsessionid=51559EEA201BD011217895C354916309.journals?fromPage=online&aid=48173

    On the NOAA page U.S. Climate Extremes Index here.

    They have exactly data fitting to this thread.

    Graph of Max temperature extremes.

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/1/01-12/

    Extremes in Minimum Temperature (this does show AGW fingerprint in my opinion).

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/2/01-12

    Extremes in PDSI

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/3/01-12

    Extremes in 1-Day Precipitation (may seem a big jump but look at the % area, it is fluctuating on a much smaller scale than the other graphs).

    http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/extremes/cei/graph/4/01-12

  42. 792
    nana says:

    It is shown that minima in the secular Gleissberg cycle of solar activity, coinciding with periods of cool climate on Earth, are consistently linked to an 83-year cycle in the change of the rotary force driving the sun’s oscillatory motion about the centre of mass of the solar system. As the future course of this cycle and its amplitudes can be computed, it can be seen that the Gleissberg minimum around 2030 and another one around 2200 will be of the Maunder minimum type accompanied by severe cooling on Earth. This forecast should prove ‘skilful’ as other long-range forecasts of climate phenomena, based on cycles in the sun’s orbital motion, have turned out correct, as for instance the prediction of the last three El Niños years before the respective event.”

  43. 793
    Norman says:

    This link graphs March 2012 vs March 1910. They really do look very similar. The question is what caused this condition.

    http://climateillinois.wordpress.com/

  44. 794
    Norman says:

    This link explains the pattern that created such a warm March for 2012 and it was a atmospheric blocking pattern. Note that the unusal warmth is not caused by CO2 redirecting LWIR into the Northeast and causing the temperatures to soar. The High pressure system moved air from the south into areas that are not so warm in March. It is a heat pump effect that causes the excessive warmth.

    The challenge would be to find any heat wave that is not the result of an atmospheric block but more bases upon random fluctuations. If there are any known I would be interested to read about it.

  45. 795
    Dan H. says:

    John,
    In this context, long term is the past 130 years. This is the period of good temperature data. Other time periods may vary, depending on the issue being discussed. Using a shortened statistical period to make a statement, does not hold much water, if similar events have occurred in a prior period. I believe that is what people here refer to as “cherry picking.”

  46. 796
    Dan H. says:

    Wili,
    Many are stating that March in the central US was an anomaly, and we are not “very rapidly moving into a bery different and far hotter state.” Globally, temperatures for March were only slightly above average (0.1C according to UAH), and are still running slightly below average for the year (-.09).

    Statistics can become quite skewed when using a small sample size and local conditions. Had you used temperatures for Europe this year, you may have reached the opposite conclusion. The same could be true for Alaska, which is omitted in your values, which only include the 48 contiguous staes.

  47. 797
    RichyRoo says:

    Seems like modeling has gone backwards when you compare this estimate to the IPCC 2007 stuff.
    So maybe its less worse than we thought?
    Lets just wait another decade and see if this model still stacks up.

  48. 798
    Norman says:

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) @197

    Did you check out the link to global droughts in my post at 178?

    One thing I am finding is that data is not that avialiable to form a real strong scientific conclusion. Fuzzy at best on global extremes. I use US data alot because it is fairly complete (at least for the last few decades). United States is a large enough area that an increase in extreme weather signal should show up if driven by AGW. United States has some very diverse climates with a lot of clashing of various air masses so it is a hot spot for extreme weather. United States has the most tornadoes of any location on earth. It has droughts, floods, supercell storms, blizzards, heat waves. It has it all. It would seem extremely unlikely and I would think unscientific to assume that somewhere out there in the rest of the world weather is drastically getting more extreme but the United States has somehow achieved a special immunity to its effects.

    Science often deals with small scale samples of an overall to determine underlying truths of the large scale. A few balls dropping is enough to determine the laws of gravity for the entire universe.

    If there is obvious and readily visible proof that weather is getting more extreme globally then links showing this should be fairly easy to find.

    What my research has found is most extreme weather is projected into the future and the result of various climate models. I would like a little empirical evidence to go with the models.

  49. 799
    Norman says:

    John P. Reisman (OSS Foundation) @197

    Here are some global extremes of recent times.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_wave

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_wave

    I would challenge you to demonstrate these events were NOT caused by atmospheric blocking and just random fluctuations that the OT is indicating as the cause. OT, as earth warms the bell curve will shift right and at the tails the odds of more severe heat waves will increase. My thinking (based upon meterologist reasoning) is that the extreme events are the product of specific atmospheric patterns and not random events. The goal should be to prove that AGW will produce not only more blocking patterns but ones that last for longer periods of time once developed. If this was undertaken I would be highly inclined to agree that AGW will lead to more weather extremes, primarily the type dealing with blocks, heat wave, flood and drought.

    I don not plan of just accepting that weather will become more extreme without good and valid justificaton for this conclusion. If that makes me unscientific then I really do not understand what view of science you have or what University you studied science at. I was taught science in a different fashion. Don’t accept anything, research it on your own, experiment if possible, use your thinking ability and most definately question what is presented. Questioning is not the same as denial, that is what I think I am failing to communicate.

  50. 800
    Dan H. says:

    Wili,
    Many are stating that March in the central US was an anomaly, and we are not “very rapidly moving into a bery different and far hotter state.” Globally, temperatures for March were only slightly above average (0.1C according to UAH), and are still running slightly below average for the year (-.09).

    Statistics can become quite skewed when using a small sample size and local conditions. Had you used temperatures for Europe this year, you may have reached the opposite conclusion. The same could be true for Alaska, which is omitted in your values, which only include the 48 contiguous states.