Our cooling world

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Contemplating Arctic sea ice collapse

Wondering whether weather indicates climate

The latest graph tracking un unprecedented plunge in Arctic sea ice measurements raises once again the question of when you can look at a weather event - a dramatic and unprecedented weather event - and make a relevant and reasonable assumption about what is happening to the climate.
Given the enthusiasm that the denier community brings to challenging assumptions at the contestable edge of science, I'd be wary about saying, unequivally, that this graph shows climate change in action. It's only part of one year's data. Admittedly, it's compared to an average over a much longer time, but it's still just one year. That's why you might want to look at the next graph:



There's a trend line, clear as day. Now, ideologically blinded polemicists like Lawrence Solomon may be able to look at a single month's data and decide that trends are unhelpful by comparison - especially when that single month seems to make his point. But anyone who chooses to be both thoughtful and honest - and to bring even a touch of scientific rigor to his or her considerations - is going to look at these longer time-series graphs and say: you know, that looks like climate. In fact, that looks like climate CHANGE.
Given the obvious domination of ideologues in power (in Canada, at least), this also can be interpreted to suggest that we're all in a lot of trouble. But hey, on the eve of Canada day, let's join the deniers - for for 24 carefree hours - and pretend. I'm sure it will be fun, and the ice really won't care whether we miss it or not - just for a day.
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
So, if the Earth is supposed to be cooling, that means less energy is coming in. You think urban heat islands are still going to produce more heat records than cold records? You realize that urban heat islands aren't new right? Existing heat records would already have urban heat effects...
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
And yet the MSU satellite derived UAH data, which doesn't use ground based thermometers at all, and covers far more rural/uninhabited land than urban, shows that this year is far warmer than even 1998.
Screenshot:



I'd love to see some analysis that shows how urban heat islands are contaminating that dataset.

:D Thanks for playing along Walter
 

Tonington

Hall of Fame Member
Oct 27, 2006
15,441
150
63
You're right, I wasn't clear about what I was saying.

Top of the atmosphere is where the radiation budget is measured. If the Earth is cooling, there is less energy coming in than going out.
 

mentalfloss

Prickly Curmudgeon Smiter
Jun 28, 2010
39,794
460
83

Ice cores? Seriously now. First of all that doesn't disprove AGW, and, secondly, it is already counter intuitive to the cooling hypothesis. Scientists are already aware that ice cores cause natural fluctuations in climate - but despite this, they have also seen a clear indication that there is a significant change based upon human intervention.


So the broken record is apparantly due to the site itself? That's a load of bull as the record was completely smashed by 4 degrees on one day, 11 years after the previous record.

Don't you think if the site itself was more susceptible to higher temperatures, this record would have been broken earlier? Also, if you look at the temperatures for previous days, they are nowhere near that mark either.

No one is saying that one broken record is truly indicative of AGW. More importantly though, there is no means for showing one day's record indicates these sites are inappropriate for detecting temperature.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Urban Heat Island Myth is Dead

Another climate change denier myth - this one a favorite of Anthony Watts and his "Watts Up With That" blog - has just bit the dust.
Many skeptics for years have sought to explain away decades of climate research by showing slides of weather station thermometers sited next to heating vents or surrounded by asphalt.
This much-touted “urban heat island effect” was supposed to trump all those fancy graphs and equations that egghead scientists were fixated on. Except it’s not true.
A recent peer-reviewed paper in the Journal of Geophysical Researchlooked at data from 114 weather stations from across the US over the last twenty years and compared measurements from locations that were well sited and those that weren’t.
They did find an overall bias, but it was towards cooling rather warming.
According to the authors,
“the bias is counter intuitive to photographic documentation of poor exposure because associated instrument changes have led to an artificial negative (“cool”) bias in maximum temperatures and only a slight positive (“warm”) bias in minimum temperatures.”
Oops.

This is latest in an expanding body of science that has looked at the urban heat island effect in excruciating detail and found nothing to undermine the observed and disturbing warming in the US over the last several decades.
The IPCC found that: Over the Northern Hemisphere land areas where urban heat islands are most apparent, both the trends of lower-tropospheric temperature and surface air temperature show no significant differences. In fact, the lower-tropospheric temperatures warm at a slightly greater rate over North America (about 0.28°C/decade using satellite data) than do the surface temperatures (0.27°C/decade), although again the difference is not statistically significant.
Another paper in Climate Change in 2007 stated: Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999)…Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanization (Parker, 2006).
While such dense scientific prose is not as photogenic as a picture of a weather station in a parking lot, the fact is that science has thoroughly picked over this red herring.

This myth is now officially busted. :thefinger:
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
The most interesting element to that article was the response from Doug Keenan in which he offers serious consideration to Jones' explanations and excuses.
So ? The most interesting thing about your comment on it is .... is ..... is .... AHAH! I knew I would think of something. It doesn't address the science.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
.. And the science that you've hung your hat on via Jones' faulty study that is so fraught with enough obvious problems that an amateur climatologist handed him his ass says what about your basis and opinion?
 

AnnaG

Hall of Fame Member
Jul 5, 2009
17,507
117
63
.. And the science that you've hung your hat on via Jones' faulty study that is so fraught with enough obvious problems that an amateur climatologist handed him his ass says what about your basis and opinion?
I hung my hat where? Didja follow all the links to the end? Which one did I hang my hat on?

Studies that have looked at hemispheric and global scales conclude that any urban-related trend is an order of magnitude smaller than decadal and longer time-scale trends evident in the series (e.g., Jones et al., 1990; Peterson et al., 1999). This result could partly be attributed to the omission from the gridded data set of a small number of sites (<1%) with clear urban-related warming trends. In a worldwide set of about 270 stations, Parker (2004, 2006) noted that warming trends in night minimum temperatures over the period 1950 to 2000 were not enhanced on calm nights, which would be the time most likely to be affected by urban warming. Thus, the global land warming trend discussed is very unlikely to be influenced significantly by increasing urbanisation (Parker, 2006). ... Accordingly, this assessment adds the same level of urban warming uncertainty as in the TAR: 0.006°C per decade since 1900 for land, and 0.002°C per decade since 1900 for blended land with ocean, as ocean UHI is zero.[43]
Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Only in your mind.

You'll have to do better than that Captain.:lol:

Misunderestimating the Urban Heat Island Effect!



The 'urban heat island' (UHI) effect refers to the fact that many temperature measurement sites are located in cities. These locations are generally warmer than the surrounding countryside. This effect is maximised in the Republican Bible Belt of the continental United States owing to additional heat-generating factors: steaming anger expressed in townhall meetings, overheated unprotected sex between unmarried teenagers, friction by fingers gliding along rosaries during extended prayer, overusage of large pickup trucks in drive throughs, and the absorption of solar radiation by unprotected human necks. Many of the surface measurement stations are located improperly, enhancing this effect and hence falsifying the global temperature record of the United States. The above picture was taken in Marysville, Ca. (near Jesustown).

In contrast, wamist believers believe that the urban heat island effect does not add to global temperature anomalies, based again not on blog science but on the peer-reviewed literature controlled and manipulated by world socialism. We are still searching for the opinion column in the 'National Post' that proves this science wrong. Unfortunately, we have not found the copy yet in our blue recycling bin. Most of our skepticism stems from the US surface station record because that is where most of us Republicans live: in the 2% of the world's surface that is covered by the U.S. (excluding occupied territories such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Nicaragua, Japan, and Heidelberg). Global warming has always been a smalltown issue: the smaller the mind town, the globaller the warming (or the changier the climate, as Frank Luntz would have said in his days). It is concluded that the placement of measurement stations should be managed anally.

The picture below illustrates the UHI at a smaller scale and advises against measurement station placement within the human body, which generates the equivalent of a black hole in the UHI misoverestimate. Nevertheless, the UN socialist world government claims that, after the corrections already inherent in the record, the UHI makes essentially no difference as the surface temperatures are consistent with the satellite temperatures that are not affected by cities.
 

captain morgan

Hall of Fame Member
Mar 28, 2009
28,429
146
63
A Mouse Once Bit My Sister
I hung my hat where? Didja follow all the links to the end? Which one did I hang my hat on?


Ummm, yeah... What article did you think I was responding to?


Fourth Assessment Report from the IPCC



This is the link you posted to which I responded.

climate science: JONES CONSIDERS CORRECTING PAPER ON UHI

You'll have to do better than that Captain.:lol:

What else can one say? You post "studies" that are essentially opinion... Read the link (climate science: JONES CONSIDERS CORRECTING PAPER ON UHI), especially the rebuttal by Keenan. Jones' statements and study is obliterated by the very basic and simple questions/observations made by this guy.

The notion that the CRU, Jones or any other pseudo-experts that make their erroneous claims on this issue, have any viability are ridiculous.

Your problem is that you want to see a specific result regardless of what reality states.
 

Avro

Time Out
Feb 12, 2007
7,815
65
48
55
Oshawa
Ummm, yeah... What article did you think I was responding to?





This is the link you posted to which I responded.

[URL="http://climatescience.blogspot.com/2010/02/jones-considers-correcting-paper-on-uhi.html"]climate science: JONES CONSIDERS CORRECTING PAPER ON UHI




What else can one say? You post "studies" that are essentially opinion... Read the link (climate science: JONES CONSIDERS CORRECTING PAPER ON UHI), especially the rebuttal by Keenan. Jones' statements and study is obliterated by the very basic and simple questions/observations made by this guy.

The notion that the CRU, Jones or any other pseudo-experts that make their erroneous claims on this issue, have any viability are ridiculous.

Well gee whiz...this was in February.

Guess he didn't find anything.:lol:

When this is found to be poop like everything else where will you move the goal posts then.:lol: