NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years

Consider the source! This is from the Hansen gang, co-conspirators w/ the discredited Jones gang at CRU. If the growing heat island, city temperatures are thrown out, as they should be, then there is scant, 0.5 deg/century, warming.
These politicians, they're clearly not scientists by definition, continue on as if no one is wise to their exposed manipulation of methods and data, and attempted ostracization of real scientists who don't buy into their scam.

Nice play with the numbers, Dr. Hansen. It all is wherever the line is drawn, isn't it? Even with the Met's statement that 2009 was the fifth warmest on record, it still shows that this decade showed a cooling trend overall in addition to the fact that four years during the previous decade were higher than the current average temps.

But, we also have to consider the Atlantic anomaly that shot temperatures for the last two years up during the time it was active, causing Europe to be hit with Sahara Desert air. One wonders whether the Met corrected for that anomaly.

In addition, if we take the line back to 5,000 years, as shown in GISP2 and other related proxy data, we see that we are overall doing just fine by comparison.

Temps were warmer then than now and we are now in the midst of a cycle that still has not taken us up to the temperatures of that early time period.

Not where I'm from - Ontario - It was one of the coldest summers from May to Mid-August - way below normal. Temps were below normal for at least 75% of the year. I suspect there's more data fixing here. Time to prosecute these guys.

for the crime of inflamming idiots?

Amazing that despite prolonged La Nina, prolonged solar minimum and a negative PDO the last decade was indeed the warmest recorded, and the indications are that this year will be the warmest. That leaves AGW as the only plausible cause...hmmm. Joe, Ontario isn't exactly a significant portion of the Earths surface, don't confuse local weather with global temperatures.
Incidentally the so called cooling trend for the last decade is no more, here is a plot of the global mean since 2000 hmmm, seems to be going up, not exactly a decline..ohh and just for fun I added the solar irradiance levels...wow...thats a decline! http://www.woodfo...set:1366

Some people may still be niave or gullible enough to believe that the earth is cooling yet ALL the evidence shows it isnt....what decline?

Unfortunately both sock puppets above don't seem to understand what "mean" means.

Oh Pheiankell and Veianarris, please explain how a mean temperature is at all relevant within the boundaries of climate science considering the system is positively not decadally linked according to your data set.

Why is the post immediately above so frigging weird?
I am pretty sure that 99.9 per cent of all the people that frequent this site -much less post comments- are aware that "mean" in this context equates with average. Therefore, when one speaks of "global" warming, the only numbers that speak to that in a meaningful way are perforce "mean" or "average"- in the sense of "GLOBAL"/"OVERALL".
The science itself is unequivocal. We are indeed experiencing Global Warming. The only question remaining is: is it, in fact, caused or exacebated by human activity? Since we are currently at solar minimum, and the variation in Earth's orbit is taking the northern hemisphere further away from the summer sun, my vote is for "yes".

Caliban, you're unfortunately included in the discussion as to what a mean actually is, and you don't know either.

The mean being discussed is not a mean, or average.

Here's where it ceases to be a mean. When you generate pre-populated data points based off of an interpretation of signal from a non-local source it becomes a modal score through the manipulation. You're not discussing a mean value as one cannot create a mean value over the globe with our current equipment missing as many like measured data points as it is.

And if you haven't noticed, the Northern hemisphere is frozen solid. It's mighty cold up here.

Worse, the sockpuppets above seem to keep relying on tainted data. The wood for trees website uses roughly half of the information from CRU, the group who worked so hard to hide the decline by first using the infamous 'fudge factor' program code and then "normalizing" against urban temperature stations and other stations with defective and corrupted databases--so bad, in fact, that one of the guys frustrated with working with the defective data just started making things up.

Anything relying heavily on CRU data is a complete redo, recheck, and reassessment, and until that is done no one should rely on the information. That includes reliance on the woods for trees website.

Plenlankell wrote: "the last decade was indeed the warmest recorded, and the indications are that this year will be the warmest."
This is very interesting. Since we are in a period of global cooling, and have been for more than the last decade - does this mean that there never was any global warming. (Ignore your data and look at objective data at http://www.friend...nce.org)

And although Ontario is twice the size of the biggest state, it is relatively small. So we should also consider the cold across Quebec, the Eastern U.S. etc. Also, the record snow and temps in England and in Europe, not to mention China, Russia, etc.

Not where I'm from- Seattle, roughly same latitude as Maine- where temps have been hanging round the 50F mark for the last couple of weeks. While it is true that the occasional "warm spell" typically 1 or 2 days in duration does occur, the last 5 years or so have exhibited an uptick in these winter warms, and summer highs have been at or exceeded the records,, and also lasted longer. Local, true- but above average, also.

Probably just a sockpuppet conspiracy, though.

You should expect temperatures to rise and stay up where you are. Your city has had population increases as well as increased urbanization over the last five years. Expect your overall temperatures to go up in and around Seattle by as high as 5 degrees C higher than the surrounding rural areas.

I neglected to mention that similar rises of temperatures in urban areas have been observed in a number of places due to heat island effect, or by whatever term it is known from now to oblivion.

You should not expect Seattle to be any different.

Oh yeah, the Urban heat myth. Measurements of the lower troposphere (which are indidentally already at the highest temperatures recorded) match the terrestrial measurements very well.

yeah neither here, record cold temperatures across the northern hemisphere says that global warming is a hoax, a scam -- these increasing temperatures are produced by measurement stations within expanding urban heat islands. This article is a joke.

Thanks Vel, I just looked at the graph above and compared it to satellite data. I plotted the graph using all the satellite data (no Urban heat island there!!) and they all match quite closely. http://www.woodfo...et:-0.22
I see someone still thinks the last decade showed global cooling, I'd love to see the evidence, (S)he mentioned the low temperatures but very high anomalous temperatures were recorded globally including Australia, Greenland and also not forgetting the highest ever temperature recorded for Europe in January (30C in Crete).

yeah neither here, record cold temperatures across the northern hemisphere says that global warming is a hoax, a scam -- these increasing temperatures are produced by measurement stations within expanding urban heat islands. This article is a joke.

so how do you explain the satellite recorded temperatures mentioned above...Vertical UHI...badly placed satellites? I notice Dachpy also says on one hand the data is a joke, can't trust it, then tells us with all authority that temperatures have been in decline the last decade...using what data...we want to see it...show us the links...

Worse, the sockpuppets above seem to keep relying on tainted data. The wood for trees website uses roughly half of the information from CRU, the group who worked so hard to hide the decline by first using the infamous 'fudge factor' program code and then "normalizing" against urban temperature stations and other stations with defective and corrupted databases--so bad, in fact, that one of the guys frustrated with working with the defective data just started making things up.

Anything relying heavily on CRU data is a complete redo, recheck, and reassessment, and until that is done no one should rely on the information. That includes reliance on the woods for trees website.

Doesn't take long to bring in Climategate does it? When all things fail bring in the handful of cherrypicked, non contextual emails (6 out of over a 1,000?) to disprove every climate argument...pathetic

Climategate has nothing to do with 6 emails sockpuppet.

Climategate shows there is a need for investigation into the data that the CRU produced. That investigation would determine the truth of the matter.

Couple this with Mr. Pachauri's indiscretions and there's even more reason for healthy skepticism.

If the satellite data was beyond doubt perhaps they would use it in these annoucements of record temperature, instead of using the ground based stations and reporting based on that equipment.

You keep stating they match, prove it. Everyone else seems to doubt correlation without manipulation, including the reviewers.

If it's getting colder why are the poles melting.

The whole subject is so polluted with disinformation, rumors, emotion, and bias that it is impossible for anyone to make an informed judgement on the subject.

surface temperature record shows an upward trend of about 0.36 degrees

It is well known that surface temperatures are increasing due to the heat island effect. Satellite data does not show the same increase. These "scientists" have put blinders on. NASA and the CRU are working together to fudge the evidence any way they can. Disgusting. And the mainstream media still writes articles about this garbage as if it were real science.

Let's have a reality check. Is it likely that every single climate-related government organisation in USA, Europe, Australia and Asia are in the pay of a nebulous conspiracy?

According to a number of postershere we are in the grips of a massive socialist conspiracy. The same religious right group helps finance them in the same way as the creationists and we saw how successful that campaign was...take Sarah palin their heroine, doesn't believe in AGW, evolution but can see Russia from her house!
By the way satellite data does show the same increases (check out links above) you just need to look at the information instead of relying on nutjob blogs for your info.

That's a good point. After reading the actual emails you can plainly see that the scientists try hard to get the information across as accurately as possible. The deniersphere blogs of course only pick the half dozen or so that can be taken out of context to try and illustrate their points. As more people actually read them for themselves they soon realise that thee is no cover up or mass conspiracy...think about how quickly the fuss died away.

The problem here is, again, emotional investment in a theory. We should stand behind theories that most accurately explain or predict observed data.

Theories must correlate to fact, otherwise they are naught but speculation and conjecture.

I've seen rather compelling reports for global warming _and_ for global cooling. Our problem has now become understanding the datasets used.

If I use a statistical analysis and pick my numbers right, I can "prove" just about anything.

Politics and emotion should be cut out. I suggest you all seriously investigate _both_ sides of the argument. It can give insight.

Discussion can lead to understanding, but argument generally leads to disagreement.

Seems to me, we've got political hacks masquerading as scientists, to ensure their continued funding by environmental and governmental organizations. The "thousand meteorological stations" are not evenly distributed around the world, and the data is tainted over time by increasing urban heat islands. Analysis of the data offers many opportunities to make the "conclusions" whatever is desire.

My personal belief, is that global warming will lead to more prosperity. IMHO, we're wasting resources assuming what we're doing is changing the weather, and assuming that the supposed change is a negative thing. We do know weather changes. Humans didn't cause the ice ages or warming periods that occurred in the past. We should expect change.

If it's getting colder why are the poles melting.

I have seen no indication of Polish people melting. Though one young Pole was quite a lady, she melted my heart.

So the glaciers are going to melt even faster than the IPPC report stated? How dreadful, how sad, what can we do to STOP it?

Sahra Palin made a joke about seeing Russia. Al Gore seriously tried (lied) to convince stupid people he invented the Internet.
Sahra Palin will gain nothing from her stance about AGW being a myth.
Al Gore will/has made a forturne on AGW.
Scientists who are against AGW are marginalized and ridiculed by the media and may loose funding and will be prevented from publishing their findings.
Scientists who promote AGW are getting funding, are held up by the media.

Thing is, it is a numbers game. It is where the lines are drawn with respect to other lines. In addition, as in CRU data, it is creative manipulation of the numbers when the original dataset does not show what one wants.

In spite of the fact that everything that comes from CRU is suspect until all information is rechecked (with the exception of the raw data that disappeared and never will be recovered, of course), I thought I would take a few moments to post a link to the same woodfortrees website and this time remove the noise from the graphs by limiting the time from 2001 (the point where the cooling trend actually began this decade) to what is barely available of 2010 and setting up a Linear Trend (OLS) for all lines of data I chose to use. Take a look:

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

9 years out of this decade is a downward slope. Thoughts?

Now, keep in mind that I have rounded up the actual beginning of the cooling trend. The actual beginning was mid-2000. However, rather than deal with decimals at the moment for a fun exercise, I rounded up. Anyone here, however, can plug in data in decimals and see similar results.

But, something should be made clear at the outset. Neither the numbers the sockpuppets have linked nor mine are considered statistically significant overall.

I also want to remind everyone of the overall trend over the last 5000 year or so as well, as reported via GISP2.

http://www.ncdc.n...2000.gif

I think we are doing just fine for the moment by comparison when we take a step back and look at the bigger picture. It really is where the lines are drawn at this stage of data acquisition and debate. :)

In relation to the above couple posts I wanted to make an observation. The NASA/NOAA global climate at a glance data still is unavailable and the last update to the site indicates that maintenance is ongoing to "improve function and update the data feed."

That was Monday, October 26, 2009.

I really would like to compare the trend data again on a global level and set the parameters for the original 1979-2000 mean and compare that to the US data.

Last time I checked, the data pretty much showed what the link to the wood for trees site in two posts directly above shows when a Linear Trend is set up for the majority of the last decade. It is quite pertinent to the above article, but, unfortunately, it still is unavailable to the public.

It is difficult to find an objective temperature data these days. Believers would show you one graph, while skeptics another. However, consider antarctic. Global warming is supposed to be global, right, so there should be temperature increase there too? Moreover, according to AGW theory it is the poles that are supposed to warm the most? And what do measurements show:

http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf

http://www.nerc-b...rend.pdf

Those are individual stations not affected by UHI, "adjustments". They are located in perfect place where there is no day-night time temperature variation noise. Remarkably flat, aren't they?

I thought that the reader who might not go past the linked data might want to know that the two stations linked to above are located in Antarctica.

The Amundsen-Scott station is located at 90°00'S, 0°00', South Pole, East Antarctica.

The Vostok station is located at 78°27'S, 106°52'E, central ice plateau, East Antarctica.

I also observe the relatively 'flat' format of the data.

Fahrenheit? Seriously.

@dachpyarvile,

9 years out of this decade is a downward slope. Thoughts?

Here's your answer:

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

Plotted is the data for sea surface temp anomaly -- both raw and linear fit. You will notice a rather large (and uncharacteristic) drop in temperature during 2008. That was a significant La Nina. If that year were to be excluded, the slope of the line fit would flip to positive. And oh by the way, 2010 is projected (and already is proving to be) quite a strong El Nino year -- so by this time in 2011 your decadal plots will start to look very different, as 2008 is balanced out by 2010.

And oh by the way, 2008-2009 corresponded to the activity minimum in the 11-year solar cycle. We're headed toward an upswing now:

http://www.swpc.n.../f10.gif

Enough thoughts for you yet?

Not yet. I tried to pull down the raw data for the rest of 2009 from your chart. It is not available. The last measurement that is available is from 2009.67.

In addition, I smoothed out 2008 in one of my own experimental charts on my own computer and still showed an overall declining trend. It may be smaller but it still showed a decline. I will need to play with the numbers and parameters to see whether the chart you have shared with us can be set up similarly.

Unfortunately, if we want to discuss the finer and more exacting details of the case for the data you used, we will have to wait until it all becomes available. It still is not as of yet.

As to the solar cycle, the outcome of that prediction remains to be seen. We have been told repeatedly that we are going to be headed toward an upswing and that solar activity was going to ramp up for most of last year. Like that ever happened... :)

The whole discussion about a 'decline' in 2000-2010 (there wasn't of course, as PE and others have linked to deniers still love the 2008-2009 temperatures during that very strong La Nina to telll us there was) is pretty insignificant.
The last decade was the warmest recorded....period.
I love this quote from above "
In addition, I smoothed out 2008 in one of my own experimental charts on my own computer and still showed an overall declining trend."
From someone who makes such a huge fuss about experimenting with code/hiding declines etc..here we see exactly the same!! Hide your emails, this might be taken totally out of context and used against you!

@dachpyarvile,

Unfortunately, if we want to discuss the finer and more exacting details of the case for the data you used...

The data (and charts) are from the same web site YOU used.

And here's another point:

http://www.woodfo...10/trend

This time, plotting the same raw data, with same type of linear fit. But instead of the last 10 years, I chose to plot the last half-century (i.e. from 1960 to 2010.)

Looking at the trendline, and the deviations from it (i.e. "noise") on the finer scale, what happened between 2000 and 2010 is completely within the norms of the noise. There is no signal there. There is no "decline". IOW you could find other "declines" if you focused on 1987-1996, or on 1969-1975. But that's nothing other than a case of intentional fraud, which one could loosely describe as "deliberately selective attention".

If you unhide the comments hidden by MikeyK and sockpuppets, you will see WHY I even used them in the first place.

Furthermore, I also stated that the data could not be trusted until checked and rechecked. It came from the CRU, for crying out loud.

I also stated in one of the now hidden posts above that I did it for a "fun exercise" and for no other reason. I have clearly stated several times here and elsewhere that the woodfortrees data must be taken with a grain of salt. I also have clearly stated that my linked material from that site is statistically insignificant. What part of that do you not understand? Please try to read a little more carefully.

Of course, I can see how you might have missed something like that in light of the sockpuppeteer's penchant for downranking posts he doesn't like. Nonetheless, if you read the above now hidden posts you might actually begin to understand. If not, I cannot help you.

...From someone who makes such a huge fuss about experimenting with code/hiding declines etc..here we see exactly the same!! Hide your emails, this might be taken totally out of context and used against you!

This is exactly why no one here or elsewhere will ever see my chart. I only mentioned that I did it but I have no intention of publishing a flawed model or a flawed chart based on flawed, possibly tainted, and missing data.

Too bad the CRU and IPCC did not learn that lesson earlier when they went ahead and actually used the code and published information based upon it. :)

The last decade was the warmest on record. Its true that the record is from facilities in both urban and rural areas, but the so called heat island effect can be calculated and adjusted for. It also doesn't take a lot of scientific expertise to figure out experiments where it can also be directly measured.

So the observations are sound. The climate is warming. Glaciers are retreating for the most part. In the much ballyhooed 'climategate' emails, what is usually left out of the discussion is that all of the dissenting papers (the ones that people were supposed to have suppressed) made it into the final report. In addition. the 'trick' was to use actual observed data instead of tree-ring proxy data. Not exactly what I would call evidence of some global conspiracy to suppress what is true.

There is simply no data supporting any of the AGW deniers positions. It is all made up. You guys are simply wrong.

Consider the source! This is from the Hansen gang, co-conspirators w/ the discredited Jones gang at CRU. If the growing heat island, city temperatures are thrown out, as they should be, then there is scant, 0.5 deg/century, warming.
These politicians, they're clearly not scientists by definition, continue on as if no one is wise to their exposed manipulation of methods and data, and attempted ostracization of real scientists who don't buy into their scam.

So your position is that this is a total scam because you can only see 1/3 of the warming in this report... because you fail to understand how trivial it is to accurately measure and adjust for the heat island effect? Interesting position. Are you just standing there on one leg or is there actually room for both feet?

Nice play with the numbers, Dr. Hansen. It all is wherever the line is drawn, isn't it? Even with the Met's statement that 2009 was the fifth warmest on record, it still shows that this decade showed a cooling trend overall in addition to the fact that four years during the previous decade were higher than the current average temps.

But, we also have to consider the Atlantic anomaly that shot temperatures for the last two years up during the time it was active, causing Europe to be hit with Sahara Desert air. One wonders whether the Met corrected for that anomaly.

In addition, if we take the line back to 5,000 years, as shown in GISP2 and other related proxy data, we see that we are overall doing just fine by comparison.

Temps were warmer then than now and we are now in the midst of a cycle that still has not taken us up to the temperatures of that early time period.

links? data? or is this more smoke?

This is exactly why no one here or elsewhere will ever see my chart. I only mentioned that I did it but I have no intention of publishing a flawed model or a flawed chart based on flawed, possibly tainted, and missing data.

So even if criminals steal your unfinished data with your experimenting, unfinished, presumably with warning notices to ensure they don't make it into the finished article, publish it for the benefit of like-minded extremists without any link or reference to the actual code you used, you would say that was OK?
Show us a link to the finished code, with contextual correspondence then, or is 'hidden' in the parts of the emails you admit to have not read thoroughly?

A few minutes research clearly proves the data is criminally skewed (google: GHCN NOAA). Temperature measurements farther from the tropics and farther from urban areas were mostly eliminated without reason given. The Freedom of information act was strangely disobeyed without any prosecution for years (and still is) on requests for data. Data was destroyed en masse without reasonable explanation. Emails clearly indicate conscious criminal "science". And i could go on for another several paragraphs. People, you've got to stop blindly trusting someone paid by politicians just because they passed all their climatology tests in school.

"NASA Research Finds Last Decade was Warmest on Record, 2009 One of Warmest Years"

Dairy farms in Greenland and Vineyards in Scotland are a fact of history.

In 2009 (and 2010, 11 12 . . .) it is still too cold for these to exist where once they did.

AGW = hogwash.

At the same time as the vikings colonised a SMALL part of Greenland, there was a particularly prolonged cold spell in New Zealand, at the same time as the so called mini-ice age many parts of the southern hemisphere had prolonged warm spells.
All evidence suggests that the MWP and the LIA were not global (to clarify one point the 'year without a summer' was caused by a large eruption).
As regards Scottish vinyards, well, you are basing this assumption on one unverified and controversial report. I think it quite comical you trust an unsubstantiated report, highlighted in nutjob blog, as evidence yet ignore the thousands of papers in the last 30 or so years.
Anyway, wine was produced in England back in the Romans time, they hated it as the quality was quite poor (as verified from relics found at Hadrian's Wall)and imported the vast majority of their consumption from Italy. English wine today is actually very, very good, helped by good grape selection and warm summers!

@PinkElephant

What about these two graphs (taken from your original objection about the La Nina in 2008), comparing ocean surface sea from 1990-2000, if we eliminate the 1997/1998 strong El Nino that cause a huge spike in temps, we get a negative trend or a flat one at best?

http://www.woodfo...00/trend

Also, I haven't seen any refutation for the GISP2 historic trend from ice cores OR the flatness of temperatures at stations in Antarctica?

Are there any reasons why we should dismiss this data or consider it irrelevant to the issue? Stuff like this needs to be refuted to the general public, if anyone hopes to be able to give any credibility to AGW, which is on very shaky stilts as it is.

I will also adhere to the general opinion that all this bickering, accusation and franticness is one of the worst soap operas that science has ever been in, and it is SAD!

What about these two graphs...

This is why focusing on any single decade, when rather large fluctuations to either side of the long-term trend exist on multi-year time scales, is a fundamental error in approach. Yes, you're right that 1998 skewed the trend for the 1990-2000 interval, just as 2008 skewed 2000-2009. That's exactly my point: if you want to see the long-term trend, you have to measure it over a time period that exceeds random fluctuation time scale by at least an order of magnitude, and hopefully more.

GISP2 historic trend from ice cores

Not sure what you're talking about; can you update me on that?

flatness of temperatures at stations in Antarctica

Antarctic *polar* temperatures are exceptional due to the fact that the air mass over that continent is effectively isolated from the rest of the globe for much of the year, due to a strong and stable circumpolar flow (the polar vortex):

http://en.wikiped...r_vortex

Antarctic *polar* temperatures are exceptional due to the fact that the air mass over that continent is effectively isolated from the rest of the globe for much of the year, due to a strong and stable circumpolar flow (the polar vortex):

http://en.wikiped...r_vortex

You mean CO2 concentration there stays at preindustrial level? Therefore, there is no way for that evil greenhouse gas to have an effect during long summers?

You mean CO2 concentration there stays at preindustrial level? Therefore, there is no way for that evil greenhouse gas to have an effect during long summers?

Let's review how "evil greenhouse gas" produces its effect. You see, the sun hits the GROUND, which absorbs the sunlight and warms up the air next to the ground, as well as radiating the heat back in the infrared. It is this heat both directly radiated and transferred to lower troposphere, that is then trapped by greenhouse gases.

In Antarctica, the sun hits the ground at extremely slanted angle: thus, imparting less heating. Moreover, the sun hits a ground covered by snow and ice: highly reflective surface, that absorbs very little of the sunlight. Most of the sunlight is reflected directly back to space, instead of being converted to heat. IOW, "high albedo."

With these conditions in mind, greenhouse gases would exert much less of an effect over Antarctica. Any other blindingly obvious things you need explained?

Any other blindingly obvious things you need explained?

Since water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect, and CO2 accounts for 0.28% of the effect, and there is no causative link between CO2 and temperature (temperature rises cause increases in CO2, not the other way around) how do we justify massive global programs to control CO2? That seems blindingly obvious, so explain it.

PLease stop already....no amount of last minute playing with the numbers will overcome the reality that this is all bunk, from climategate to the Himalayas-gate.

May I suggest a new theme, asteroid attack. It parallels global warming fairly well, only it is even less provable than GW (ie you can hide the decline without being caught). You can scare the general population with dire predictions of disaster and get to the "asteroid tax" faster than the "carbon tax".

Same premise, same end result....soak the working stiff.

Free the scientists.

The NASA GISS record and standards are 3.5 decades deep. How can they confirm a warmest decade beyond that data set? Sounds like a disingenuous headline.

The basic GISS temperature analysis scheme was defined in the late 1970s by James Hansen when a method of estimating global temperature change was needed for comparison with one-dimensional global climate models.

Source: http://data.giss....gistemp/

At the same time as the vikings colonised a SMALL part of Greenland, there was a particularly prolonged cold spell in New Zealand, at the same time as the so called mini-ice age many parts of the southern hemisphere had prolonged warm spells.

No.

"the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena"

www.cfa.harvard.e...0310.htm

"the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena"

yes

links? data? or is this more smoke?

The link is above and has been for some time--in a now hidden post. Turn off rank filtering and you will see it. It is a link to charted GISP2 data above, and it is on a NASA affiliated site. Again, it would be most helpful to actually read what I have posted above.

So even if criminals steal your unfinished data with your experimenting, unfinished, presumably with warning notices to ensure they don't make it into the finished article, publish it for the benefit of like-minded extremists without any link or reference to the actual code you used, you would say that was OK?
...

There never will be any person, criminal or otherwise, who will ever see that chart. I deleted it and I tend to do a better than DOD-standard wipe on deleted data. Good luck to anyone trying to get at something like that. :)

As to the emails and data, there is plenty of context. You just haven't seen it because the only thing you are doing is banking off of climate blogs denying that it is there. The 'e' revision code was and is fully functional, was actually used, and fudges data as its stated purpose details--it applies a very artificial correction to remove declines from multiple kinds of data.

Want a link? Pick for us a site you will accept.

"the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena"

http://www.cfa.ha...0310.htm

Your link was broken. I attempt to fix the link here:

http://www.cfa.ha...310.html

It is quite useful information. Thanks for sharing.

This is the infamous "Soon & Baliunas" paper, that is so riddled with conceptual errors and bad statistics, that most of the editors in the journal that published the paper over their objections, resigned in protest. It is one of the papers that was mentioned in a ballyhooed CRU email rant (the one mentioning a "re-definition" of peer review), as unworthy of inclusion in the IPCC report.

http://en.wikiped...troversy

Infamous? Must be why Harvard still has it posted, eh?

Never trust wiki for anything at all controversial. Might as well trust algore.

Since water vapor accounts for 95% of the greenhouse effect

You can't artificially raise the amount of water in the atmosphere, as it is limited by the air's temperature. Excess water rapidly precipitates out. Water as a greenhouse gas is also only effective in the troposphere. In the upper atmosphere, water is 1) much less abundant (due to much colder temperatures), 2) tends to form ice crystals instead of vapor.

For CO2, there is no natural limit on concentration in the atmosphere, it is equally effective at any altitude, and equally potent regardless of absolute or relative humidity of any climate.

...there is no causative link between CO2 and temperature...

Because in the past, there was no anthropogenic CO2. Warming due to other causes tends to release extra CO2 from solution (out of oceans) into atmosphere. Raising CO2 content in atmosphere still boosts the effectiveness of the atmospheric blanket, regardless of what caused the increased concentration.

"the Medieval Warm Period of 800 to 1300 A.D. and the Little Ice Age of 1300 to 1900 A.D. were worldwide phenomena"

http://www.cfa.ha...310.html

It is quite useful information. Thanks for sharing.

Thanks! We all have to work to stop the madness.

That's exactly my point: if you want to see the long-term trend, you have to measure it over a time period that exceeds random fluctuation time scale by at least an order of magnitude, and hopefully more.

That's been my point all along too - well said, PE. I did some research (unrelated to climate, but bear with me) where I gathered and plotted data points, and my rule of thumb was if the removal of one or two points altered the curve too much, then I needed more data. The same applies here - if you remove a "problematic" data point (year) and it completely reverses the overall trend, then your data is not representative of anything significant. It's just noise. Collect more data, and you'll have real results.

For CO2, there is no natural limit on concentration in the atmosphere...

That's not true. CO2 has an effective limit as the effectiveness of adding more CO2 requires a greater addition to receive the same amount of forcing.

Easier way to say it. For every 1 degree rise in temperature, to reach another degree you require an exponentially greater amount. So the warming you get by adding 100pm will not be mirrored by adding another 100ppm. Eventually you will reach a point where any additional CO2 will be negligible in it's delta on forcing.

As a secondary, the molar mass of CO2 is what makes CO2 only of relevance within the troposphere.

Water vapor is pertinent at all levels due to how water works as a prism on incomming and outgoing light as well as how its state change results in a change in forcing and albedo. Couple this with the fact that precipitation acts as a carbon sink and your explanation is easily deemed over simplistic.

Looks like someone doesn't like facts here.

Does anyone actually pay attention to the star ranking system? Does it matter?

You've confused concentration (volume fraction) with optical saturation.

The saturation effect (i.e. logarithmic relationship between volume fraction and radiation blocking) is taken into account when calculating total effect of increased CO2.

The molar mass isn't as important as you think. The convection currents within the atmosphere completely dominate what otherwise would be the tendency of the various gases to sort themselves by weight. In terms of its gas content by volume fraction, the atmosphere tends to be well-mixed at any altitude.

"Precipitation as carbon sink": I don't know if you've heard, but atmospheric volume fraction of CO2 is on the rise. Clearly, it isn't "precipitating out" fast enough.

PE,

If the atmosphere was well mixed at any altitude you wouldn't see distinctive layering within the atmosphere in both gas and energy content. Gas is well mixed within the troposphere but that changes significantly once you rise above the tropopause.

And I'm not confusing concentration with optical saturation. For a given amount of CO2 you have a total "delay" between emission and escape of the energy. At 100ppm it's 1 unit, at 200ppm it's 2 units, at 400ppm it's 3 units. It is not as simple as "add 100ppm and get a 1 degree increase".

As for precipitation as a carbon sink, you say more water vapor would precipitate out quickly, would that not establish a method of "atmos-statis" at a certain point?

If you're going to argue that heavy molecules don't belong high in the atmosphere, you'll need to ponder the abundance of ozone up there. At any rate, atmospheric turbulence reaches well into the stratosphere. For example:

http://adsabs.har....7..873M

more water vapor would precipitate out quickly, would that not establish a method of "atmos-statis" at a certain point?

How will that carbon be fixed on the surface? CO2 is in equilibrium between atmosphere and bodies of water. You can't add any more of it without it outgassing back into the air. In fact, the warmer the temperatures, the less CO2 can remain dissolved in water. That's why paleo-warming always lead to CO2 outgassing and increased concentrations in air -- as opposed to scrubbing of CO2.

But nobody seriously asserts that equilibrium will be lost forever. The concern is that the new equilibrium is at disruptively higher ground and tropospheric temperatures.

Yes, the question is what is the capacity and how fragile is the system.

I don't believe the system is so fragile that we are having any great effect. However, we should be preventing pollution and cease despoiling the land. Carbon is the least of our worries.

And as for ozone, it's aloft due to it's charge and where it's generated. Not convective pressure. Just about all the CO2 in the atmosphere is located in the troposphere. The atmosphere is not well mixed between charge layers. The incomming energy and the capacity for absorption along independant spectra of differening molecules ensure that.

"Fragility" is a relative concept. Is a system "fragile", when the total industrial exhaust of a globe-spanning civilization over a couple of centuries, is barely sufficient to raise absolute temperature from 290 K (let's say) to 294 K? On the large scale of things, we aren't moving the temperature very much at all.

The problem is that this shift is quite rapid for ecosystems, which are already under stress from us as it is. It is also a sufficiently large shift to disrupt local climate patterns, shift wind patterns, redistribute precipitation, raise sea levels, etc. -- wreaking unknown but probably huge amounts of damage and expense. In biological terms, consider also the difference between 36.5 C vs. 40.5 C. The former is normal human body temperature; the latter is near-terminal high fever (terminal if sustained.) Sometimes, just a couple of degrees makes a huge difference...

Just about all the CO2 in the atmosphere is located in the troposphere. The atmosphere is not well mixed between charge layers.

Take a look at the abstract I linked, as an example. In the stratosphere, they found rapidly fluctuating concentrations of CO2, that in relative terms were actually greater than in the troposphere. On one night, they measured 400 ppm CO2 in the stratosphere...

You can always do a web search for more examples; that's how I found that particular abstract, and there were others.

Oops, two comments eaten by forum for no apparent reason.

Regarding albedo, you imply there shouldnt be any temperature increase at all? How about the hallmark paper
http://tintin.col...1978.pdf
predicted 5 degree temperature increase at latitude 80 deg. They also point that greenhouse effect is magnified at high latitudes. What were they smoking?

Your link doesn't work.

But anyway, were they talking about the Arctic, or Antarctica? The polar vortex at the Arctic is a lot weaker and less organized, so there isn't quite the same degree of isolation.

Also, don't know about 80 degrees, but in the 60's there's definitely magnified warming both predicted and measured.

As for what they were smoking... back in 1978 it really could've been anything =)

Infamous? Must be why Harvard still has it posted, eh?
Never trust wiki for anything at all controversial. Might as well trust algore.

Interesting little fact after the conclusion of the report, in the smallest typeface so you might miss it ;-):
" This work was supported by funds from
the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579)..

As Eric Idle would say "Say no more, wink wink, nudge nudge..

The problem is that this shift is quite rapid for ecosystems,

I greatly disagree that a minimal (less than .7 degree C change over 100 years) is cause for great die offs. If that were the case chances are you and I wouldn't be having this conversation right now.

" This work was supported by funds from
the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579)..

IPCC AR4 should say the same thing. The API funds a lot of environmental research, much of which is lauded by the AGW Proponent community. Funding doesn't exemplify bias, but good looking out.

Let's do more research and end all the uneducated guesswork. We aren't anywhere near being able to build a predictive model. Let's work towards that goal and then start to talk about this in a more informed and less emotional way.

Yes, the Soon and Baliunas paper was made into something of a media circus and was indeed the subject of emails. What I find of interest in the link PE provided above also is pertinent, which is the following:

More recently, Osborn and Briffa repeated the Baliunas and Soon study but restricted themselves to records that were validated as temperature proxies, and came to a different result.

That is funny considering that these same proxies also are the subject of emails and climategate documents. Funnier still is that Briffa is the source of the infamous 'Fudge Factor' used to get rid of declines and that both Briffa and Osborn files are present in said data.

No, in spite of any perceived errors or claimed problems with the Soon and Baliunas paper, it is the referenced papers themselves aside from the abovementioned paper that are of interest. Had I the funds or the funding I would stock my library with them. :)

That was 1978 paper "West AntarctIc Ice sheet and CO2 greenhouse effect: a threat of" by Mercer, one more try:
tintin.colorado.edu/CVEN5718/Readings/Mercer_Nature_1978.pdf
5K temperature raise in the next 50 years below antarctic circle. OK, less than 20 years left before we can confidently say: look your prediction (cited everywhere) is POS.

Yes, you need some asymmetry explanation for arctic and antarctic, and IMO the vortex is the least convincing one. You suggest that there is an physical process that negates greenhouse at exactly the same rate so that the net effect is zero? That is pretty complex explanation. I find the hypothesis that AGW effect is negligible and/or canceled by zillions of other atmospheric processes much more plausible.

..." This work was supported by funds from
the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579)...

And...??? The work of the paper and synthesis was paid for in part with said funds. Fact is, Exxon and many other corporations also have their hands in AGW funding. Do a little searching and poking around.

The thing is, this funding does not apply to the materials that they referenced to put together the study. It is the underlying material that is of more interest.

Additionally, it is a fact--confirmed by climategate--that there are those active in trying to get funding cut off for scientists who do not toe the AGW line. I can easily see some scientists, when faced with the cutting off of their funding, add their voices to those who accused Soon and Baliunas of misusing their published data and papers.

That is not the behavioral model of true scientific inquiry, which certainly is not manifest in the climategate emails and documents.

Doesn't take long, when all else fails bring on the emails...LOL. Climategate emials blah blah blah.
Anyway, back to the real world and away from one of Dachpys sockpuppets..is it real..an imposter..actually who cares..
The fact that this particularly poorly worked out paper was paid for by big oil is very relevant.
Back to topic and away from opinions, lets stick to facts, 2009 has been confirmed as the 2nd warmest year recorded by NASA http://www.giss.n...0100121/

You suggest that there is an physical process that negates greenhouse at exactly the same rate so that the net effect is zero?

No. I've already put forth in a previous post, from what I've read the greenhouse over the Antarctic landmass itself is less effective: due to high albedo, and due to high obliqueness, the absorption of sunlight by the surface in the first place is much less efficient.

At the same time, the air mass over Antarctica is somewhat isolated from the rest of the atmosphere by the south polar vortex. So even as the enhanced greenhouse warms up the air in the 60's latitudes, this warmer air is prevented from intruding further down toward the pole. Nor, unlike with the Arctic, are there any ocean currents that approach the south pole. So overall, heat transport toward the south pole is much weaker, than heat transport toward the north pole.

In short, the greenhouse boost is not "negated", it just has less to work with over most of Antarctica.

Back to topic and away from opinions, lets stick to facts, 2009 has been confirmed as the 2nd warmest year recorded by NASA

So it was warmer than 1998 or are you still going by the incorrect NASA figures that placed 98 ahead of 34 in the modern record?

So it was warmer than 1998 or are you still going by the incorrect NASA figures that placed 98 ahead of 34 in the modern record?

Oh dear oh dear, misreading facts...again! For the umpteenth time 1934 refers to the temperature of the continental USA, which comprises about 2% of the surface area of the earth.
If you had actually read the link, which you obviously hadn't before commentating on it, you will see that, according to NASA 2005 was the warmest year GLOBALLY. I quote "The past year was only a fraction of a degree cooler than 2005, the warmest year on record, and tied with a cluster of other years — 1998, 2002, 2003, 2006 and 2007 1998 and 2007 — as the second warmest year since recordkeeping began."
Next time do take the time to read before commentating, and try to remember who you are logged in as, that helps safe confusion ;-)

The one sure thing about climate and weather, you can count on it to change. Here in Marquette Michigan, about half a foot of snow on the ground, in late January. Average snowfall, long term(about 125 years), is over 300 inches. If it's a hoax, its a good one. If it isn't I am all in favor of more. Goodbye Texas, hello Michigan!

...
Back to topic and away from opinions, lets stick to facts, 2009 has been confirmed as the 2nd warmest year recorded by NASA...

Interesting. One group says 2009 is the second warmest. Another says it was the fifth warmest. Both claim to use the same data. Which group is right?

How about that fact that many groups claim that there is a tie for second place between 5 of the 10 years contained in the decade.

To me that doesn't show a trend up or down.

...
Back to topic and away from opinions, lets stick to facts, 2009 has been confirmed as the 2nd warmest year recorded by NASA...

Hmmm... Yet another NASA website that states that overall 2009 was FIFTH warmest:

Global land and ocean annual surface temperatures through December tied with 2006 as the fifth warmest on record, at 0.56°C (1.01°F) above the 20th century average.

http://www.ncdc.n...t+Report

So, which is it: fifth or second? Of course, they probably haven't finished revising data on all of their pages yet so who knows what their final figure might be? They may yet find a way to make 2009 the all-time warmest. :)

Hmmm... Yet another NASA website that states that overall 2009 was FIFTH warmest:

Err,NASA? don't you mean NOAA (I suppose they have four letters starting and ending the same, easy to mistake if you are incapable of reading thoroughly, of course they have different data collecting systems but heh..). Nice try at disinformation again..
Oh, and please remember to read posts correctly, notice my wording

" 2009 has been confirmed as the 2nd warmest year recorded by NASA"

Notice something...good, now tell me where i| mentioned NOAA?

So even as the enhanced greenhouse warms up the air in the 60's latitudes, this warmer air is prevented from intruding further down toward the pole.

I can't entirely dismiss your argument, only cast some doubt upon. First, we are talking summer time, during which polar regions get the amount of solar radiation comparable to tropics. So obliqueness is a factor, but not the major one. The Antarctic albedo is 80% and I wonder if it accounts for inclination... Next, high albedo is not overwhelming factor either. The snow/ice albedo is the same as clouds, and the earth is covered by clouds 50% of the time (ref. any sat picture), whereas dry high antarctic plateau is almost always cloud free. Further, you suggest that the main channel for polar regions to warm up is convection from mid latitudes... I haven't seen this idea floating around in the literature, care to support it?

Just to add to this story, NASA have these pictures of the globe showing the temperature anomaly changes over the last decade, pictures paint a thousand words...
http://earthobser...id=42392

Hmmm... Yet another NASA website that states that overall 2009 was FIFTH warmest:

Err,NASA? don't you mean NOAA (I suppose they have four letters starting and ending the same, easy to mistake if you are incapable of reading thoroughly, of course they have different data collecting systems but heh..). Nice try at disinformation again..
Oh, and please remember to read posts correctly, notice my wording

" 2009 has been confirmed as the 2nd warmest year recorded by NASA"

Notice something...good, now tell me where i| mentioned NOAA?

Actually, chalk it up to a mistype while in a hurry rather than trying deliberately to put out disinformation, as you claim. My apologies for mistyping while looking at two sites at the same time.

Actually, this is even better given that this rather egregious error of mine now stands corrected. So, the NOAA agrees with the MET that 2009 is 5th warmest. NASA says 2nd. Which one is right? Why?

Wait a minute, you are saying YOU DON'T KNOW?? You have been commenting on this subject yet you don't know how the measurements are taken, you don't know the differences between the data collection and extrapolation, yet you try and make us believe you are an authority on the subject?
Try and read, you know, research the subject. Report back to my office with an essay, less than 1,000 characters on the difference between NOAA and NASA. Oh, and do double check your sources and please remember the difference in spelling between NOAA and NASA.
Thank you.

There isn't a whole bunch of difference when all their measurements come from the same 3 systems.

Question is, why would their rankings be so different unless there's a faulty method of smoothing at play?

Skeptic_Heretic understands the heart of the question. I know the process and the differences between institutions, as well as the sources of the data that are used--by all three of them.

I am asking you, MikeyK and sockpuppets, a direct question concerning the matter. I am asking which ranking/institution is right and why you think what you do.

So, again, which ranking is right and why do you think so? Please try to answer the questions rather than ranting.

As a side note, you and yours still have not answered the questions elsewhere relative to CO2 levels between the mid-Triassic and end of the Cretaceous, by the way.

He won't reply. A propagandist can be discerned when you ask them preference questions. Being unstudied in the area in which they're debating they can't formulate a preference and will retract and hide from further comment. Dubiousness at it's best.