My belief in Global Warming is getting shaky

[Essay]

Energy held by co2 is changed form. Or if its bounced once, it slows; it is slowed each time it bounces.

 

IR waves do not last forever and each bounce decays its effect.

 

 

...

 

So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble? How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

 

What exactly makes it more chronic than a chip of diamond, or a cell from a tree? And as I understand it, the O part dont even count in the whole OMG were boiling over stampede.

 

CO2

 

I see nothing in its chemistry that makes it more heat trapping than any other carbon based particle. ...a microscopic piece of soot....

I don't have the time to touch the UHI or station discussions, but....

Speck of soot? (...a microscopic piece of soot....)

 

Are you aware of the difference between a triatomic molecule and a diatomic molecule, in terms of its ability to absorb infrared radiation?

 

hint: (water is also tri-atomic)

 

Sorry--I'm being flip. But seriously, if you have some questions about the heat-loss mechanism, and how GHG's interfere with it, I'd be glad to try a specific explanation.

 

For instance, you are correct about the "losing energy" with each bounce,

...but you're just picturing a snapshot.

 

There is a whole sea of flux (as time advances) with higher energy wavelengths always lengthening--to get into that range where CO2 absorbs (as those higher energy quanta are making their way out toward space).

===

 

...consider also that when a CO2 radiates away some heat (back toward the surface), it is in a range where water vapor will no longer block its path (it's a wavelength that water doesn't absorb).

 

p.s. Does the above make sense? Does picturing "the video" help?

I could go into detail with your question: "So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble? How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?"

...if you need that detail first.

[freeztar]

First, I am extremely tired so it makes it more difficult to articulate.

 

Yawn...;)

 

Not exactly where I was going with this. More like you can reflect a light off a mirror to get it to your plants, but they dont grow as well.

 

Huh? What do you mean by this?

What plants? What is the angle of reflection? Etc...

 

Just like you put them outside and they do better than in the window (shaded or not) because the process of going thru the glass affects the light (which is why it is recommended you either supplement light for lizards in captivity or you convert a window to plastic to allow a better quality light through for their needs).

I'm going to have to call BS on this. How do you define "quality light"?

 

Energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It can only change forms.

Indeed!

 

Energy held by co2 is changed form. Or if its bounced once, it slows; it is slowed each time it bounces.

Well, before we go down this path, what do you mean by "energy" and "bouncing"?

The energy 'held and re-emitted' by CO2 is IR. It is re-emitted within nanoseconds of interacting with CO2. When it is re-emitted, it is still IR. Bounce it 1 billion times and it is still IR.

 

Speed is inconsequential. IR is electromagnetic radiation. It always travels at the speed of light (normally, in a vacuum). If the material absorbs some energy, then yes, you have a net loss of energy (IR) "bouncing" back.

 

IR waves do not last forever and each bounce decays its effect.

 

Ok, as long as the "bouncers" absorb some of the energy.

 

Volume 12, Issue 3 (March 1999)

Journal of Climate

 

AMS Online Journals Display Figures

 

The trend line is there but hard to see in black and white.

 

This first graphing shows regional specific humidity trends from 1961-1995.

Where?

What significance does this have on the topic?

Urban Irrigation Has Increased Phoenix Area's Rainfall | LiveScience

 

The original author which the above is based on states more study needs to be done to calculate the irrigation effect more accurately.

 

 

Here is where we part ways.

Finally! :D

 

All Current models Claim to take these sources into account. What remains to be proven is whether they have correctly assessed these other factors. I do not believe they have. I think (based on real world experience) they under account the UHI. I can tell when the wind is blowing directly over the twin cities to my house when there is a warm front north of me. I can feel the heat difference a few degrees change in the wind brings.

 

Ok, what does your thermometer tell?

 

To describe this effect a little closer. The road on the south side of my property was tarred two summers ago. My former renter worked outside and was very happy to lose the dust (after 3 full summers of dealing with it). Last summer, his first full summer of tar he commented to me about how much hotter it was. How he could feel the heat blowing off the road. He was approx 60 feet from the road and this heat was passing a tree lined fence (8 foot tall fence).

 

This is unusable info. It's a third person account from an unidentified local condition.

 

So wheres your link showing me how the UHI is accounted for (see below CRI references)?

Where's my data?!

I'm not claiming any self-collected data other than what I can find through accountable sources.

 

There seems to be a LOT of faith in the data without real accountabilty.

 

You said it!

 

Fact is the earth has been warming (generally) since the end of the last ice age.

 

Indeed.

 

Theres plenty of studies out there indicating each warming episode has been (generally) warmer than the previous one.

Studies?

 

And its not the first time skeptics have notified them of problems:

 

GISS Releases (Suspect) October 2008 Data Watts Up With That?

 

OMG!

The Russian data will most likely show that we have been cooling, right? NO!

Again (and again), you can't listen to any one source. Even without the adjusted values, it looks like this attachment:

 

http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2008/11/oct2008.gif?w=510&h=282

 

If the adjustments show a downward-trend when added, let me know. ;)

I posted this in post #1184 regarding surfacestations.org :

... as to the quality of data and questionable conditions surrounding these stations who we rely on to provide accurate temperature data. Besides the fact that large numbers of stations have been removed from the grid, I was shocked to see the majority of MN weather stations who provide data on surface temps rated a 4 or lower on the CRN Site Quality Rating.

 

2 = CRN 5 (error >= 5C)

14 = CRN 4 (error >= 2C)

4 = CRN 3 (error 1C)

4 = CRN 2

0 = CRN 1

2 had been closed in the 90s

4 not surveyed

1 needed re-survey so not included in rating list.

 

And thats just the MN stations.

 

526 have been surveyed (43.7%)

687 need to be surveyed

 

Only 13% come in with a CRN 1 or 2 rating.

19% have a CRN 3 rating

57% have a CRN 4 rating

12% have a CRN 5 rating

 

So 32% of the ratings fall between good and marginal.

69% have suspect data (in my opinion).

 

How can you be so sure the warming has been accurately documented? Even if surfacestations exaggerates the problem, half the temp variable and its still alot of stations with questionable data. How exactly are these variables handled? Why are these stations not being improved so data fixing doesnt need to be applied? Why not get quality data at the source?

 

:)

I and others have addressed this so many times in this thread that I'm bored with the claim. Read through the thread. Quick summary: Temp data stations are not the ONLY source of climate data.

 

It would be like me telling you to not worry about the swans in MN because they are doing just fine in Ontario.

 

So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble?

 

It doesn't 'convert'! It re-emits!

 

How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

I gave the best link I could find to explain it in layman's terms in my last post to you. If you'd like a quantum explanation, then I'm sure we can ask a resident physicist for a better explanation (I choose not to because chances are, you nor I would understand it ;)).

 

What exactly makes it more chronic than a chip of diamond, or a cell from a tree?

 

Check out (actually read) the wiki on greenhouse gases.

 

And as I understand it, the O part dont even count in the whole OMG were boiling over stampede.

There's a good reason for that! O2 does not absorb sunlight to any significant degree.

 

CO2

 

I see nothing in its chemistry that makes it more heat trapping than any other carbon based particle. Less than I am; being as my external temp has less variability than the average low temp of Minnesota in July. Not only that but I am heat emitting!!

 

Really? What about methane? Methane - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

See the real answer is cutting back the number of people!

In my *very* humble opinion, this is the only option for sustainability, period!

This aint CFCs. This aint dioxin. This aint R2d4. Its at best a microscopic piece of soot thats been fused to oxygen via the combustion chamber of my GEO.

At appropriately low levels, CO2 is great! Heck, lead is great, but I don't want it flooding the waterways. ;)

 

I am not saying it does. I am saying this is the analogy of the OMG were all dying crowd. So lets ban coke! BTW, what will the carbon tax be on Pepsi? That concerns me greatly.

I'm not one that identifies with that crowd. I used to be an alarmist, until I learned more about the biochemistry and climatology. Now, I just try to educate. :)

OK, Now I am just too tired to carry on. Gawd I hate working for a living!

 

I've got the cure. It's called unemployment. It's great! :) :(

[engineerdude]

There is no reliable way of knowing real-world changes in future solar irradiance. There is reliable data from 1979-current measuring irradiance by satellite. The model I linked recycles the solar data from 1989-1998.

 

 

Also, understand, there is a difference between the instantaneous change in a forcing in the model at any particular resolved spot on the model and the overall impact that has on climate. For example, the 11-year solar cycle does not show up on global surface temperature yearly average graph. The model considers both.

 

 

I think what you're trying to say is that climate models do not consider daily changes in solar irradiance *at all*. In other words, the model thinks Greenland in February has the same irradiance as Argentina in August. This is very far from true. Daily changes in irradiance are considered. Models then consider how that change interacts with changing clouds and ozone and a hundred other things for each interval of time at each interval of space.

 

Is this not your understanding?

 

~modest

 

Hehe no, that is not what I am attempting to get across at all.

 

Based on data from NASA's Goddard institute, the sun is currently putting out more energy than it has in the past 2000 years. In the year 2000, the last year I can find NASA Goddard data, the earth was receiving daily solar irradiance of 1367.5 W/m2. In 1800, the sun was sending us 1365.5 W/m2, and the amount of energy reaching earth steadily increased over the next 200 years to our current extremely high amounts of sunlight.

 

A link to charts showing this information is here, on page 24 of the document:

http://www.yale.edu/yibs/Solar%20Variability%20Program/2008_Yale_solar_Shindell.pdf

 

This is the information that is not reflected in the climate models - the fact that we are simply getting more energy sent to the surface of our planet than ever before. The NASA Goddard climate models talk of "solar forcings" and such. I am not a climate modeler, and I have no way to decipher the code that NASA used for their models, and there seems to be varying opinions of exactly what a "forcing" is.

 

But I can look at their inputs. And I cannot find anywhere that NASA Goddard models are taking into account the fact that the sun is brighter than ever before in recorded history.

 

Can you find anything about this?

[Cedars]

Huh? What do you mean by this?

What plants? What is the angle of reflection? Etc...

 

I'm going to have to call BS on this. How do you define "quality light"?

 

My BS?

 

What is the angle of reflection of IR when interacting with 38-39 pieces in 100,000 (simplify that to the limited range of IR that CO2 concerns -minus the portion the 95% of all green house gases, H20 where H2O absorb capabilities overlap that small band of IR that is the great concern of the AGW crowd) ?

 

 

Well, before we go down this path, what do you mean by "energy" and "bouncing"?

The energy 'held and re-emitted' by CO2 is IR. It is re-emitted within nanoseconds of interacting with CO2. When it is re-emitted, it is still IR. Bounce it 1 billion times and it is still IR.

 

Speed is inconsequential. IR is electromagnetic radiation. It always travels at the speed of light (normally, in a vacuum). If the material absorbs some energy, then yes, you have a net loss of energy (IR) "bouncing" back.

 

Simply put the IR does not last significantly longer (nanoseconds) due to extra CO2. It is bounced like balls on a pool table until it hits the padded side, whether H20 molecules, leaves on a tree, etc where the energy is converted into something else. Or bounces outward into the vacuum of space.

 

I cant do the math. You cant do the math. We rely on other people to do the math.

 

Einstein Theory of Relativity (from wiki):

 

Current status

 

General relativity has emerged as a highly successful model of gravitation and cosmology, which has so far passed every unambiguous observational and experimental test. Even so, there are strong indications the theory is incomplete.

 

This first graphing shows regional specific humidity trends from 1961-1995.

Where?

What significance does this have on the topic?

Now your just being flippant. H20 is the most significant GHG. Its presence in the atmosphere is increasing at a much greater rate than co2 (proportionately). White wash it all you want with "well it falls as rain/snow in n days". It, as a single element is cycled, true. But its overall value as a GHG remains in the atmosphere in increasing levels.

 

And H20 is much more effective as a ghg than co2. Co2 is VERY limited on its ability to act as a Ghg. And its not like Co2 is out there racing around to beat the h2o molecules to catch/reflect all the IR it can.

 

This is unusable info. It's a third person account from an unidentified local condition.

I was not suggesting using this data in the GISS compilations of temperature. I am suggesting the UHI effect is greater than they can possibly wash out of their data, with any degree of confidence.

 

Where's my data?!

I'm not claiming any self-collected data other than what I can find through accountable sources.

The point is with a change of one strip of tar, 20 feet wide, the effects could be felt by a common person with no scientific training, approximately 60 feet away. I do not believe this change was .10s of a degree. I am positive this person would not have detected that small of a change.

 

I could feel the change when they did the east side, 10 years ago. It seldom affects the temperature 60 feet away simply due to the fact the air current exchange during the day is seldom pushed to the west, only right before a front passes thru. I do feel it significantly 20 feet away when going out to get my mail, during sunny days of May, June, July, August, cooler months I need to be a bit closer to feel it, when its calm. If the wind is blowing from the west, I only feel it crossing the road to get my mail.

 

Show me the calculations which account for these variables.

 

OMG!

The Russian data will most likely show that we have been cooling, right? NO!

Again (and again), you can't listen to any one source. Even without the adjusted values, it looks like this attachment:

I pointed out the data was not accurate. The flaw was not revealed by the people in charge of insuring data accuracy. The flaw was huge and undetected by the professionals in charge of a very important temperature dataset.

 

I wish I could find the press release regarding the above mistake. Basically, it said they have no way of confirming the accuracy of [other?] data sources.

 

But heres some more to ponder:

 

First one is regarding the October mistake:

globalwarmingquestions - GISS gets it wrong again, and again!(or, Russia's second October revolution)

 

And as I said about temp adjustments on historic records, heres an easy to see for yourself example:

 

Questions on the evolution of the GISS temperature product Watts Up With That?

 

I'm not one that identifies with that crowd. I used to be an alarmist, until I learned more about the biochemistry and climatology. Now, I just try to educate. :)

Good. So, why is there 3 temp adjustments to the recent data? Why are the skeptics having to again and again inform the professionals of inaccuracy and unfinished work.

 

And this was a glaring error. Why shouldnt I be suspect of the motivations of people whos jobs (and funding) rely on showing an impact?

 

President Obama 'has four years to save Earth' | Environment | The Observer

[Little Bang]

I had a rather interesting discussion about climate change with some friends this past weekend. One of them is a really nice person, not an exceptional thinker but not stupid. He said something that probably most average Joe's on the street think. He said, " I just can't believe that little O'l piss ant humans can change this huge atmosphere? ", I relied, " Dave did you know that approximately 3.5 to 4 billion years ago our atmosphere was about 50% nitrogen and 50% carbon dioxide. It was about three times as dense as it is today with the temperature some where just below the boiling point of water. Then a little organism showed up that you need a microscope to see and it changed the atmosphere to what we see today. " My figures are probably not accurate but the story got the point across to him.

 

It took those organisms several billion years to make the changes to today. Each human on this planet is changing the atmosphere a billion times faster than those organisms. The joe's on the street are the one's who have to make the required changes if we are to save life on the Earth as we know it.

[CraigD]

So why cant anyone tell me what the IR wave converts to when its heats up the Co2 bubble?

First, it’s important to understand that electromagnetic radiation, isn’t purely a wave phenomena, but both wave like and particle like. For this explanation, where wave like effects such as refraction and interference aren’t important, but absorption is, it’s most convenient to stick with a particle description.

 

EMR particles, or quanta, are called photons. Visible light is composed of photons with individual energies between about 3.1 and 1.8 eV, infrared radiation with energies between about 1.8 eV and 0.001 eV. Photons above about 3.1 eV constitute ultraviolet, x-ray, and gamma EMR.

 

When a photon “strikes” (or, more precisely, interacts) with an electron in an atom of any kind of matter, it is absorbed by the electron if it’s possible for that electron to change its position in the atom (more precisely, its atomic orbital) so that its energy increases by exactly the energy of the absorbed photon. If this transition is possible for electrons in many atoms of a material (liquid, gas, or solid), that material is opaque (or possibly reflective) to photons of that energy. If it isn’t, the material is transparent to them.

 

Possible atomic orbital transitions depend mostly on the structure of the atom and its interaction with its neighboring atoms. In general, the more massive an atom, and the more bound it is into molecules with other atoms, the more possible transitions its electrons have.

 

The electrons in the atoms of CO2 and other greenhouse gas molecules are mostly transparent to visible light, and mostly opaque to infrared.

How in the world does a vibrating CO2 chunk radiate HEAT?

It’s important to understand that to “radiate heat” means to emit photons of infrared EMR.

 

Emission of photons is the reverse of absorption of them. If it is possible for an electron to transition to an orbital with less energy than its current one, it will, emitting a photon with the energy of the difference between the old and new orbital.

 

What occurs between the emission and absorption of photons by the electrons in the atoms of materials accounts for the optical differences between materials. A material of atoms strongly bound in a solid matrix usually almost immediately reemits a photon of the same energy it absorbed, so materials like solid metals tend to be reflective, and be heated relatively little by EMR. A material of loosely bound atoms such as a gas usually transfers the momentum of the absorbed photons to itself and its neighbors, emitting photons in a fairly random manner. Materials like the solids and liquids on the Earth’s surface behave this way, absorbing visible and infrared radiation and emitting most of it as infrared. Greenhouse gases in the atmosphere (or solids such as glass in an actual greenhouse) are transparent to visible light, but absorb and reemit infrared. This emitted infrared EMR is many times reabsorbed by other atmosphere and surface atoms, and emitted into space.

 

Note that the infrared band of EMR spans a much greater energy range, about 11 doublings (or “octaves”), than visible light, which spans about 1 octave. Although infrared photons can, therefore, be much more different in energy than photons of visible light, they’re effectively nearly identical, in that they all can be absorbed by the same materials.

 

It’s possible to make atoms absorb infrared and emit visible EMR – this is what happens when a heated material visibly glows. These materials continue to emit mostly in the infrared, however, so there’s not practical way to “trick” common materials into producing a “reverse greenhouse effect”, although an exotic, as yet not realized device such a s “heat pumped optical laser” is, to the best of my knowledge, possible in principle.

[modest]

Based on data from NASA's Goddard institute, the sun is currently putting out more energy than it has in the past 2000 years. In the year 2000, the last year I can find NASA Goddard data, the earth was receiving daily solar irradiance of 1367.5 W/m2. In 1800, the sun was sending us 1365.5 W/m2, and the amount of energy reaching earth steadily increased over the next 200 years to our current extremely high amounts of sunlight.

 

A link to charts showing this information is here, on page 24 of the document:

http://www.yale.edu/yibs/Solar%20Variability%20Program/2008_Yale_solar_Shindell.pdf

 

This is the information that is not reflected in the climate models - the fact that we are simply getting more energy sent to the surface of our planet than ever before.

 

This is starting to get ridiculous. You've been pointed repeatedly to information from NASA's GISS that settles this question. I know you're capable of understanding it.

 

GISS Climate Model: Changes in Climate "Forcings"

 

Source: Forcings in GISS Climate Model: Solar Irradiance - GISS

2.3. Solar Irradiance

[24] The total solar irradiance has been measured to a useful accuracy since 1979 Willson and Hudson, 1991]. For earlier times we must rely on solar irradiance reconstructed from proxy measures of solar variability. Analysis of historical change of the total solar irradiance and its spectrum are described by Lean et al. [1995, 1997]. We use the solar spectral radiance reconstruction provided by J. Lean in 1999 (private communication). The data that we employ in our present total and spectral irradiance scenarios are available from our web site

Data @ NASA GISS: Forcings in GISS Climate Model

) or from J. Lean.

 

Hansen et al. 2002 section 2.2 (description of solar forcing in GISS climate model

 

Of course, this means the following 2 statements are completely in error,

Oh, my God. The NASA Goddard people are really off base.

 

As a result of the quoted post I decided to actually look at the climate models the NASA Goddard people are using. An extensive description of their models can be found here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Bader_etal.pdf

 

THESE MODELS IGNORE OVERALL CHANGES IN SUNLIGHT

 

These models assume that the amount of energy zooming to us through space never ever changes. For this assumption to be valid Earth's orbit would have to be perfectly symmetrical, and the sun could never be a little brighter or dimmer.

This is the information that is not reflected in the climate models - the fact that we are simply getting more energy sent to the surface of our planet than ever before.

 

Big deal, you've said something that turned out not to be true—it happens to all of us. Can you not just say "Darn, it looks like I was wrong" and move on? If, for whatever reason, you cannot then you need to present some information agreeing with your statements above.

 

~modest

[engineerdude]

This is starting to get ridiculous. You've been pointed repeatedly to information from NASA's GISS that settles this question. I know you're capable of understanding it.

 

GISS Climate Model: Changes in Climate "Forcings"

 

Source: Forcings in GISS Climate Model: Solar Irradiance - GISS

 

Of course, this means the following 2 statements are completely in error,

 

 

Big deal, you've said something that turned out not to be true—it happens to all of us. Can you not just say "Darn, it looks like I was wrong" and move on? If, for whatever reason, you cannot then you need to present some information agreeing with your statements above.

 

~modest

 

The data you are linking to is quite different than the data I am referring to. They are both from the same institute, but by different people. The information you present supports your argument - but the NASA Goddard data I am using illustrates potentially severe problems in the GISS climate models. The solar irradiation data I refer to shows that current levels are the highest in 2000 years, and this is not reflected in the models.

 

So, which person at NASA Goddard is correct? Judith Lean (your person) or Drew Shindell (my guy)?

 

P.S. I don't appreciate the nasty tone in your previous post.

[CraigD]

As a result of the quoted post I decided to actually look at the climate models the NASA Goddard people are using. An extensive description of their models can be found here:

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Bader_etal.pdf

 

THESE MODELS IGNORE OVERALL CHANGES IN SUNLIGHT

 

These models assume that the amount of energy zooming to us through space never ever changes. For this assumption to be valid Earth's orbit would have to be perfectly symmetrical, and the sun could never be a little brighter or dimmer.

The linked report is pretty big – 100+ pages. Searching it for “sunlight” and “orbit”, all I could find relating to your claim, engineerdude, was

For the limited purpose of constraining climate sensitivity, we need not understand how glacial-interglacial variations of ice sheets and of carbon dioxide are forced by changes in the Earth’s orbit.

and

In addition, among other forcings are changes in land use that alter the reflectivity of the Earth’s surface, as well as variations in sunlight impinging on the Earth.

The latter suggest that the climate models discussed in the report ignore do not ignore overall changes in sunlight.

 

Specifically, what parts of the report do you mean to cite in support of your claim? :Alien:

[modest]

The data you are linking to is quite different than the data I am referring to.

 

Yep. I am referring to solar irradiance changes as measured by satellite in the past 30 years and as reconstructed by sunspot "wolf number" for the past 300 years. That data is used in the GISS models for as far back as the model projects past climate.

 

They are both from the same institute, but by different people.

 

They are two different things entirely. As far as I know, the models don't project 2,000 years into the past making such data impossible to use in the model.

 

The information you present supports your argument

 

I'm not making any kind of argument. I'm correcting your posts which claim that GISS models do not account for changes in solar irradiance.

 

The solar irradiation data I refer to shows that current levels are the highest in 2000 years, and this is not reflected in the models.

 

Climate models/simulations start in the current year. They attempt to create a realistic facsimile of Earth's upper surface, its atmosphere, and its interaction with the sun. Using known laws of kinematics and fluid dynamics and thermodynamics, the model changes as the simulation moves forward. Forcings such as greenhouse gas and solar irradiance are changed instantaneously in the model and the earth responds to those changes.

 

Modeling past climate starts in the current year and the simulation runs as if it were moving forward in time, but the forcings chosen are the ones measured and reconstructed from the past. As the model moves backwards from 2000, 1999, 1998... the CO2 level is lowered and the albedo and aresol and other factors are changed to reflect data measured in those years. The same is ture of solar irradiance.

 

If the model works (if it models Earth's climate well) then it will correctly predict past temperatures. In other words, the past temperatures projected by the model will agree with temperatures we actually measured in the past.

 

The GISS model then cannot sensibly use a reconstruction of solar irradiance from 1,000 years ago if the model ends in 1850 (or 1750 depending on the particular GISS model). The forcing can only go back as far as the model. So, what you're saying doesn't make sense to me.

 

So, which person at NASA Goddard is correct?

 

They are both correct. In no way do the two data sets disagree in any significant way with one another.

 

~modest

[REASON]

The data you are linking to is quite different than the data I am referring to. They are both from the same institute, but by different people. The information you present supports your argument - but the NASA Goddard data I am using illustrates potentially severe problems in the GISS climate models. The solar irradiation data I refer to shows that current levels are the highest in 2000 years, and this is not reflected in the models.

 

So, which person at NASA Goddard is correct? Judith Lean (your person) or Drew Shindell (my guy)?

 

P.S. I don't appreciate the nasty tone in your previous post.

 

 

Here's a quote from one of the links you provided relating to climate modeling:

 

http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/2008/2008_Bader_etal.pdf

 

4.3.2.2 VARIABILITY OF SOLAR IRRADIANCE AND

VOLCANIC AEROSOLS

 

Other climate forcings include variability of

solar irradiance and volcanic aerosols. Satellites

provide the only direct measurements of these

quantities at the top of the atmosphere. Satellite

measurements of solar irradiance are available

from the late 1970s and now span about 3 of the

sun’s 11-year magnetic or sunspot cycles. Extracting

a long-term trend from this relatively

brief record (Wilson et al. 2003) is difficult.

Prior to the satellite era, solar variations are inferred

using records of sunspot area and number

and cosmic ray–generated isotopes in ice cores

(Foukal et al. 2006), which are converted into

irradiance variations using empirical relations

The U.S. CMIP3 models all use the solar reconstruction

by Lean, Beer, and Bradley (1995)

with subsequent updates.

 

Also, you provided a link to a study (The one you mention in the above post) by Drew Shindell of the NASA GISS called Effects of solar variability on regional climate: Models and proxies, and then make statements like, "And I cannot find anywhere that NASA Goddard models are taking into account the fact that the sun is brighter than ever before in recorded history."

 

First of all, your claim about the brightness of the sun is taken directly from a climate modeling source for which you then claim doesn't provide any information about this supposed aspect of solar irradiation, or include it in their climate models. :bdayhappy_balloons:

 

Secondly, where exactly does it make such a claim? Have you considered that you may be misinterpreting the graph you reference on page 24 - the one you claim provides proof that the "Sun is putting out more energy than it has in the past 2,000 years?"

 

You're making false assertions about NASA GISS reports you pointed to that actually support the usefullness of climate modeling and how much it has improved over the years with advancements in computer technology.

 

Considering the way you are interpreting climate data, you might as well be telling your Orthopedic Surgeon that you know better than he does how to reconstruct the ruptured ligaments in your knee. Or maybe you should be the one to jump on the flight deck, take control of the plane, and safely land it in the East River. What the hell does the pilot know? :Alien:

 

Why don't you stop trying to interpret climate data as your excuse for not believing in global warming, and just admit that the reason you don't is because you're affaid that if we get caught up in this whirlwind, it will lead to greater government controls and more taxation. Isn't that what you really fear? Isn't that the source of your shakiness when it comes to your disbelief in global warming or climate change? It isn't about the vast amount of research you've conducted in which you've arrived at a conclusion that is more reliable than what has been produced by a concensus of the world's top climatologists. You don't like feeling like you're being duped into some crisis that you think is going to end up costing you money. Isn't that the truth in regard to your beliefs, or lack thereof, when it comes to AGW?

 

If so, why don't you spend your time trying to support what it is that's really driving your skepticism. Maybe instead of making a fool out of yourself by running around in your Climatologist costume, you should focus on how we should be reasonable in the way we react and develop public policy. I felt your comments about the wasteful way the University of Hawaii was budgeting their energy consumption was very insightful. I do believe we need to be sensible as we begin to change the way we use energy.

 

A change in the way we utilize energy is inevitable. Do you agree with that?

 

Why not start now! Why not do it in a way that is considerate of and compatible with the environment we live in? Doesn't that just make sense?

[modest]

So wheres your link showing me how the UHI is accounted for (see below CRI references)?

 

Check out post #1221.

 

I think the subject of urban heat index is a good one and there are also good questions about how any such effect plays out in temperature monitoring stations. The wikipedia page on UHI has a global warming section which is pretty good:

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

There is an IPCC report saying,

The SAR reviewed the three databases of land-surface air temperature due to Jones (1994), Hansen and Lebedeff (1988) and Vinnikov et al. (1990). The first and second databases have been updated by Jones et al. (2001) and Hansen et al. (1999), respectively, and a further analysis has become available (Peterson and Vose, 1997; Peterson et al., 1998a, 1999). The last paper also separates rural temperature stations in the Global Historical Climatology Network (GHCN) (Peterson and Vose, 1997) from the full set of stations which, in common with the other three analyses, have been screened for urbanisation effects. While there is little difference in the long-term (1880 to 1998) rural (0.70°C/century) and full set of station temperature trends (actually less at 0.65°C/century), more recent data (1951 to 1989), as cited in Peterson et al. (1999), do suggest a slight divergence in the rural (0.80°C/century) and full set of station trends (0.92°C/century). However, neither pair of differences is statistically significant. In addition, while not reported in Peterson et al., the 1951 to 1989 trend for urban stations alone was 0.10°C/decade. We conclude that estimates of long-term (1880 to 1998) global land-surface air temperature variations and trends are relatively little affected by whether the station distribution typically used by the four global analyses is used, or whether a special effort is made to concentrate on rural stations using elaborate criteria to identify them. Part of the reason for this lack of sensitivity is that the average trends in available worldwide urban stations for 1951 to 1989 are not greatly more than those for all land stations (0.09°C/decade). The differences in trend between rural and all stations are also virtually unaffected by elimination of areas of largest temperature change, like Siberia, because such areas are well represented in both sets of stations.

 

-source

 

I would tend to agree with this. UHI can be mitigated in these models in particular because we have satellite readings to fall back on and also because we have an abundance of long-term data that comes from rural areas. This kind of mitigation is exactly what's done here.

 

For a less technical (and probably more biased) comment on UHI/global warming, there is the following article by the Brookings Institution

 

Crichton makes several attempts to cast doubt on scientific evidence regarding global warming.

 

First, he highlights the “urban heat island effect.” Crichton explains that cities are often warmer thanthe surrounding countryside and implies that observed temperature increases during the past century are the result of urban growth, not rising greenhouse gas concentrations. This issue has been examined extensively in the peer-reviewed scientific literature and dismissed by the vast majority of earth scientists as an inadequate explanation of observed temperature rise. Ocean temperatures have climbed steadily during the past century, for example — yet this data is notaffected by “urban heat islands.” Most land glaciers around the world are melting, far away from urban centers. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, using only peer-reviewed data, concluded that urban heat islands caused “at most” 0.05°C of the increase in global average temperatures during the period 1900-1990 — roughly one-tenth of the increase during this period. In contrast, as one source reports, “there are no known scientific peer-reviewed papers” to support the view that “the heat island effect accounts for much or nearly all warming recorded by land-based thermometers.”

 

http://www.brookings.edu/views/op-ed/fellows/sandalow20050128.pdf

 

~modest

[Flying Binghi]

Is Wikipedia a credible reference ?

 

Via - Encyclopaedia Britannica to let readers edit content

 

"Wikipedia contributes to the spread of information and many people are happy with it as their only source of reference, as are many people happy to eat McDonalds every day."

[Cedars]

Check out post #1221.

There is an IPCC report saying,

~modest

 

hmmm.

 

There is GISS data for Jerome Idaho. Called Rural in Giss.

 

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

 

Google View of above station:

Jerome

 

GISS data for Hazelton Idaho. Called Rural in Giss.

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

 

Picture of above station:

hazelton_ID_Overview

 

GISS data for Hollister Idaho. I do not know why the data ends where it does.

 

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

 

Heres a picture of it taken in 2007:

Hollister_south

 

I only picked Idaho because its not generally thought of as being influenced by UHI.

 

I am begining to think the IPCC people really do believe their position absolute (AGW). But then, so does Pat Robertson and Billy Graham (IPU).

 

Whoops! Edit #2:

 

Forgot this link:

http://www.earthsci.unimelb.edu.au/~jon/WWW/uhi-melb.html

 

"The problem with the temperature records from small towns is if climatologists use these records to examine climate change then what they may actually be seeing is how the urban area has warmed as the town has grown, rather than how the larger scale climate has changed."

 

Edit:

Check out this experiment. Maybe not NOAA quality, but as noted, a better school science project than the baking soda spewing volcano.

 

http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/02/measureing-the.html

[modest]

hmmm.

 

There is GISS data for Jerome Idaho. Called Rural in Giss.

 

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

 

Google View of above station:

Jerome

 

GISS data for Hazelton Idaho. Called Rural in Giss.

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

 

Picture of above station:

hazelton_ID_Overview

 

GISS data for Hollister Idaho. I do not know why the data ends where it does.

 

Data @ NASA GISS: Surface Temperature Analysis - Station Data

 

Heres a picture of it taken in 2007:

Hollister_south

 

I only picked Idaho because its not generally thought of as being influenced by UHI.

 

:) :shrug:

 

Those places are all extremely rural and none would be affected by an "Urban Heat Island" effect. I looked up two that you listed in google earth and they were literally nothing more than a few buildings surrounded by a hundred miles of farm land. :xparty:

 

I can recommend you read the wikipedia page for UHI:

Urban heat island - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And, also, the wikipedia page for global warming:

Global warming - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

~modest

[Flying Binghi]

Something to keep in mind with the rural WX stations, is if there has been any agricultural spraying nearby.

 

In years past, Ag spraying via ground or air units was'nt as tightly controled as today. Used to be a fair bit of spray drift about.

 

Some farm spray chemicals can leave an almost glossy coat on surfaces until rain washs it off. Some sprays leave a salty cristaline sort of a finnish.

 

I car'nt remember what the names of the chemicals were, its near 30 years ago now.

 

I guess somebody has done tests of the effects of farm chemicals and fertilizers on the WX units ?

[Cedars]

:) :shrug:

 

Those places are all extremely rural and none would be affected by an "Urban Heat Island" effect. I looked up two that you listed in google earth and they were literally nothing more than a few buildings surrounded by a hundred miles of farm land. :xparty:

 

~modest

 

Yes, they are listed as rural. I am listed as rural (which is an accurate declaration). However, due to the road improvement on the south border of my property, any weather station temp data would be affected were I to place a station within 60 feet (or potentially more). The term UHI is misleading in that it makes one believe it only happens in metropolis (or gotham city). It happens anywhere you add buildings, tar roads (gravel to a lesser extent), open dirt fields (like happens in spring and fall).

 

I chose one of the three as a representative of a potentially accurate measuring station, however surface stations notes the shading effect of the trees, and the sprinkler use near the station. That particular station noted no significant warming since between and 2000 (where the data stops at GISS).

 

The other two are obviously suspect data, and the GISS temp trend (upward) is suspect.

 

I also added the link to the melborne info in that it also notes the heating effect in small towns. It is an ongoing study.

 

As far as your links, I did bother to read them, to the extent time allowed.