Re: OT: Global warming strikes again.

13 views
Skip to first unread message

Martin Riddle

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 12:48:08 PM11/27/10
to

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 1:10:49 PM11/27/10
to
On Nov 27, 6:48 pm, "Martin Riddle" <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...
>
> Sharpen up those skates!!!

It happens every winter, and will keep on happening for at least
another few decades if anthropogenic global warming continues at it's
current pace.

Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
areas. If all the melting ice in the Arctic and on top of Greenland
manages to swamp the thermo-haline
circulation that is currently driving the Gulf Stream it could get
quite a lot colder in the U.K. for a few centuries.

The Younger Dryas cold snap between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago is
blamed on a similar effect

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

It is suspected that this was caused by the draining of Lake Assagiz
(which - roughly speaking - covered what are now the Great Lakes in
Canada) which would have dumped a lot of fresh water in the North
Atlantic.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen


John Larkin

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 1:55:21 PM11/27/10
to

We had record lows up here in the Sierras this week, -8F sort of
temps, and 8 feet of fresh snow on the peaks from a single storm.
Sugar Bowl was glorious the last few days, perfect snow and temps in
the mid-20s during the day. The tourists don't reserve for
Thanksgiving, because the snow isn't dependable this early; skiing
this weekend is unusual. Empty chairs!

The AGW people have been predicting drought for the West Coast, and
the rain/snow have, if anything, been above average the last 10 years.
There was snow on the ground here in July. More official studies show
no long-term trend in Sierra snowfall since 1916. Much of the central
valley and the coast gets is water supply from Sierra snow.

John

Rich Grise

unread,
Nov 27, 2010, 11:19:24 PM11/27/10
to
Bill Sloman wrote:
>
> Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> areas.

Ah, now I get it! Warming causes cooling!

Why has it taken me so long to reach enlightenment?

Thanks!!
Rich

Glenn Gundlach

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 12:13:59 AM11/28/10
to

Because we're dumb Americans rather than enlightened Europeans.


Michael A. Terrell

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 1:37:55 AM11/28/10
to


The propblem is that they all burnt out, long ago. Like cheap
Chinese CFLs.

--
For the last time: I am not a mad scientist, I'm just a very ticked off
scientist!!!

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 8:44:55 AM11/28/10
to
On Nov 28, 5:19 am, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> BillSlomanwrote:

>
> > Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> > areas.
>
> Ah, now I get it! Warming causes cooling!
>
> Why has it taken me so long to reach enlightenment?

Stupidity provides a necessary and sufficinet explanation.

Somebody less stupid might have carried over the relevant information
that *global* warming could cause *local* cooling, but Rich's life-
long enthusiasm for recreational chemicals hasn't left him enough
functioning brain cells to grasp such subtle distinctions.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 8:53:46 AM11/28/10
to
On Nov 27, 7:55 pm, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:48:08 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
>
>
>
> <martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> >"Ian Field" <gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> >news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>
> >>http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...

>
> >Sharpen up those skates!!!
>
> ><http://www.youtube.com/user/ijszeilen#p/u/41/0BNlTPdmsRI>
>
> >Cheers
>
> We had record lows up here in the Sierras this week, -8F sort of
> temps, and 8 feet of fresh snow on the peaks from a single storm.
> Sugar Bowl was glorious the last few days, perfect snow and temps in
> the mid-20s during the day. The tourists don't reserve for
> Thanksgiving, because the snow isn't dependable this early; skiing
> this weekend is unusual. Empty chairs!
>
> The AGW people have been predicting drought for the West Coast, and
> the rain/snow have, if anything, been above average the last 10 years.
> There was snow on the ground here in July. More official studies show
> no long-term trend in Sierra snowfall since 1916. Much of the central
> valley and the coast gets is water supply from Sierra snow.

Anthropogenic global warming people have indeed been predicting
drought for the West Coast for some time now, but not for a few
decades yet.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=forecast-us-southwest-drought

John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Larkin

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 11:28:04 AM11/28/10
to

How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
effects are still a few decades in the future.

>
>John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
>myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
>reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.

I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
preachy semipolitical trash.

The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
and long, hot showers are still in my plans.

We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.

At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.

So what IS the temperature in Truckee?

John

Raveninghorde

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 12:06:49 PM11/28/10
to

Easy. All of the above.

Unfortunately the ground based temperature indices are useless.

The Met Office is aboutto upwardly correct sea surface temperatures
for the last 10 years. IT is strange how all current corrections are
upwards and historic corrections are downwards. It is almost as if
they are trying to make the data proove AGW.

Note the last sentence in the quotes below. Which year was warmest
depends on "temperatures in parts of the world where there are no
monitoring stations. "

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-26/world-may-record-warmest-year-as-u-k-meteorological-office-adjusts-data.html

/quote

�It�s currently the second-warmest year on record,� Pope said, noting
that 1998 had a �strong� El Nino phenomenon, a cyclical warming of the
Pacific Ocean that typically raises the global average temperature.

/end quote

/quote

The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration publish two other widely
used global average temperature series. They have 2005 as the warmest
year due to differences in the way they account for temperatures in
parts of the world where there are no monitoring stations.

/end quote

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 2:18:57 PM11/28/10
to
On Nov 28, 5:28 pm, John Larkin

<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 05:53:46 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
> >http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=forecast-us-southwes...

>
> How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
> effects are still a few decades in the future.

The CO2 levels didn't rise much in the first few hundred years

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Mauna_Loa_Carbon_Dioxide-en.svg

The pre-industrial CO2 levels seem to have been around 280ppm, and
started creeping up around 1750.

In the 210 years between then and the beginning of the Mauna Loa
observations in 1958 the level went up to 315 ppm, 12.5%. Since then
it has gone up to 37.5% above the pre-industrial level. The rate of
increase is increasing, and the projections for 2100 lie between 541
and 970 ppm.

Your observation is comparable with that of the guy who jumped of the
top of the Empire State Building, and announced that everything was
fine as he passed the 50th floor ...

> >John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
> >myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
> >reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
>
> I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
> preachy semipolitical trash.
>
> The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
> places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
> island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
> measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
> and long, hot showers are still in my plans.

Whose AGW predictions? Snow depth isn't so much a reflection of colder
winters as wetter autumns.

> We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
> my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
> any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
> station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
> station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.

But fully automated. The weather service went to the trouble of
automating all the airport weather stations around 2004, and put in a
few extra automated stations in useful locations - apparently there is
one in Central Park. The other reporting weather stations are
maintained more out of historical interest than for the instrinsic
value of the data they record.

> At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
> 14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.
>
> So what IS the temperature in Truckee?

A weighed average, with the airport getting most of the weight.

Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
covered with water.

Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
inches.

A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
anthropogenic global warming.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 2:42:59 PM11/28/10
to
On Nov 28, 6:06 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 08:28:04 -0800, John Larkin
>
> >>http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=forecast-us-southwes...

>
> >How convenient. After a couple of hundred years of CO2 rise, the
> >effects are still a few decades in the future.
>
> >>John presumably doesn't read Scientific American - I've given up on it
> >>myself - and is relying on careless second hand reports by denialist
> >>reporters in the right-wing media that he does seem to read.
>
> >I gave up SciAm a long time ago, when they gave up hard science for
> >preachy semipolitical trash.
>
> >The cool thing about snow depth is that it's been measured in the same
> >places in pretty much the same ways since the early 1900s. No heat
> >island effects, no moving weather stations, no data culling. And the
> >measurements are NOT tracking AGW predictions so far. So good skiing
> >and long, hot showers are still in my plans.
>
> >We have maybe a dozen reporting weather stations close by here, plus
> >my private RTD thing. It's not unusual for there to be a 10C spread at
> >any instant. The most extreme temps are at the "official" weather
> >station at the airport. -8F Friday morning, when it was +8 here. The
> >station at the airport is a fairly recent installation.
>
> >At this instant, reported temps in F are 9 (official, airport), 13,
> >14, 15, 16, 17, 17.1 (me), 19, and 21 in a pretty small region.
>
> >So what IS the temperature in Truckee?
>
> >John
>
> Easy. All of the above.
>
> Unfortunately the ground based temperature indices are useless.

Not strictly true. They have to be used with care. Not a concept that
Ravinghorde has the wit - let alone the motivation - to appreciate.

> The Met Office is about to upwardly correct sea surface temperatures
> for the last 10 years. It is strange how all current corrections are


> upwards and historic corrections are downwards. It is almost as if
> they are trying to make the data proove AGW.

There are other hypotheses, but Ravinghorde isn't going to entertain
any of them.

> Note the last sentence in the quotes below.  Which year was warmest
> depends on "temperatures in parts of the world where there are no
> monitoring stations. "
>

> http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-26/world-may-record-warmest-yea...


>
> /quote
>
> It s currently the second-warmest year on record, Pope said, noting
> that 1998 had a strong El Nino phenomenon, a cyclical warming of the
> Pacific Ocean that typically raises the global average temperature.
>
> /end quote
>
> /quote
>
> The U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the
> National Aeronautics and Space Administration publish two other widely
> used global average temperature series. They have 2005 as the warmest
> year due to differences in the way they account for temperatures in
> parts of the world where there are no monitoring stations.
>
> /end quote

Though Ravinghorde hasn't yet heard about it, there are now satellites
in orbit that can measure surface temperature in places where there
aren't any monitoring stations.

Their measurements of the surface of the ocean do monitor the actual
surface, where water is evaporating and cooling the top fraction of a
millimetre. None of the contact measurement techniques are influenced
by this effect.

No doubt he will remain ignorant as long as his ignorance leaves him
free to accuse the NASA and the British Met Office of cooking their
books.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Larkin

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 3:10:04 PM11/28/10
to

Cool, we'll give most of the weight to the obvious (official!)
outlier. Located in a place that is an absolute anomoly around here, a
bare airport runway in a rare meadow flat, surrounded by mountain
forests.

Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
stations, and see how they are sited?

>
>Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
>temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
>covered with water.
>
>Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
>non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
>of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
>of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
>globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
>represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
>global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
>denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
>inches.
>
>A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
>Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
>his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
>after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
>anthropogenic global warming.

Most of the surface area of the planet had zero weather stations until
recent years, and some huge area still have none. And modern weather
stations can't be usefully compared to historical measurements. The
only "fair" data is satellite measurement, which is too recent to
discern longterm trends.

John

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 7:55:51 PM11/28/10
to
On Nov 28, 9:10 pm, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 11:18:57 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
difference to the global average.

> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
> stations, and see how they are sited?

The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
for me?

> >Anthropogenic global warming refers to a weighed average of
> >temperatures spread right around the entire globe - 71% of which is
> >covered with water.
>
> >Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> >non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> >of white paint. The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> >of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> >globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> >represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> >global warming is going on at the moment. That doesn't stop the
> >denialist press from giving his quixotic opinions loads of column
> >inches.
>
> >A recent issue of the journal of the Royal Australian Chemical
> >Institute - of which I'm still a member - included nearly a page of
> >his rubbish which some denialist propagandist had managed to sneak in
> >after flying the nitwit out to Australia to sell some more doubt about
> >anthropogenic global warming.
>
> Most of the surface area of the planet had zero weather stations until
> recent years,

But ships logs have been recording weather data on the oceans since
the 16th century. The data recorded was one of the first things
standardised by the International Meteorological Organization when it
was set up in 1873. That's 71% of the planet's surface.

Callender in the late 1930's was able to put together enough data to
show that world was in fact warming - though, as it turned out - not
due to the small rise in CO2 level that had taken place since the
start of the industrial revolution.

> and some huge area still have none. And modern weather
> stations can't be usefully compared to historical measurements. The
> only "fair" data is satellite measurement, which is too recent to
> discern longterm trends.

I'm sure that the world's meteorologists will be glad that you have
your opinion on the subject. It doesn't seem to be one that they
share, and since they did the undergraduate courses that you seem to
have skipped, and went on to graduate school to learn a little more,
their opinions do carry a little more weight.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

John Larkin

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 8:09:07 PM11/28/10
to

Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
electronics.

>
>> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
>> stations, and see how they are sited?
>
>The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
>tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
>an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
>for me?

Help you think?

John


Jamie

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 8:46:18 PM11/28/10
to
Bill Sloman wrote:

You're a prize package!


Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:05:04 PM11/28/10
to
On Nov 29, 2:46 am, Jamie
<jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
> BillSlomanwrote:
> You're a prize package!

Says Jamie, whose performance in various threads over the past few
days has been rather less than stellar, not that he's likely to be
able to remember the finer points of his several pratfalls.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 28, 2010, 10:05:34 PM11/28/10
to
On Nov 29, 2:09 am, John Larkin
<jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

Two points - the first that the data isn't bad data, merely local
data, and second that the evidence from that kind of temperature
measurement isn't the whole case for anthropogenic global warming, or
anything like it. You have fallen the "merchants of doubt" tactic of
casting doubt on a small portion (urban areas) of a minor part (the
land area of the United States) of a minor line of evidence (the
global historical records of weather observations), and allowed them
to fool you into neglecting the bulk of the scientific evidence.

The problem with your head-in-the-sand scepticism is that
anthropogenic global warming will - if allowed to proceed unchecked,
overturn the world economy in a century or so. The "overturning" of
the economy required to slow down CO2 emissions would be a planned and
gradual process, and is unlikely to to be accompanied by any
population crashes. The consequences of continueing global warming are
less predictable - we don't know which particular bit of shit is going
to hit the fan first - and won't be under anybody's control. There's
an increasing amount of geological evidence (from the end of the last
ice age) that suggests that ice caps tend break up suddenly, rather
than sedately melting in situ, and some rather older evidence that
that methane hydrates deposits - when provoked - tend to release a lot
of methane in geologically brief periods - less than a thousand years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum

None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.

> >> Why don't you get out and examine some of your local reporting weather
> >> stations, and see how they are sited?
>
> >The nearest weather stations to Nijmegen for which once can find
> >tabulated data on the web are in Twente and Eindhoven. Both are about
> >an hour's drive away. What exactly is my examining them going to do
> >for me?
>
> Help you think?

Not a subject where your advice is all that persuasive.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Raveninghorde

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 4:49:16 AM11/29/10
to
On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:09:07 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
><bill....@ieee.org> wrote:
>

SNIP

>>So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
>>the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
>>holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
>>Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
>>but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
>>worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
>>difference to the global average.
>
>Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
>100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
>enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
>electronics.
>

Exactly.

A common mistake I see in new engineers is using a DC meter and
noticing a small error. They puzzle over the circuit until they give
up unable to find the cause. I then put a scope on the signal and
show them the oscillation. The meter's average reading had too little
information to see what was going on.

It seems to me a lot of the AGW case is based on using a DC meter to
examine the climate. Trying to reduce the globe to a single annual
measurement is absurd.

What alarmists miss is that good engineers know how to measure things.
In the end it doesn't matter if it is volts and amps, or feet and
inches or temeprature and humidity.


SNIP

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 6:49:39 AM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 10:49 am, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:09:07 -0800, John Larkin
>
> <jjlar...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:
> >On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 16:55:51 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
> ><bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >>So what. Has it ever struck you the global warming is averaged over
> >>the entire globe, not just the various micro-environments around your
> >>holiday home. Professional meteorologists - as opposed to Anthony
> >>Watts who was a weather announcer on TV who may have gone to Purdue
> >>but never graduated - did look into the heat island question, and
> >>worked out that there weren't enough of them to make any significant
> >>difference to the global average.
>
> >Averaging bad data makes it good data? Graphing trends acquired over
> >100 years, by different instruments in different places, is good
> >enough to overturn the world's economy? I'm sure glad you don't design
> >electronics.
>
> Exactly.
>
> A common mistake I see in new engineers is using a DC meter and
> noticing a small error. They puzzle over the circuit until they give
> up unable to find the cause.  I then put a scope on the signal and
> show them the oscillation. The meter's average reading had too little
> information to see what was going on.

If you are worried about global temperature changes you are committed
to averaging individual temperature measurements right around the
globe.

The detailed modelling of of the heat transfer from the sun to the
surface of the earth and then back again to outer space is more
sophisticated, and does allow for non-linearities - and worse. Clouds
colder than zero Celcius can either consist of droplets of super-
cooled water - if there aren't many dust particles around to act as
nuclei for ice crystals - or ice particles, and these two different
sorts of clouds absorb and retransmit infra-red radiation in subtly
different ways. The models can now handle this - we do know which bits
of the atmosphere are dusty, and whch aren't.

Because the earth has a rather extensive surface, the individual cells
in the models are still quite a lot bigger than individual clouds, so
the cloud behaviour in each cell is modelled as a mix of cloud and
clear sky, which isn't ideal, but engineers are working on a special
purpose super-computer that can handle a lot more cells.

The data about the vertical temperature distribution within the
oceans, and the heat trasnfer by ocean currents at various depths
within the oceans is still coming in from the Argo project, so the
models are getting progressively betters they interate this -
relatively new - data.

If you actually knew anyhting about what you are talking about, you
wouldn't make the implicit claim that meteorologist can't handle non-
linear processes.

> It seems to me a lot of the AGW case is based on using a DC meter to
> examine the climate. Trying to reduce the globe to a single annual
> measurement is absurd.

It seems to me - not for the first time - that you haven't got a clue
about the details of the case for anthropogenic global warming.
Reducing the temperature of the earth to a single annual measurment is
indeed an over-simplification, but it does make the point that
anthropogenic global warming is a global phenomena. Any detailed
discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
rest of the globe - one of the well-known positive feedbacks that
amplifiy the relatively small direct greenhouse warming we get from
rising CO2 levels is the decrease in the albedo of previously snow-
and ice-covered regions as the snow and ice melt.

The albedo of the Arctic Ocean only matters in summer, when there is
some sun falling on it, and in summer the area of the Arctic Ocean
covered by sea ice falls to a new low every year or so nowadays.

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

Non-ice-covered ocean absorbs about 94% of the incoming solar
radiation. Sea ice absorbs about 40% and snow-covered sea ice can
absorb as little as 10%

http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/WorldOfChange/sea_ice.php

One of the more worrying potential positive feedbacks is methane
release from methane hydrates as the local temperature around methane
hydrate deposits builds up. There's a lot of methane tied up in
hydrates in the Siberian permafrost around the Arctic Circle, and as
that area warms up, some of that methane is already being released.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arctic_methane_release

> What alarmists miss is that good engineers know how to measure things.
> In the end it doesn't matter if it is volts and amps, or feet and
> inches or temeprature and humidity.

Oddly enough, the meteorologists interested in global warming do know
how to measure meteorological data. It isn't particularly surprising
that certain elderly electronic engineers don't know much about what
they measure and how they measure it, but it is a bit surprising that
you are silly enough to think that because you don't know what they
are doing, they don't either.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Nial Stewart

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 8:32:55 AM11/29/10
to
> Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> of white paint.

Jesus Bill you're full of it.

Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....

http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831

Note from here...

http://www.surfacestations.org/

..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
< 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.

BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
visited the site?


> The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> global warming is going on at the moment.

No, but if this is the quality of the records from the USA, which you
would probably expect to be some of the highest quality in the world,
what does it imply about other sources?

What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?


Nial


Ian Bell

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 10:11:58 AM11/29/10
to
Bill Sloman wrote:
> On Nov 27, 6:48 pm, "Martin Riddle"<martin_...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Ian Field"<gangprobing.al...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>
>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Ea...
>>
>> Sharpen up those skates!!!
>
> It happens every winter, and will keep on happening for at least
> another few decades if anthropogenic global warming continues at it's
> current pace.
>
> Anthropogenic global warming could even lead to local cooling in some
> areas. If all the melting ice in the Arctic and on top of Greenland
> manages to swamp the thermo-haline
> circulation that is currently driving the Gulf Stream it could get
> quite a lot colder in the U.K. for a few centuries.
>
> The Younger Dryas cold snap between 12,800 and 11,500 years ago is
> blamed on a similar effect
>

Really, and just how many people were contributing to this AGW 11 or 12 thousand
years ago??

Cheers

ian

Raveninghorde

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 11:51:54 AM11/29/10
to
On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:49:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote:

SNIP

>Any detailed


>discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
>currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
>rest of the globe

And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
ground or by satellite?

1. The Arctic?

2. The tropics?

Ring BILL SLOWMAN, calls will cost $1 per minute

SNIP

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 12:24:37 PM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 5:51 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:49:39 -0800 (PST), Bill Sloman
>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> SNIP
>
> >Any detailed
> >discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
> >currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
> >rest of the globe
>
> And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
> ground or by satellite?
>
> 1. The Arctic?
>
> 2. The tropics?

The satellites doing the measurements seem to be in polar orbits, and
survey the entire planet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements

You could have found that out for yourself, rather than going to the
trouble of reminding the rest of us that you really don't know what
you are talking about.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 12:44:03 PM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 2:32 pm, "Nial Stewart"

<nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> > Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> > non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> > of white paint.
>
> Jesus Bill you're full of it.
>
> Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
>
> http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831

The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
weather station that you could find. How many square kilometres worth
of the temperature record is it contaminating?

> Note from here...
>
> http://www.surfacestations.org/
>
> ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
> < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
> an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.

When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.

> BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
> visited the site?

Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
significance.

> > The whole area of the USA is 9,629.091 square km, 6.5%
> > of the land area of the earth, and about 1.9% of the whole area of the
> > globe, so the measurements that he is getting excited about don't
> > represent a significant proportion of the data used to compute whether
> > global warming is going on at the moment.
>
> No, but if this is the quality of the records from the USA, which you
> would probably expect to be some of the highest quality in the world,
> what does it imply about other sources?

Why would you expect US weather records - from the manual stations
that Anthony Watts concentrates his attention on - to be of
particularly high quality? The US doesn't have a public service
tradition, and one would expect the traditional weather stations to be
serviced by people who were cheap rather than good.

The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
could get from ground observers

> What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?

An appreciation, based on a fairly thorough education in the relevant
physics, that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is
comprehensive and convincing, and that the denialist propaganda
against it is misleading and superficial.

Anthony Watt s is a depressing example of the sort of pseudo-authority
used by the denialist propaganda machine to sow fear, doubt and
uncertainy about the remarkably solid scientific envidence for
anthropogenic global warming.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 12:57:49 PM11/29/10
to

Do pay attention. The Younger Dryas event was part of the end of the
last ice age - as the ice sheet over northern Canada melted, a big
lake of fresh water formed over what is now the Great Lakes, and this
eventually drained into the North Atlantic, killing the thermohaline
circulation - and thus the Gulf Stream - for the next 1300 years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

The Greenland ice sheet is unlikely to dump as much fresh water into
the northern atlantic in a single catastrophic event, but the
thermohaline circulation is already being slowed down by the extra
fresh water being injected by the current melting of ice on and around
Greenland.

Life could get more interesting if large chunks of the Greenland ice
cap slid off into the ocean - the geological evidence from the end of
the last ice age is suggesting that this happened quite often when the
atmosphere was warming up - and melted close to Greenland.

This is one of the hard-to-model effects of global warming that the
IPCC doesn't emphasise for fear of being called alarmist, but it is a
real - if not all that easily quantified - risk.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Mark

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 1:29:38 PM11/29/10
to
Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>
> None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
> suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
> understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>

Exactly....

yet based on similar "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
that will have major economic impacts.

Mark


Raveninghorde

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 1:40:16 PM11/29/10
to


The ground based measurements are almost completely missing in the
polar areas.

The RSS satellite measurements don't have data near the poles:

http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html

/quote

We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees due to
difficulties in merging measurements in these regions, and because
these regions are not sampled by all central fields of view.

/end quote

Don Klipstein

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 1:52:48 PM11/29/10
to
In <d28ab4a0-b6e7-46d4...@29g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote:

The satellite coverage has a 7.5 degree radius "pole hole" at each pole.
In addition, the RSS lower troposphere index (one of the "big 5" global
temperature trend indices) excludes everything within 20 degrees of the
south pole and land areas having elevation above 3,000 meters. This
excludes most of the Plateau of Tibet, nearly all of Antarctica, some
glacier-harboring mountain ranges, and apparently to me a bit of
Greenland.

In polar icy areas and polar areas during winter, there tends to be a
lack of local convection, so correlation between surface temperature and
temperature of the lower troposphere (at least 1/3 of the atmosphere by
mass) is not as good as it is worldwide. Satellite measurements of lower
troposphere temperature are not as good an indication of surface
temperature in radiation-cooled polar areas in comparison to "world
average".
Meanwhile, what is being worried about is surface temperature,
best-measured on land as temperature of the air 2 meters above the
surface. Surface temperature is what changes the most when change in
greenhouse gases changes radiation balance - at tropopause level, the
temperature changes in the opposite direction, though to a reduced extent
if albedo feedbacks are major positive ones, and according to some not
bucking the surface temperature trend in specific areas where convection
is greatest (intertropical convergence zone).

Surface temperature measurements used for global temperature trend
indices are awfully few and far between in polar and far-south areas, as
in lacking in most of the Arctic Ocean and inland Greenland, and on most
surface within 25-30 degrees or so of the south pole, along with southern
ocean areas far from land having a staffed weather station and far from
coverage by ship traffic. Where AGW has greatest concern is in many of
these meaurement-lacking areas.

There are also the complaints of reduction of the "thermometer count"
for consideration by the land portions of the 3 major global surface
temperature indices, especially the GISS and NCDC ones. With the "culling
of thermometers" leaving the remaining ones disproportionately in urban
areas, disproportionately on lower elevation land (reducing consideration
of more constant temperature of higher elevation land), and remaining
Arctic and near-Arctic ones being where local surface albedo feedback is
greater than average of the large areas represented by them.

It appears to me that the GISS index has fairly good filtering for
growth of urban contamination of the disproportionately-urban surface
stations being considered, but in recent years has excessive weighting of
ocean areas to the determination by nearest surface station. HadCRUT3
appears to me likely not as good for filtering growth of urban
contamination, but appears to me better by giving due consideration to a
sea surface temperature index that satellites can do well (though not as
well for land, due to variable land surface thermal IR emissivity). And
time between 1850 and 1979 smooths errors by insufficiency of data while
the measurements are not affected by complaints specific to land. (GISS
index starts shortly after what appears to me to be an El Nino even
greater than the 1998 "century class" one.)
However, HadCRUT3 excludes some polar and far-south ocean areas that GISS
interpolates rather than excludes.

There is also the matter of low coverage by considered surface stations
in many areas that are often under the intertropical convergence zone,
where convection of air from surface level to upper troposphere is so
great that many models consider troposphere temperature, even upper
troposphere temperature, to be tied more closely to surface temperature
than to radiation effects related to greenhouse gases aloft.
Most convection in the ITCZ over land is in Africa, South America,
and seasonally in Indonesia and parts of South Asia. And when and where
ITCZ convection flares up over sea, satellites can't see the sea surface
temperature well through the clouds, and ships have some tendency to be
steering clear of such stormy areas.

As a result, I do not have full confidence in any of the surface
indices.

Since IPCC-considered models for future warming strike me as generally
including an excessively-positive cloud albedo feedback even greater than
surface albedo feedback, and lack of derating of water vapor feedback for
the reduction of global atmosphere average relative humidity needed to
make the cloud albedo feedback positive, I have strong expectation
that future warming will be significantly less than "IPCC center track",
closer to low end of their range of projections.
--
- Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)

Don Klipstein

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 2:11:33 PM11/29/10
to
In <fd802bd3-3627-41a4...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote:

>On Nov 29, 2:32 pm, "Nial Stewart"
><nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
>> > Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
>> > non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
>> > of white paint.
>>
>> Jesus Bill you're full of it.
>>
>> Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
>>
>> http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
>
>The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
>kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
>weather station that you could find. How many square kilometres worth
>of the temperature record is it contaminating?
>
>> Note from here...
>>
>> http://www.surfacestations.org/
>>
>> ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
>> < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
>> an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
>
>When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.
>
>> BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever
>> actually visited the site?
>
>Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
>horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
>significance.

I do agree that Anthony Watts is biased. However, it appears to me that
he does not lie, but "prints the news that he sees as fit to print".
Including many irregularities of surface temperature measurements
amounting to something like a few % of the globe, along with a small
number of greater bits such as how GISS lately has a lot of ocean area
represented by land measurements. This makes me see some
mostly-constantly-icy Arctic Ocean area represented by surface stations
in areas with even above-Arctic-average local surface albedo positive
feedback.

It appears to me ill-advised to outright dismiss sources due to bias,
since few lack bias. What appears to me better is to consider all
sources, including both those favoring one's bias and the ones biased
in the opposite direction. See what is significant where they are not
lying, but merely "printing the news they see fit to print". Give the
anecdotes relevant to very little of the world appropriately low weight,
but not completely zero or negative if well-supportable. Give the
accusations relevant to more of the world some weight if well-supported
with citations unless refutable on basis other than bias (such as GISS
index lumping significant ocean areas into land-measurement-based land
component of index representing a higher percentage of the world than is
actually covered by land, and Arctic surface stations representing a large
area having more constant surface albedo than the location doing the
representing has).

Don Klipstein

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 2:28:43 PM11/29/10
to
In <2ee8e9c6-bbe0-454c...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote:

European cooling by disrupting of the Gulf Stream is a negative
feedback, due to increasing northern hemisphere snow cover. Please note
that the Younger Drias interrupted and slowed the warming trend from the
most recent Ice Age glaciation.

If the Gulf Stream is interrupted by AGW and major snowfall increase
befalls Europe, then complete melting down of Greenland can easily be
dragged out over many centures, maybe even for about as long a period of
time as the Younger Dryas lasted. Humans can easily adapt to agricultural
shifts and sea level changes taking place over a few centuries or a
millennium.

For that matter, the CO2 from burning the world's reserves of fossil
fuels only takes several centuries to be dissolved into deeper levels of
the ocean, where CO2 content changes only a few percent if even enough CO2
to make the atmosphere 1200 PPMV is evenly distributed that deep in the
ocean. If most of Greenland's ice sheet surface coverage survives until
then, AGW won't even prevent the next Ice Age glaciation.

It appears to me that Gulf Stream disruption is a weak argument in favor
of how much AGW will occur over this century and the next.

Richard Henry

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 4:14:36 PM11/29/10
to

And you, it apears, would reject sound science for short-term economic
gain.

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 5:51:26 PM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 8:28 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <2ee8e9c6-bbe0-454c-ae61-8790eb003...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BillSlomanwrote:

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 6:09:02 PM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 8:28 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <2ee8e9c6-bbe0-454c-ae61-8790eb003...@j25g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BillSlomanwrote:
> that the Younger Dryas interrupted and slowed the warming trend from the

> most recent Ice Age glaciation.
>
>   If the Gulf Stream is interrupted by AGW and major snowfall increase
> befalls Europe, then complete melting down of Greenland can easily be
> dragged out over many centures, maybe even for about as long a period of
> time as the Younger Dryas lasted.  Humans can easily adapt to agricultural
> shifts and sea level changes taking place over a few centuries or a
> millennium.
>
>   For that matter, the CO2 from burning the world's reserves of fossil
> fuels only takes several centuries to be dissolved into deeper levels of
> the ocean, where CO2 content changes only a few percent if even enough CO2
> to make the atmosphere 1200 PPMV is evenly distributed that deep in the
> ocean.  If most of Greenland's ice sheet surface coverage survives until
> then, AGW won't even prevent the next Ice Age glaciation.
>
>   It appears to me that Gulf Stream disruption is a weak argument in favor
> of how much AGW will occur over this century and the next.

Gulf Stream disruption is not all that interesting as a contributor or
a non-contributor to anthropogenic global warming. The temperature
changes around around the North Atlantic at the start of the Younger
Dryas were fast - they took less than ten years - and dramatic. The
temperatures in Greenland dropped by 15C and in the UK by 5C.

They'd be enough - on their own - to disrupt civilisation around the
North Atlantic and probably enough - on thier own - to cause an abrupt
decline in population in these areas.

If we managed to turn off the Gulf Stream we wouldn't be worrying
about anthropogenic global warming anymore, we'd be scratching to stay
alive, and a lot of us wouldn't make it.

It is very unlikely that we could duplicate the sort of situation that
precipitated the Younger Dryas - we haven't got a huge lake of fresh
water like Lake Agassiz to dump into the North Atlantic - or a least
not one that we know about, though one could imagine that there could
be a load of fresh water hiding under the Greenland ice sheet - but we
do know that the current influx of fresh water from melting Arctic ice
is already slowing down the Gulf Stream, and we are starting to
realise that the Greenland ice sheet might not be kind enough to melt
in place. The Laurentian ice sheet didn't at the end of the last ice
age.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 6:32:09 PM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 7:29 pm, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:

The imprecise predictions we have now are already worrying enough to
justify a certain amount of economic impact.

We can choose how much economic impact, and how fast it hits, if we
act now. If we wait until the predictions get more precise and
situation becomes more persuasive, we get less choice.

Some of the scenarios, like the Gulf Stream coming to a dead halt with
a couple of years, don't give us any choice at all. That did happen,
some 12,000 years ago.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas

It's pretty unlikely that we could set up a similar situation, but the
problem with imprecise predictions is that they can be too optimistic
as well as too pessimistic.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Jamie

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 6:50:32 PM11/29/10
to
And he'll answer by the name of "Peggy"


Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 6:47:13 PM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 7:40 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 09:24:37 -0800 (PST),BillSloman

>
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >On Nov 29, 5:51 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:49:39 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> SNIP
>
> >> >Any detailed
> >> >discussion of the subject will point out that global warming is
> >> >currently affecting the arctic regions much more dramatically than the
> >> >rest of the globe
>
> >> And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
> >> ground or by satellite?
>
> >> 1. The Arctic?
>
> >> 2. The tropics?
>
> >The satellites doing the measurements seem to be in polar orbits, and
> >survey the entire planet.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> >You could have found that out for yourself, rather than going to the
> >trouble of reminding the rest of us that you really don't know what
> >you are talking about.
>
> The ground based measurements are almost completely missing in the
> polar areas.

Obviously. There is a permantly manned station at the South Pole, but
for some odd reason nobody has set up anything permanent at the north
pole, through I understand some nuclear submarines pop up around there
from time to time.

http://www.athropolis.com/news/submarines.htm

> The RSS satellite measurements don't have data near the poles:
>
> http://www.remss.com/msu/msu_data_description.html
>
> /quote
>
> We do not provide monthly means poleward of 82.5 degrees due to
> difficulties in merging measurements in these regions, and because
> these regions are not sampled by all central fields of view.
>
> /end quote

They do have data - of a sort - for the poles but separate it from the
data from the rest of the globe because of the heat transfer up
through the air in those areas doesn't work quite the same way as it
does closer to the equator.

It's not terra incognito, but it is data that requires careful
handling, so they don't put it on the regular web-site.

Since I have managed to provoke you into finding out a little about
the subject of your pontifications, perhaps you could now enlighten us
about your concerns over temperature monitoring in the tropics, which
do seem to be adequately sampled by the satellites you obviously knew
nothing about?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 6:56:17 PM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 7:52 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <d28ab4a0-b6e7-46d4-8fbd-f824ae259...@29g2000yqq.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BillSlomanwrote:

> >On Nov 29, 5:51 pm, Raveninghorde <raveninghorde@invalid> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 03:49:39 -0800 (PST),BillSloman
>
> >> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >> >Any detailed discussion of the subject will point out that global
> >> >warming is currently affecting the arctic regions much more
> >> >dramatically than the rest of the globe
>
> >> And which areas of the planet are estimated not measured either on the
> >> ground or by satellite?
>
> >> 1. The Arctic?
>
> >> 2. The tropics?
>
> >The satellites doing the measurements seem to be in polar orbits, and
> >survey the entire planet.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_temperature_measurements
>
> >You could have found that out for yourself, rather than going to the
> >trouble of reminding the rest of us that you really don't know what
> >you are talking about.
>
>   The satellite coverage has a 7.5 degree radius "pole hole" at each pole.
> In addition, the RSS lower troposphere index (one of the "big 5" global
> temperature trend indices) excludes everything within 20 degrees of the
> south pole and land areas having elevation above 3,000 meters.  This
> excludes most of the Plateau of Tibet, nearly all of Antarctica, some
> glacier-harboring mountain ranges, and apparently to me a bit of
> Greenland.

That doesn't mean that they don't have data, merely that the regular
data analysis doesn't work well in these areas.

So the data we have is imperfect, like every other set of real data
that was ever assembled, but we do have enough to have a pretty good
idea of what is actually going on.

>   Since IPCC-considered models for future warming strike me as generally
> including an excessively-positive cloud albedo feedback even greater than
> surface albedo feedback, and lack of derating of water vapor feedback for
> the reduction of global atmosphere average relative humidity needed to
> make the cloud albedo feedback positive, I have strong expectation
> that future warming will be significantly less than "IPCC center track",
> closer to low end of their range of projections.

There's nothing like reality for testing your models. On the whole a
I'd prefer a future where the climate didn't provide the kind of
feedback that the modellers really need, for seriously higher global
temperatures.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Raveninghorde

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 7:09:21 PM11/29/10
to

TROLL

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 7:11:25 PM11/29/10
to
On Nov 29, 8:11 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <fd802bd3-3627-41a4-80a8-455528dcd...@l17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> BillSlomanwrote:

> >On Nov 29, 2:32 pm, "Nial Stewart"
> ><nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> >> > Anthony Watts gets excited because the Stevenson screens around the
> >> > non-automated thermomenters aren't being painted with the right kind
> >> > of white paint.
>
> >> JesusBillyou're full of it.

I was recently quietly reading my monthly copy of "Chemistry in
Australia", published by the Royal Australian Chemical Institute in
much the same way - but with a lot less resources - as the AIP
publishes "Physics Today" when I came across a two column spread
covering three-quarters of an A4 page reporting Anthony Watts opinions
about global warming.

Some denialist propaganda group - Australia has several - had flown
the clown out to Australia to merchandise some doubt on global
warming, and had managed to sneak the highlights of one of his
lectures into "Chemistry in Australia". This guys quixotic concerns
about the quality of the traditional weather measuring stations on the
US - which covers 1.9% of the surfacr of the globe - are presented as
a casting serious doubts on the whole question of anthropogenic global
warming.

The serious US meteorological measurements, taken at airfields all
over the country with gear that the meteorological service went to the
trouble of automating back in 2004, were written off as being for use
at the airfield by the airfield.

This didn't strike me as entirely honest.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Richard Henry

unread,
Nov 29, 2010, 9:32:23 PM11/29/10
to

The ice moves too fast.

Don Klipstein

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 12:18:23 AM11/30/10
to
In <35cc312a-6f88-41cc...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote in part:

>Gulf Stream disruption is not all that interesting as a contributor or
>a non-contributor to anthropogenic global warming. The temperature
>changes around around the North Atlantic at the start of the Younger
>Dryas were fast - they took less than ten years - and dramatic. The
>temperatures in Greenland dropped by 15C and in the UK by 5C.
>
>They'd be enough - on their own - to disrupt civilisation around the
>North Atlantic and probably enough - on thier own - to cause an abrupt
>decline in population in these areas.
>
>If we managed to turn off the Gulf Stream we wouldn't be worrying
>about anthropogenic global warming anymore, we'd be scratching to stay
>alive, and a lot of us wouldn't make it.

A 5 degree C temperature change from one year to another in a populated
area is not all that dramatic. A 3 degree C change from one year to
another is close to "business as usual" in USA's Midwest and middle and
upper Great Plains, and even more is common in nearby parts of Canada.

If a 5 degree C sustained change should occur, that can be handled by
planting crop breeds optimized for growing where that different
temperature is the current norm.

Don Klipstein

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 12:47:32 AM11/30/10
to
In <63a58c8e-3bcf-4b2f...@a17g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Bill Sloman wrote:

I give that one itself low weight, because he does harp on specific
questionable instruments in attempt to discredit most of them. However,
he does not limit his finding fault with instruments and correction
methods to USA. He has found fault with correction methods applied to
Australian data. He also finds fault with reduction of the "considered
thermometer count" in South America (to have slower-warming higher
elevations represented by low-elevation thermometers), and in the Canadian
Arctic (resulting in remaining considered thermometers being where the
surface albedo change is greater than average of the large areas that
these thermometers represent).

>The serious US meteorological measurements, taken at airfields all
>over the country with gear that the meteorological service went to the
>trouble of automating back in 2004, were written off as being for use
>at the airfield by the airfield.
>
>This didn't strike me as entirely honest.

I do agree that Watts is biased and stretches things. However, I see
him as doing no worse than printing the news that he sees fit to print.

On the other hand, I am not very happy with how well the official
temperature readings at Philadelphia International Airport represent
the regional atmosphere. Based on spreads between daily high and low
temperatures for any given temperature range, relative humidity (as of
high and as of low temperature), wind direction and cloud cover and type,
it appears to me that Philadelphia International Airport had about .2-.25
degree C more midsummer warming from urban effects this past July than
was the case in hotter Julies of the late 1970's and early 1980's.

Meanwhile, should one be able to refute with facts Watts' insinuation
that errors and irregularities in reporting and adjusting surface station
data have a trend of reporting more warming than is actually the case,
then such a refutation should be posted somewhere - maybe on
realclimate.org. Not that this is likely to make much difference in
global temperature trend, with a sea surface temperature index being
about 70% of HadCRUT3, and zero surface reading contribution to UAH and
RSS, with at least UAH not even considering surface or radiosonde
readings for calibration.

Don Klipstein

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 1:00:29 AM11/30/10
to
In <slrnif93v...@manx.misty.com>, I, Don Klipstein wrote in part:

>
> On the other hand, I am not very happy with how well the official
>temperature readings at Philadelphia International Airport represent
>the regional atmosphere. Based on spreads between daily high and low
>temperatures for any given temperature range, relative humidity (as of
>high and as of low temperature), wind direction and cloud cover and type,
>it appears to me that Philadelphia International Airport had about .2-.25
>degree C more midsummer warming from urban effects this past July than
>was the case in hotter Julies of the late 1970's and early 1980's.

I did not mean that in the 1970's and 1980's Philly had hotter Julies
than that of 2010. I meant to say "most similar".

Rich Grise

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 1:08:21 AM11/30/10
to
Richard Henry wrote:
> On Nov 29, 10:29 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Bill Sloman <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>>
>> > None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
>> > suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
>> > understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>>
>> Exactly....
>>
>> yet based on similar  "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
>> that will have major economic impacts.
>
> And you, it apears, would reject sound science for short-term economic
> gain.

There is no "sound science" in warmingism.

Thanks,
Rich

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 5:34:22 AM11/30/10
to
On Nov 30, 6:18 am, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <35cc312a-6f88-41cc-9cf5-42814289f...@c39g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,BillSlomanwrote in part:

Always assuming that there's enough rain falling to grow a useful
amount of food with any breed.
The point about the Younger Dryas was that the change was fast - you
wouldn't have had time to select and propagate an optimised strain in
the sort of volume that you'd need to feed the whole population.

You are talking about rejigging farms to deal with new crops - and
moving whole farming areas - in the space of few years. I don't think
that I'd like to gurantee that agricultural production would be
sustained at current levels while the reorganisation was going on.

If the grain production that is now used to fatten cattle was
redirected to human consumption we might be able to get by, but if
Jared Diamond's "Collapse" has a single take-away message it is that
the people in charge will - mostly - chose to ignore impending
ecological disasters and continue playing their dominance games until
their subordinates start rioting because they have run out of food.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 5:36:05 AM11/30/10
to
On Nov 30, 7:08 am, Rich Grise <ri...@example.net.invalid> wrote:
> Richard Henry wrote:
> > On Nov 29, 10:29 am, Mark <makol...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>BillSloman<bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote:
> >> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleocene%E2%80%93Eocene_Thermal_Maximum
>
> >> > None of this is an obvious smoking gun, but it's more than enough to
> >> > suggest that we shouldn't fool around with a system that we don't
> >> > understand well enough to let us make precise predictions.
>
> >> Exactly....
>
> >> yet based on similar  "predictions" you want to enact taxes and laws
> >> that will have major economic impacts.
>
> > And you, it apears, would reject sound science for short-term economic
> > gain.
>
> There is no "sound science" in warmingism.

Or none that Rich would have a clue about. Of course, if the IPCC
could get the endorsement of Rich's mother-goddess, he'd rapidly
change what mind he's got left.

--
Bill Sloman,

Nial Stewart

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 6:42:20 AM11/30/10
to
> > Jesus Bill you're full of it.
> > Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
> > http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831

> The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
> kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
> weather station that you could find.
> How many square kilometres worth
> of the temperature record is it contaminating?

_All of it_.

If you don't have any confidence in your _most_reliable_ records, how
can you have any confidence in the rest of them?

> > Note from here...
> > http://www.surfacestations.org/
> > ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
> > < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
> > an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.

> When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.

_NO_, these are ratings and error determinations against the NOAA's own
guidelines for siting climate stations.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030FullDocumentD0.pdf

Note _69%_ with an error or >= 2 Deg C (61% >= 2 Deg C, 8% >= 5 Deg C)


> > BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
> > visited the site?

> Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
> horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
> significance.

That's a no then?


> The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
> very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
> weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
> and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
> very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
> 2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
> could get from ground observers

Airports have large areas of tarmac, buildings, urbanisation, air conditioning,
_jet_engines_ etc.

Hardly unlikely to affect the temperature readings.

For comparative purposes they can probably be used since their installation
as long as their surroundings, number of flights at the airport etc don't
change etc. (Ie since 2004 ?).

Of course they'll be spliced into existing records, and hey presto instant
warming!

> > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
> An appreciation, based on a fairly thorough education in the relevant
> physics, that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is
> comprehensive and convincing, and that the denialist propaganda
> against it is misleading and superficial.

Oh right, so you're not a member of the IETA, an organisation of companies
that are set to make big money out of AGW....

http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249

(Note the big oil and energy companies).


What about (from 2000)...
http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thing-of-the-past-724017.html

"However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less
cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist
at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years
winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
"Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."

Laughing my arse off.

Funny that fires in Russia are one off events that confirm global warming,
3 cold UK winters are 'just weather'.


> Anthony Watt s is a depressing example of the sort of pseudo-authority
> used by the denialist propaganda machine to sow fear, doubt and
> uncertainy about the remarkably solid scientific envidence for
> anthropogenic global warming.

Aye it is remarkable, but not for the reason you think.

> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts

As I've said before anything that uses a George Monbiot blog post as a source
can't be relied upon.

BTW I hope you're not too cut up about the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsing!

Nial.


Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 9:27:30 AM11/30/10
to
On Nov 30, 12:42 pm, "Nial Stewart"
<nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:
> > > JesusBillyou're full of it.

> > > Here's an example of what Watts is highlighting....
> > >http://gallery.surfacestations.org/main.php?g2_itemId=831
> > The surface area of the United States is some nine million square
> > kilometres. You presumably pulled out the worst example of a n urban
> > weather station that you could find.
> > How many square kilometres worth
> > of the temperature record is it contaminating?
>
> _All of it_.
>
> If you don't have any confidence in your _most_reliable_ records, how
> can you have any confidence in the rest of them?

How accurate do you expect the best of this kind of data to be?

> > > Note from here...
> > >http://www.surfacestations.org/
> > > ..that only 10% of the stations surveyed have an error rating of
> > > < 1 Deg C according to the guidlines for siting stations. 61% have
> > > an error rating of >= 2 Deg C.
> > When Anthony Watts is estinating the errors.
>
> _NO_, these are ratings and error determinations against the NOAA's own
> guidelines for siting climate stations.
>

> http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/uscrn/documentation/program/X030Fu...


>
> Note _69%_ with an error or >= 2 Deg C (61% >= 2 Deg C, 8% >= 5 Deg C)

Presumably randomly distributed about the mean. To what extent do the
"errors" represent correct measurment of an "incorrect" microclimate?

> > > BTW, Watts frequently publishes posts from warmists, have you ever actually
> > > visited the site?
> > Not recently. It is a typical "merchants of doubt" web site, strong on
> > horrible examples, and weak on their (neglible) quantitative
> > significance.
>
> That's a no then?

"Not recently" isn't "no" it's just "not recently". I did visit it
once and I was less than impressed.

> > The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
> > very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
> > weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
> > and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
> > very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
> > 2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
> > could get from ground observers
>
> Airports have large areas of tarmac, buildings, urbanisation, air conditioning,
> _jet_engines_ etc.
>
> Hardly unlikely to affect the temperature readings.

They are also large, and finding an uncontamintated spot isn't beyond
the wit of man. Anthony Watts clearly can't imagine that it is
possible, since his imagination is fully committed to supporting the
denialist propaganda machine, but the Meterological Service wouldn't
have gone to the trouble of automating measurments that weren't worth
taking.

> For comparative purposes they can probably be used since their installation
> as long as their surroundings, number of flights at the airport etc don't
> change etc. (Ie since 2004 ?).
>
> Of course they'll be spliced into existing records, and hey presto instant
> warming!

Don't be stupid. The airport recordings go back to the start of
commerical aviation - presumably before 1930.

> > > What's your motivation in this un-swerving support of the warmist agenda?
> > An appreciation, based on a fairly thorough education in the relevant
> > physics, that the evidence for anthropogenic global warming is
> > comprehensive and convincing, and that the denialist propaganda
> > against it is misleading and superficial.
>
> Oh right, so you're not a member of the IETA, an organisation of companies
> that are set to make big money out of AGW....
>
> http://www.ieta.org/ieta/www/pages/index.php?IdSiteTree=1249
>
> (Note the big oil and energy companies).

So what? Greedy capitalists will exploit anything. It is supposed to
be a virtue of the capitalist system.

> What about (from 2000)...http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-thi...


>
> "However, the warming is so far manifesting itself more in winters which are less
> cold than in much hotter summers. According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist
> at the climatic research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia,within a few years
> winter snowfall will become "a very rare and exciting event".
> "Children just aren't going to know what snow is," he said."
>
> Laughing my arse off.

Enjoy the joke while you can.

> Funny that fires in Russia are one off events that confirm global warming,
> 3 cold UK winters are 'just weather'.

The fires in Russia were exceptional, cold winters in the UK aren't. I
don't happen to think that the fires are worth much as evidnece for
global warming, but I'm not a reporter trying to dress up a story.

> > Anthony Watt s is a depressing example of the sort of pseudo-authority
> > used by the denialist propaganda machine to sow fear, doubt and
> > uncertainy about the remarkably solid scientific envidence for
> > anthropogenic global warming.
>
> Aye it is remarkable, but not for the reason you think.

You clearly don't understand my reasoning. If you were equipped to
follow my thought processes on the subject, you'd understand enough
physics to find the scientific evidence for anthropogenic global
warming tolerably persuasive, rather feeling free than writing it off
as some kind of improbable conspiracy dreamed up by greedy
meteorologists.

> >http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Anthony_Watts
>
> As I've said before anything that uses a George Monbiot blog post as a source
> can't be relied upon.

More fool you.

> BTW I hope you're not too cut up about the Chicago Carbon Exchange collapsing!

Why should I be?

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

JW

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 9:49:11 AM11/30/10
to
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:27:30 -0800 (PST) Bill Sloman
<bill....@ieee.org> wrote in Message id:
<5f439bee-74ce-48b9...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:

>More fool you.

Rod? Is that you?

Bill Sloman

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 11:27:43 AM11/30/10
to
On Nov 30, 3:49 pm, JW <n...@dev.null> wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 06:27:30 -0800 (PST)BillSloman
> <bill.slo...@ieee.org> wrote in Message id:
> <5f439bee-74ce-48b9-b87b-823df44dd...@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>:

Restoring the snipped context

> > > As I've said before anything that uses a George Monbiot blog post as a source
> > > can't be relied upon.
>

> >More fool you.
>
> Rod? Is that you?

Nial Stewart doesn't like George Monbiot - a Guardian journalist who
happens to think that anthropogenic global warming is real.

As far as I can work out, George Monbiot is an honest journalist, and
what he reports as facts do seem to be confirmed by other journalists.

Nial Stewart wants to reject the whole of SourceWatch because it
quoted an item from George Monbiot's blog (which happens to be part of
the Guardian newspaper's web-site).

This strikes me as unreasonably partisan, even for a denialist nitwit.

--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 11:35:21 AM11/30/10
to

Surely, the presence of Man must have some sort of impact on global
temperature, be it warming or cooling. And, whether that impact be
warming or cooling or neutral, more taxes, more edicts, and shared
sacrifices will necessary to solve it, the more the better.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

dagmarg...@yahoo.com

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 11:49:51 AM11/30/10
to
On Nov 30, 6:42 am, "Nial Stewart"
<nial*REMOVE_TH...@nialstewartdevelopments.co.uk> wrote:

> > The US Meteorlogical Service got into bed with commercial aviation
> > very early in the history of commercial aviation, and the airport
> > weather monitoring stations delivered more frequent, more up-to-date,
> > and more detailed data than the traditional observation stations from
> > very early on. The airport observatories were eventually automated in
> > 2004, and I would expect those records be as good as anything you
> > could get from ground observers
>
> Airports have large areas of tarmac, buildings, urbanisation, air conditioning,
> _jet_engines_ etc.
>
> Hardly unlikely to affect the temperature readings.

Jane, you ignorant slut, climate is all about 'air'. Besides mounting
stations inside, say, hot-air balloons, where better to find air than
at an air-port?

You really don't have a clue about sound science. 267 out of 300
experts being paid to say so agree.

--
Cheers,
James Arthur

Raveninghorde

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 1:55:34 PM11/30/10
to
On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 10:55:21 -0800, John Larkin
<jjla...@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 27 Nov 2010 12:48:08 -0500, "Martin Riddle"
><marti...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Ian Field" <gangprob...@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
>>news:ecbIo.136247$qB6....@newsfe16.ams2...
>>>
>>>
>>> http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/UK-News/Snow-Parts-Of-Britain-See-Earliest-Snowfall-For-17-Years-With-More-Predicted-In-The-Next-Few-Days/Article/201011415829484?lpos=UK_News_Top_Stories_Header_4&lid=ARTICLE_15829484_Snow%3A_Parts_Of_Britain_See_Earliest_Snowfall_For_17_Years_With_More_Predicted_In_The_Next_Few_Days
>>>
>>
>>Sharpen up those skates!!!
>>
>><http://www.youtube.com/user/ijszeilen#p/u/41/0BNlTPdmsRI>
>>
>>Cheers
>>
>>
>
>We had record lows up here in the Sierras this week, -8F sort of
>temps, and 8 feet of fresh snow on the peaks from a single storm.
>Sugar Bowl was glorious the last few days, perfect snow and temps in
>the mid-20s during the day. The tourists don't reserve for
>Thanksgiving, because the snow isn't dependable this early; skiing
>this weekend is unusual. Empty chairs!
>
>The AGW people have been predicting drought for the West Coast, and
>the rain/snow have, if anything, been above average the last 10 years.
>There was snow on the ground here in July. More official studies show
>no long-term trend in Sierra snowfall since 1916. Much of the central
>valley and the coast gets is water supply from Sierra snow.
>
>John

Robert Baer

unread,
Nov 30, 2010, 3:43:11 PM11/30/10