Global warming discussion III

[r-j]

I have to tell you, this is sort of flattering.

I'm going to accuse you of plagiarism.

Does this mean you have realized everything I stated is backed up by the facts? And now you are changing the debate tactic? Accusing me of getting this from some obviously very educated and knowledgable person? That's flattering.

You come up with these stories and claim to be providing evidence, but I don't believe you read this realclimate topic and then went out and did all the research on the temperature records and then posted 'your' evidence here.

If you call downloading 18 years of NWS reports, and looking at the records research, then of course I did that. But first I let computers search everything to make it quick and easy.

I want to know where you got this from.

The only source I know of is the National Weather Service. http://www.weather.gov/

Everything is available from that website for free. At least if you are in the US. For all I know other countries may not have the same freedom to the information. It should take about 15 minutes to download and look at the data.

Less if you know how to program your computer to do the grunt work for you.

 

[r-j]

I would like to state up front that I disagree with both sides in this battle.

Global mean surface temperatures rose rapidly from the 1970s, but have been relatively flat over the most recent 15 years to 2013.

http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/research/news/recent-pause-in-warming

Enjoy the pause in global warming while it lasts, because it's probably the last one we will get this century.

http://www.newscientist.com/article...will-be-nonstop-from-now-on.html#.VBQm9hawS3M

Last February Climate scientists had 8 explanations for the pause in global warming

There is no pause in AGW Arnold ...move on - gets tiresome.

There is both a pause, and there isn't one. Knowing this does not make me popular with anyone. In essence, I know both "sides" are idiots in this regard. I don't really blame anyone, it's the old school of science that has led to this terrible state of science-by-blog vs science-by-experts-only, a most unpleasant state of affairs.

 

[Mikemcc]

I have to tell you, this is sort of flattering.
Does this mean you have realized everything I stated is backed up by the facts? And now you are changing the debate tactic? Accusing me of getting this from some obviously very educated and knowledgable person? That's flattering.
If you call downloading 18 years of NWS reports, and looking at the records research, then of course I did that. But first I let computers search everything to make it quick and easy.

The only source I know of is the National Weather Service. http://www.weather.gov/

Everything is available from that website for free. At least if you are in the US. For all I know other countries may not have the same freedom to the information. It should take about 15 minutes to download and look at the data.

Less if you know how to program your computer to do the grunt work for you.

Oddly enough NWS records for Chicago show a max of 105 deg F and only three consecutive days of >100 deg F

http://www.crh.noaa.gov/lot/?n=chi_temperature_records

So far the only places that I can find on the NWS website for long term data downloads are from NCDC.

 

[DC]

People who makes a claim, (and one that is obviously woo woo).

you mean the claim you made about temperature always being adjusted to show warming, which then was debinked by your own link?
you know the post of yours that you love to ignore so much now..... you are so funny.

 

[a_unique_person]

I have to tell you, this is sort of flattering.
Does this mean you have realized everything I stated is backed up by the facts? And now you are changing the debate tactic? Accusing me of getting this from some obviously very educated and knowledgable person? That's flattering.

No, I just find it hard to believe that one person could be so consistently wrong.

 

[greybeard]

No, I just find it hard to believe that one person could be so consistently wrong.

I would also be sceptical given that this is the same poster who:

Claimed that the Skepticalscience website was making stuff up (or at least not linking to evidence) because he didn't know how to click on the right tabs. Worse he didn't even acknowledge he was wrong when shown how to use the resource.

Followed a link to the Oregon petition and declared how impressed he was that it showed 31,487 scientists sceptical of AGW when a quick google would have also shown him it contains the cast member of MASH and at least one spice girl, and many other reasons that he should have been sceptical that it is a credible source. Again no acknowledgement that he was mistaken.

Just on the last couple of pages we have him pretending to teach science to AlecCowan.

Credit where credit is due though. He does talk a good game. People who can talk a good game on the internet with nothing to back it up are ten a penny though. Fortunately there are honest decent people in this thread who do know what they are talking about. I choose to learn from them, not posters who are full of claims they can rarely if ever back up and never admit when they are wrong.

 

[greybeard]

Talking of honest decent people does anyone know what has happened to trakar? He hasn't been around for a while.

 

[aleCcowaN]

I hope you reconsider leaving Alec. You may be more abrasive these days but you are always erudite and funny as well.

Thanks for your words, but I'm sorry to say these fora serve no valid purpose and an overwhelming majority of participants only feign scepticism. That's why funny posts like r-j's can exist. It's yet another goldmine of hokum and a lot can be learnt of its content and the spirit that wrote it.

In that post r-j tries to present himself as William Tell and counter-argue with the content of his quiver, so he selects a few level-1 images taken apparently from a satellite with only five channels and in a midday orbit as he types his rant. It doesn't worry him the fact that one of the three images comes from the daily run, another one from the nightly run -I think it's obvious which ones and which is which-, and the third image involves a channel -or a narrow set of channels- and corresponds with, daily or nightly? there are 15 indications in that image that answer this question easily, besides showing non of them have direct relation with OLR.

But our poster only could emulate William Tell if the hero had had a son with the ability to pierce apples in arrows shot at random -that may well have been the case, though Schiller, Rossini and others tried to hide that and even suppressed the words little Tell said to his father after the deed "Thank God you weren't drunk today!"-.

R-j, Martin and others are creations of those who are supposed to hold the fortress against denialism. Not strangely I was discussing with a poster a few days ago: he has this "about me" in his profile, but there's no sign of numeracy or any education towards those fields of knowledge. His whole prose is consistent with such perception, so I have to come to the conclusion that the profile and the posts are all «fugayzi, fugazi, it's a whazy, it's a woozy, it's fairy dust. It doesn't exist.» (from The Wolf of Wall Street).

 

[aleCcowaN]

So, the easy and short answer. Let's recapitulate:

This went unanswered (except for the case of r-j embarrassing himself once again as could not be otherwise)

Speaking of outgoing longwave radiation, this question originally made on last December 22nd and addressed to A. Martin was left unanswered. I think that enough time has passed to allow "the normal crowd" to reply this easy and important matter.

This is the outgoing longwave radiation for yesterday, December 21st (click on for a larger version)



Look carefully the region between 75N and 90N and appreciate how about a half of it -a tiny little bit less than a half- radiated more than 180 W/m2, with regions where the figure was even above 220 W/m2.

Now look carefully at the region between 75S and 90S and appreciate how about a half of it -a not so tiny bit less than a half- radiated more that 180W/m2 with no region radiating more than 220.

Got the facts?

As yesterday was the longest day in the year -in the hemisphere that matters the most regarding the planet's energy budget- would you care to explain to me and others why did the Antarctic region radiate about the same -a bit less indeed- than its Arctic counterpart provided yesterday was a 24-hour night in the Arctic and a 24-hour day -with the sun up to 38.5° above the horizon at midday- in the Antarctic region? Where does all that heat in the North come from?

Before making any wrong speculation, take a look to the anomalies in OLR for yesterday (again, click on the image for a larger version and to see how I'm roasting here now):



so, as you can surely appreciate, the Antarctic is in "business as normal" while the Arctic is radiating way above the normal. Again, why is that so? I assure you in the end this will relate with those funny, rioting, nice polar bears you cared to mention.

I hope other eager newcomers like Jules, Arnold et al will also dive in to reply these questions. If not -in a few days- I'll invite the normal crowd to reply.

I'm gonna think other interesting questions for some other nice visitors who are eager to engage in debate, no matter who -the feistier(livelier), the merrier-.

So, last call. I'm adding the average incoming solar flux for December:

and the top-of-the-atmosphere all-sky outgoing shortwave flux also for December

in the hope some soul will make sense of the obvious, but, you know, I got sick expecting everyone to acknowledge Earth's orbit is not circular, so I don't have high hopes.

In a couple of days I'll reply this -and any comment that might arise on it- and say goodbye to this thread and topic.

So, by last December 21st the Antarctic was in a 24-hour-day and the Arctic in a 24-hour night, yet the OLR from the Arctic was slightly higher than its Antarctic counterpart. Why?

Let's start with the Antarctic: in the figure above you have it getting up to 543 W/m2 from the Sun, and reflecting into space 2/3 of that. That's what ice and snow are for. On December 21th some 6 to 6.5% of all the energy our planet gets from the Sun is bounced back into space by Antarctica and its melting surrounding banquise. That is one of the several reasons for the planet to be cooler those dates in spite of it getting its maximum incoming energy from the Sun by January 4th. From the remaining third -some 180W/m2- part of it is used to melt the very banquise, so that plus some heat coming from lower latitudes make for those 140 to 210 W/m2 of OLR from that region that date.

But what about the Arctic? It's in shadows that date, isn't it? Can its 140 to 220 W/m2 come just from lower latitudes? Well, yes but not all of it. It's obvious a great deal of it comes that way and you can see the green colour where the Atlantic Drift is transporting a lot of heat from mid latitudes. But a great deal of OLR comes from the ice itself. How come? Because ice is being created that date by freezing sea water, some 130 GT that date, according to PIOMAS. Such volume of new ice means an average of 26W/m2 for all the Arctic region, and that heat goes out by means of OLR, with peaks of 50 or more in certain regions.

So, the Antarctic is a white continent with high plateaus, the Arctic is a sea that is freezing further with heat coming from lower latitudes by sea and air. In the original question I asked you to take a look to the OLR anomalies. You can see the Antarctic as "business as usual" -as white as it used to be- while there are anomalies up to 35 W/m2 in the Arctic, a clear sign that there's less ice, that the banquise is smaller and thinner, so more heat is transmitted, and the ocean streams carry warmer waters. That, not surprisingly, is one of hundreds of pieces of evidence regarding global warming.

So, starting for its elliptical orbit, the planet is the way it is. If at least half of the participants manage such kind of information, the discussion can go on. Otherwise I don't see the point of it, so I'm signing off.

 

[Reality Check]

Oddly enough NWS records for Chicago show a max of 105 deg F and only three consecutive days of >100 deg F.

This is not surprising if you note that these are temperatures for Chicago (the city as a whole), not individual weather stations. There are 9 weather stations within 2 miles of the city.
RealClimate picked one weather station as an example of the effects that location can have on a weather station. This station was "on the top of a black roofed building" during the 1930's and 1940s and "reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F) ". Their point was that after the station was moved to O'Hare, it no longer gave these extremes.
My suspicion is that NWS knew about impact of the location of this weather station and did the usual practice of offsetting the temperature to be in step with a nearby station. But even taking an average with nearby stations would reduce the extremes.

 

[Reality Check]

There is both a pause, and there isn't one.

People who can understand climate science can understand the distinction between the "pauses", r-j:
* there is no pause in global warming because most of the heat goes into the oceans and they are still heating up.
* there is a pause in global surface warming because that is subject to many factors leading to internal variation.

 

[Reality Check]

No, you don't find anything even close to that. It's so wrong in every possible way. ....

On the one side we have climate scientists talking about the temperature records from a specific weather station.
On the other side we have you making up stuff without apparently knowing what the temperature records from that specific weather station actually are !
Thus my question from 8 September 2014: r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
A week and you still not have cited the records from that specific weather station. Can we take it that you are lying about checking the records for that weather station?

 

[Reality Check]

They are claiming the rooftop station showed higher readings, when in fact it always shows cooler temperatures than the airfields. Except for winters, where it shows higher readings at times, due to the huge lake right next to it.

And once again, r-j, you claim to have seen the records of that rooftop station from the 1930's and 1940's (the subject of the RealClimate article) so my question from 8 September 2014 applies: r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]

 

[r-j]

Oddly enough NWS records for Chicago show a max of 105 deg F and only three consecutive days of >100 deg F

It's much more odd than that. The record heat wave of 1934, which shows up in the official record four times,
June 1, 1934 102
July 22, 1934 101
July 24, 1934 105
August 8, 1934 100

isn't the entire story at all. The complete story is both educational, and tells us how horrible the heat wave actually was. And how wrong our Yahoos are. All those records are from the University station, the rooftop one that is claimed to be so inaccurate by the realclimate/berkeley experts.

The rooftop station actually recorded much lower temperatures than the Chicago Air Park, (which was renamed Midway in 1949). The airfield recorded 6 days of high temperatures over 103

July 20 to July 25 1943, the highs were
103
108
104
109
107
105
and that is the official highs from the airport official weather logs. Which are really hard to get. Because I'm actually that smart, I know how to look at them online. Even when they appear nowhere on the NOAA pages.

To sum up, the worst part of the heatwave, the airfield recorded 6 days of record high temperatures, much higher than the official station at the University. The rooftop station only had two days over a hundred.

The official station, the rooftop one at the University,
shows from July 20 to July 25 1934
90
95
101
94
105
83

Compare to the airfield to see just how wrong the experts actually are.

So far the only places that I can find on the NWS website for long term data downloads are from NCDC.

Yeah, but you won't find the daily values for all the stations, just the official ones. It's what makes it so hard to just compare the different daily values. But all the stations actually reported the daily readings of course. They just are very hard to get your hands on them.

But once you do, you really realize how woo woo the Berkeley claims actually are, and how wrong the adjustments they make are, and how bad the adjusted data is, if you are trying to use it for climate research.

Of course every last thing I said above is 100% from reliable sources.

 

[Arnold Martin]

.

Sept 15 2014

Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.

Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.

Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

.

 

[DC]

.

Sept 15 2014

Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.

Satellite imagery reveals an area of about 20 million square kilometres covered by sea ice around the Antarctic continent.

Jan Lieser from the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems Cooperative Research Centre (CRC) said the discovery was made two days ago.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-09-14/record-coverage-of-antarctic-sea-ice/5742668

.

"CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns"

 

[Arnold Martin]

"CEO of the Antarctic Climate and Ecosystems CRC, Tony Worby, said the warming atmosphere is leading to greater sea ice coverage by changing wind patterns"

.

.... and in the next sentence he said ...

“The extent of sea ice is driven by the winds around Antarctica, and
we believe that they’re increasing in strength and part of that is around
the depletion of ozone,”

http://econews.com.au/news-to-sustain-our-world/report-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-levels/

.

 

[DC]

.

.... and in the next sentence he said ...

“The extent of sea ice is driven by the winds around Antarctica, and
we believe that they’re increasing in strength and part of that is around
the depletion of ozone,”

http://econews.com.au/news-to-sustain-our-world/report-antarctic-sea-ice-reaches-record-levels/

.

So you agree that it does not contradict AGW?

 

[Reality Check]

The rooftop station actually recorded much lower temperatures than the Chicago Air Park,...

Fantasizing about a University rooftop station with records for which you have still provided a source is not good, r-j:
r-j: Please cite the source you used to check the temperature records of from 1930 to about 1950 (1930's and 1940's) for the weather station mentioned in the [URL="http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2014/03/new-daily-temperature-dataset-from-berkeley/"]RealClimate article.[/URL]
Actual climate scientists with access to the actual data say you are wrong:
New daily temperature dataset from Berkeley

For example, if you were studying the history of extreme heat in Chicago, you would find a slew of days in the late 1930s and early 1940s where the station currently at the Chicago O’Hare airport reported daily max temperatures above 45 degrees C (113 F). It turns out that, prior to the airport’s construction, the station now associated with the airport was on the top of a black roofed building closer to the city.

 

[Corsair 115]

.Scientists say the extent of Antarctic sea ice cover is at its highest level since records began.

And how's that Antarctic land ice cover doing these days? Antarctica is a land mass, after all. A continental one, in fact.