Ruti and Climate Zones
Hi Frank I should have logged in. Unknown is peter azlac
RUTI and Climate Zones
Hi Frank In recent comments I made at other blog sites, I referred to your RUTI project and how it made more sense than working on mythical global data produced through homogenization and krieging. As an agricultural scientist I was making the point that for mankind the most important aspect of climate change is food production and water supplies and that the impact of climate forcing by the Sun via events in the stratosphere and ocean cycles is on changes in the the extent of the climate zones as defined in the Köppen+ Geiger system. This has also come up in respect to the new Pages2K huh hah in which the climate evangelists are trying to resurrect the Mann Hockey Stick for AR5 as a mean of regional hockey sticks linked to regional paleo proxy data. But this is surely wrong since they take N America as one region whereas the Köppen+ Geiger system shows it as several, and the same is true of other regions. In my view the proxy data can only refer to the climate zone in which it is found. As an example I gave the varve data for northern Norway that can be linked to the Arctic climate zone, including Greenland and which clearly shows that this zone was 3 to 9 C warmer some 1000 years ago whereas GISS and other climate evangelists are claiming Greenland as the poster child for current CAGW. My views are supported by the findings of Clive Best linking surface temperature to surface moisture values both of which are features of the Köppen+ Geiger classification. What I am leading up to here is a suggestion that for RUTI, instead of your present system of selecting your similar areas you do so on the basis of the Köppen+ Geiger climate zones and that you compare what you get as the zonal temperature trend since records were available with any local proxy data + you can see many of these graphed at WUWT. This would be far more useful than the current attempt to evaluate everything globally or regionally.
It's all because of gravity
It's not just a standstill. It's a 30 year natural slight decline from 1998 to 2028. Read what Geoff Wood (qualified in astrophysics) has explained .. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/01/waste-heat-as-a-contributor-to-observed-warming/#comment-68988 The following are excerpts .. "As Doug has said about a dozen times, gravity modifies the mean free path between collisions. That is ‘every’ upward, ‘every’ downward ‘every’ sideways, ‘every’, ‘every’ free molecular path between collisions is modified. Therefore it is impossible for the modified ‘collisions’ that result, not to impart the gravitational ‘information’ into the macroscopic development of the gravitational thermal profile. This is the ‘diffusion’ process. "At this point, we have a reasonable depiction of the thermal profile of ANY atmosphere. FROM BASIC PHYSICS. "Given a simple reason why any atmosphere tends towards this isentropic profile as depicted and described by entry level physics, why would anyone look for a more complicated reason to explain what we already know!" The point which Geoff and I make is that the "33 degrees of warming" supposedly caused by water vapour and carbon dioxide etc was already there due to the effect of gravity on the atmosphere. This happens on all planets, and also fully explains why the poles of Venus are over 720K, even though they receive less than 1W/m^2 of direct insolation from the Sun. For more detail read my article "The 21st Century New Paradigm Shift in Climate Change Science" easily found with Google. I've also recorded an introductory 10 minute video here http://youtu.be/r8YbyfqUvfY Doug Cotton http://climate-change-theory.com
I'd like to second the response from the previous commenter : "Could you please update this page showing the September 2012 coverage" ? And then please re-evaluate the "decline" some people seem to want to "hide"... ?
greenhousegas or not
dear admin, Dr David Evans started his first video with the sentence, "yes, CO2 is a greenhousegas", without saying why. I have the feeling, that this is a political statement and not a scientific and for that reason the "skeptic" are devided in two groups. and the realists, who want a proof for it, or who don`t see such an effect physically are treated "politically" as "deniers" etc. From the logical point of view, its a contradiction to claim such an effect, but to say quantitative determination of this effect is impossible. So for me, I am really not interested in any "realist" who beleaves in an CO2-greenhouse-effect on earth surface, if there is no correlation at all. So discussion should concentrate not in how much, but in yes or no regards an excuse my bad english Paul from Germany
theory and reality
If the atmosphere could warm the surface on earth, surface temperature of earth had to be higher than on moon without atmosphere. The contrary is measured. Also the old tests of WOOD 1909 show, that atmosphere cooles the surface of earth by convection. regards Paul
Breaking News - National Academy of Sciences
All should read the breaking news here, from which I quote: " This story is huge. America’s prestigious National Academy of Sciences (NAS) and related government bodies found no greenhouse effect in Earth’s atmosphere. Evidence shows the U.S. government held the smoking gun all along – a fresh examination of an overlooked science report proves America’s brightest and best had shown the White House that the greenhouse gas effect was not real and of no scientific significance since 1979 or earlier." For those who have been following the research by myself and others from among nearly 200 members at Principia Scientific International, I'd like to draw your attention to an Appendix now added to my current paper. Have a Happy Christmas everyone! Doug Cotton
It seems this blog does not handle HTML. The links are ... http://principia-scientific.org/PROM/COTTON%20PROM%20paper%20PSI_Planetary_Surface_Temperatures.pdf http://proceedings.aip.org/resource/2/apcpcs/643/1/225_1?isAuthorized=no http://principia-scientific.org/policies.html http://principia-scientific.org/about/why-psi-is-a-private-assoc.html Doug Cotton
Models neglect natural temperature gradient
If you spend a few minutes reading my paper and at least the abstract of the paper published by the American Institute of Physics (cited in reference (8) in my reference ) you might understand what happens in the atmospheric physics of both Earth and Venus. I'm still waiting for a satisfactory alternative explanation from anyone in the world regarding the Venus surface temperature. Pressure does not maintain high temperatures all by itself, anywhere, not even on Venus. So forget that "explanation." My paper is up for PROM (Peer Review in Open Media) for a month, so feel free to publish a rebuttal or debate it with some of these members of PSI. Such a review system far outstrips the "peer-review" system used for typical pro-AGW publications. Doug Cotton
Could you please update this page showing the September 2012 coverage
The difference between a 8 14 19 hour average and 24 hours average
The temperature data you used from De Bilt before 1951 is an average of three measuremants a day, 8-14-19 hrs. From 1951 on the average temperature is from 24 hour measurements a day. The three measurements a day give about a 1 degree higher average temperature. No hide the decline here! The raw data you can find in the KNMI yearbooks. In many books even hourly tempeatures from De Bilt! http://www.knmi.nl/cms/content/105165/centraal_nederland_temperatuurreeks Regards, Hans Verkijk
You can find the book here: http://libgen.info/view.php?id=545679
Rob Painting cannot be serious if he uses hiroshima bombs for climate explanation
and on the other hand does not use bombs for sun iradiation
It is not catastrophic either
You may want to correct your spelling. The word is catastrophic. It is one of those cases where the English language uses "ph" for an "f" sound.
Excelent remarks to Daivd Evans ...
Plase refer to: http://www.skepticalscience.com/David-Evans-All-at-Sea-about-Ocean-Warming-and-Sea-Level-Rise.html
An impressive piece of work. Are there any instances where the adjustments reduce the recent "warming" ?
The book contains russian data from greenland, barentz, kara, laptev, east-siberian and chukchi sea (most of them are not in the DMI data) http://img832.imageshack.us/img832/8272/augustmeanof6seas.jpg you can also find maps here: http://www.aari.nw.ru/gdsidb/gdsidb_2.html best regards
Hi Unknown, thankyou for tip! I see its a book that you can buy? What kind of data does it present, and would there also be the data 1962-1973 from DMI? K.R. Frank
Arctic Sea ice data collected by DMI 1893-1961
You can find data in here (Apendix A): Ivan E. Frolov, Zalman M. Gudkovich, Valery P. Karklin, Evgeny G. Kovalev and Vasily M. Smolyanitsky Climate Change in Eurasian Arctic Shelf Seas Centennial Ice Cover Observations
Tuvalu & The Pacific
Just been reading your post "Is a historic super La Nina is just few months ahead?" in which you say "Remember that the super EL NINO 1998 was a stunning + 2,8K at peak level. This Super El Nino has been "accused" of contributing to a whole level shift in global temperatures after 1998." There was a whole level shift in west Pacific sea level too - a massive El Nino drop followed by a large La Nina rise, The net effect was a step change of between 50 and 100mm, not readily apparent unless you plot a running mean and then plot trends up to 1996 and from 1999 onwards. I suspect the decline at many stations since is a gradual return to "normal business". I'm certain the step has distorted satellite sea level anomaly maps, which show large net increases in the western Pacific. If this is true, it may explain the recent satellite-measured sea level drop sceptics are highlighting on blogs. I've not seen a detailed discussion of this step change anywhere on the 'net, but it's hardly surprising since scientists who study sea level rarely use graphs and running means (they're just for "lay" readers and amateurs like ourselves, it seems). but rely on statistical analysis alone. You can't find something like this by calculating trends unless you know it's there; a picture is worth a thousand words.
Tony Brown / Tuvalu
Hi Tony! Sounds interesting tuvalu and other places after 1999. Within a few days a new larger writing will be ready including the mentioning of sea levels. Hope you see it, because exactly this flat trend after 1999 appears not local in Tuvalu.
Tuvalu - some background
I should have added that with ENSO (El Nino) events excluded, the rate from 1977-2011 is 1.99 mm/year, but after the strong El Nino of 1997/8, the trend is flat.I have a reference page for many Pacific Islands on my blog. Several show a flat or even negative trend since 1999, and none of the others shows the claimed late-20th C acceleration. I haven't seen any signs of any acceleration in any data I've looked at worldwide, in fact quite the reverse. Perhaps some satellites are better at measurement than other satellites. I hope we don't find that someone's been tampering with the satellite data, but my research so far contradicts what we've been told.
Frank - I haven't seen that page, but I've read several Mörner papers. Good in parts, but should be read with a sceptical mind. His caption below fig. 7 is being a little "economical with the truth". Note the y-axis is 0.25m or 25 cm between ticks. That's around the global sea level rise for the 20th.C. The thickness of his graph line is about 1/5th of that or 5 cm, so if the trend is just the thickness of the line from left to right it represents 5c m over 23 years. In fact I have the data from end 1977 to end 2011 from PMSL and the Australian Tidal Centre. Average level in 2003 6.994m, average in 1978 6.922m, or a rise of 7.2 cm over 23 years. That's 3.1 mm/year, hardly "stability around a zero level". I can only go with what the data says.
Thankyou for tip! replied on juddith Currys blog the following:
Hi Juduth Curry, I was informed that the RUTI project was discussed to some degree here in this blog. Some argue that RUTI cant be replicated. This is nonsence. The stations used bu RUTI are there for all to see, just like Hadcrut etc. Then some argues that "because they dont know what RUTI criterias are for chosing stations is not defined by a general sharp definition, we cant use RUTI." What are Hadcruts criterias for chosing 87 temperature stations in USA with an average of 1,3 mio peoble? What are Hadcruts clear definition for choosing only 10 stations officially rural in the USA when many hundreds are available? First of all: If all unadjusted temperature data was fully available, it would be much more relevant to “demand” one general rule of how to choose data valid worldwide. Such a demand shows that even sceptics sadly has no idea what we are up against (!) Reality is that we have SCARCE, CHERRY PICKED, CUT DOWN pile of sometimes adjusted “unadjusted” data, so the magic we simply have to do, is to explore each area of the globe manually (!!) find out what is going. There is NO simple definition when facing a corrupted dataset. How one has to play “Sherloc Holmes” to recover dayta is very clearly shown here where I restore the real NW Europe temperature trend from data supposed to hide it: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/nw-europe-and-de-bilt.php In many areas, the situation is better than in Europe, for example Zambia data is more complete than German data sets… The great advantage of RUTI is that the proceedings area for area are there for all to see and judge for them selves. This makes RUTI the obvious choice compared with any other ground based temperature source. And by the way its rather wrong there is no explanation of how RUTI evaluate Rural stations, its because they haven’t checked it out. UHI. In RUTI the UHI approach is explained in the general introduction: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti.php Here a part of the introduction: “RUTI is not all rural nor all unadjusted. However, RUTI is a temperature index aiming to use still more rural data (less use of city and airport data), still more unadjusted data when available and reasonable.” ... “Thus, the main criteria to evaluate if a temperature station is rural or not is to check out the position using google maps. It is the relative growth of a city that determines the UHI pollution for a temperature stations, not the absolute size of a city. Therefore for RUTI use, stations that are located outside urban area or at least do not show a temperature trend significantly different than the near by rural stations are preferred. In many areas, rural data are scarce and to some degree we have to use some (sub-) Urban data.” And Judith, RUTI shows area for area what stations are used and why. This is a golden deluxe transparency compared to the conventional data sources. EX: Here I show Turkish data, I show that the whole area of Turkey has systematically been corrupted since only a few large cities have data public available and thus I dismiss the whole country and I have explained why: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/asia/turkey.php EX: For Italy, not that many data series are available, but I show which stations are used, and that these data series mutually support each other: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/ruti/europe/central-mediterranean.php K.R. Frank Lansner
data selection question
I posted on Judith's site (Climate Etc) referring RUTI results and the answer (from Steven) was that it is not clear how the data is selected. Can you explain or link to the place where the criteria to select if a location is rural or not and will be included in RUTI graph is described? Lars You can also visit my post at Judith's blog http://judithcurry.com/2012/02/18/new-version-of-the-berkeley-earth-surface-temperature-data-set/#comment-171745
Thanks, Frank. The BEST on-line data set shows the temperatures from 1800 in a tiny format so that it is difficult to see what has been going on for the last few years. Is there a version that shows recent years in a larger scale?
Just not true. (national Geographic "land only")
You claim that the National Geographic 76 graphic NH is land only. This is not the case, it is based on other datasets, Bodyko and Angel/Korshover. Here the cover for the latter, se fig 9 of: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/part2-the-perplexing-temperature-data-published-1974-84-and-recent-temperature-data-183.php In the NG article there is no mentioning that data should be "only land" as you claim. So how can you claim (out of the blue?) that the NG 76 graphic should be land only? Do you have some documentation for this?
I think there are so many issues with the GW theory I dont know where to start. Ex: Their need of positive feedbacks are crippled since water contents are not higher in the atmosphere today than 1950: http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/feedback-positive-ndash-rdquowhat-makes-co2-heat-dangerousrdquo-29.php And more problems like heat rises, that is, Excess heat in upper atmophere over the tropics would tend to rise. At least this is more likely that having heat sinking :-) And then the "warmed" air you mention: The excess heat in 10 km hight would be in form of -59 C air in stead of -60 C air. Radiation from this very cold - and thin - air mass do not emit that much heat radiation. And... If CO2 blocks heat radiation coming from Earth, CO2 would also limit heat radiation from 10 km coming down? etcetcetcetcetc (!) K.R. Frank
Tony Price: "The truth is enough. Nothing else is needed."
Yes indeed! Why would any sceptic waste time to promote anything but the truth? Thx, K.R. Frank
R Harwood - BEST
Hi Again, are not the "30.000" measurements etc. the new "BEST" temperature series? I think so. K.R. Frank
Start discussions, give comments
General comments and discussions
|Posted by Administrator (admin) on 12th February, 2010|
|Latest comments: >>|
Click on "Add comment" below to start a discussion
Last changed: 12th February, 2010 at 09:08:04Back
|Hi Murray!||By Frank Lansner on 23rd February, 2011 at 12:30:33|
|You write: "I was astonished by your zoom analysis of the DMI summer temperature trend."
Well, I honestly was surpriced myself, and I really did the closer look because i was scientifically interested: How can temperatures 80-90N decline while the general Arctic showed less and less ice?
For one thing, this also supports, that the melting came from below, a warmer Arctic AMO current pushing slightly warmer water under the ice? So what ever causes the AMO to warm appears responsible?
In addition, winds around year 2010-2008 did change to push more ice out of the arctic - but also had the effect of compressing ice North of GreenLand/Canada areas - which includes most of 80N-90N.
So a compressing of ice in 80N-90N might actually diminish the smaller areas occuring with open waters 80N-90N and thereby really explain why temperatures have declined 80-90N.
One of the most important results herea are of course how completely useless the GISS REEEED color 80N-90N rising temperatures in summer apperas. The DMI data (ERA40 etc) clearly show GISS projection over oceans to be crap. So why do GISS use this?? Well it makes a superbe red color in the top of their global warming illustrations....
|Arctic melt season cooling||By Unknown on 22nd February, 2011 at 22:19:22|
|I was astonished by your zoom analysis of the DMI summer temperature trend. I have scanned those annual curves n+1 times and never noticed that, because of the scale I guess. Or maybe it's that you are more observant. Anyway, the cooling starts about 1993, which is just after the peak of solar cycle 22. The first bit of cooling could be consistent with the downside of the 11 year solar cycle. But then we have a much less active cycle 23, and a quiescent cycle 24. Quite probably more cloudy days, a la Svensmark, and thus summer cooling. We see some sign of global SST cooling starting 2003, but for sure after 2005. Long delay time to see the solar effect in SST, and then longer to transport the cooler water to the Arctic, and we get the ice minimum in 2007, 14 years after the cooling start in 1993 that shows up in Arctic summer temperature. WOW! You may have found the "canary in the coal mine". Murray|
|Various||By Unknown on 22nd February, 2011 at 21:51:18|
|Frank, in the left sidebar you have links to UAH,RSS,HadCRUT3, NCDC,GISS etc. The curve the links take you to for RSS, HadCRUT3 and NCDC is the same curve.
CO2 global warming theory postulates that warming will be greatest at night, in winter and at high latitudes. Probably the postulate applies to warming regardless of the driver. For sure DMI shows far greater variation in winter. Average warming for high latitudes is the average of little or no change in summer, and substantially less cold in winter, but still much to cold to melt anything. Similarly global average comes from little or no change in the tropics, and large change, mainly less cold, at high latitudes.
I think the reason the Arctic is near the same in the 2000s as in the late 1930s is because both periods were near the peak of the 60 year climate cycle. In fact, using your analyses, the cooling ca 1944-1976 was near o.4 degrees C. I can just about justify anything from 0.35 to 0.45 degrees, depending on which of your curves to use. It is very likely that real warming, after correcting for all warming biases, from 1976 to ca 2006 was =< 0.4 degrees. Most stations north of 67, after allowance for UHI for some of them, have the highest warm years in the late 1930s, although there are a few that have the warmest cold years in the 2000s. The decade 1998-2008 may have been a bit warmer than the decade 1934-1944, but again, if corrected for all warming biases, I doubt that it would be. Biases like new instruments, new airports, and missing minus signs are very important in the region north of 67.
For more on climate cycles see my blog at http://www.agwnot.blogspot.com/ Nov 16 and Jan 23 posts.
Great source of temp series here
|Peter Sawyer, Australia send this letter||By Unknown on 13th February, 2010 at 16:20:29|
|Peter Sawyer, Australia send me the e-mail below. His attached article is published as "Skeptics" by Peter sawyer.
Congratulations on your website - most fitting name I must say.
I've only just started to work my way through, but so far it is looking
However, as a professional writer for some thirty years, can I be so
bold as to say I think you are making the same fundamental error that
all the other so-called skeptic sites are making?
Not in the "science" itself, which I am sure is spot on, but in the
actual language used.
I note you introduce yourselves as "skeptics or realists", and that is
at least a step in the right direction - further than any of the other
"skeptic" sites have gone.
But there are very good reasons why you should stick solely to being
realists, and stop using the term "skeptic" altogether.
There are other, equally important words that must be avoided at all
costs, and yet others that must be hammered home at every opportunity.
In the hope of enlightening people on the importance of the words used,
I have written an essay which is attached.
I send you a copy for you to use as you see fit - either as an article,
or just for your own edification.
Peter Sawyer - Australia