Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Climate Change Forum Evidence of sun caused global warming

The world is heating up. One thing is for sure, is that there is scientific consensus on this issue! Analysis of maximum and minimum temperature have proven it. Both have gone up significantly world wide, and also too in Australia.

The maximum is used as a measure of how hot we are getting during the day, whilst the minimum is a measure of how cold we get during the night. But are they good variables to use as a measure of average temperature?

Maximum and minimum temperatures occur at different times of the day, often by large amounts when in different seasons. Surely a better measure would be to keep the time constant and see if the temperature has increased at that (and other) specific times?

But unfortunately, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of good data lying around for this type of analysis. A large exception to this is Australian data. Whilst there is not as many time based data as maximum and minimum data, I feel that statistical analysis on the raw data is by far more advantageous than doing statistical analysis on a statistic (which is derived from the raw data).

So why has there been no scientific analysis on time based temperatures? For me it seems very strange that we can spend billions of dollars on global warming, yet still have not done the proper statistical analysis on temperatures?

The answer is simple. There is no reason to do further analysis on temperatures. We have already proven and clearly show that maximum and minimum temperatures are increasing - quite dramatically in fact. As we said earlier, there is scientific consensus on this. The world is heating up and this is beyond doubt.

So why do more analysis on something that is crystal clear and proven beyond recognition? So, naturally, noone has.

Hence we are stuck in a scientific world where we are spending billions of dollars on what will happen when the world heats up, and what we can do about it, yet have not done a full statistical investigation about how the world is heating up.

We know why the world is heating up (Co2 emissions, right?). We know who (humans of course). We know where (the entire world, especially where there is ice). We know what (our pagan earth). We even know when (now, and the devastating effects it will have on our children's children).

But we do not know how. We only know that maximum and minimum temperatures are increasing.

But as most scientists will argue, this is plenty of evidence to prove that we are warming up during the day and at night. In fact, evidence suggests that minimum's are increasing at an even greater rate than maximum temperatures (which lead some scientists to believe in the urban heat island effect etc.).

Whilst most will say that the maximum temperature is a reasonable statistic to relate to average temperature during the day (time based temperatures is obviously better), how good does the minimum temperature relate to the average temperature at night?

Maximum temperatures occur generally when the sun is at it's hottest. Well at least when we feel it the most. Generally this is around 3pm, but changes dramatically in the different seasons and weather conditions. 3pm is almost the middle of the day. It's a little later than the middle, and maximums occur a little later than the middle due to the atmosphere warming up (by the sun). Still, we as civilians, are always interested in the maximum predicted temperature by the weather forecasters as a reference to how hot tomorrow will be.

But when looking at minimum temperatures, the issue is different. As a general rule, as soon as the sun sets we start losing heat in the atmosphere and the temperature will slowly subside. It will keep going down and down until, you guessed it, the sun warms up the atmosphere and then rises.

So the minimum temperature will occur right at the end of the night – in fact usually around 30 to 60 minutes after the sun has risen. Is the minimum temperature therefore a good representation of night temperatures considering that it occurs when the sun has risen? Would you think that taking the temperature at sunset would be a good representation of how hot the day is?

The answer is quite clearly no. Whilst we can suggest that maximum temperatures is a reasonable (although not fantastic) statistic when it comes to it's relation with average daytime temperatures, the minimum temperature is a terrible representation of how cold a certain night is.

This being for a couple of reasons. One; in that it is not generally the minimum temperature around the middle of the night, and two; in that it is actually influenced by the sun.

The what? the sun? How on earth can the minimum temperature be influenced by the sun?

Well it does. A warmer sun would heat up the atmosphere at a greater rate, just at the time where we would normally achieve a minimum temperature. Warmer days (thanks to a hot sun!) would result in hotter nights. Maximum and minimum temperatures are related and both are quite dependent on the strength of the sun.

So what has any of this got to do with global warming? Well we will show you exactly why minimum temperatures are a poor statistic in measuring overnight temperatures and will prove the suns influence and changing behaviour over time.

In short, we will prove to you that global warming - the increase in maximum and minimum temperatures - is primarily due to increases in solar radiation.

When looking at the graphs at 3am,6am and the minimum for south east southern Australia, something puzzled me. Whenever 3am or 6am had a negative anomaly (eg a lower than expected temperature for that year), the minimum temperature for that year was average. Whenever 3am or 6am had an average temperature for the year, the minimum temperature was significantly higher than normal.

This pattern was even more extreme in more recent years. It was because of this that I decided to look into the rate of change of temperature anomalies between neighboring times. We actually said a few things about this in the last post on the area:

We even found that temperature anomalies at 3pm were significantly higher than at Noon (p<0.01) and that temperature anomalies at 9pm were significantly lower than at 6pm (p<0.01). This indicates, that the temperature around south east southern Australia is heating up during the day, but more importantly is heating up at a greater rate when the sun is at its hottest. Does this not clearly indicate an increase in solar heating?

But actually looking at graphs of this made the pattern that more obvious than simple significant figures. But first lets hypothesise what would happen to the rate of change, if we believe that the sun has been the major cause of most recent warming.

We have said shown in a very early post on this blog, that in the last 5 years of more recent warming, almost all of this has occurred during the day when the sun it up. The pattern is clearly identifiable in the graph below. The rate of change of temperature anomalies have increased rapidly up to 3pm and then decreased. Even at midnight, the temperature is still a little hotter than normal, largely to due the extra hot sun heating up the atmosphere. By 3am and 6am, the atmosphere it would seem is not influenced by the sun.




Similarly from 1947 to 1976 when we saw a slight decrease in overall global (and Australian) temperature, most of the decrease occurred during the heat of the day around 3pm. This indicates again, then when the overall temperature is cold, it is because it is a lot colder during the heat of the day and not equally hot overall.

If Co2 were the major cause of global, and Australian warming, then we would expect an equal increase in temperature at all times of the day and night. Maximum and minimum temperatures agree with this, however, the analysis shown here strongly disagree. In fact it disagrees so much, that it is clearly obvious that Co2 could not be the major cause. What else heats the world up with increasing rates up to around 3pm and then decreasing? The sun of course.

So our hypothesis on rate of temperature anomaly change between neighbouring times in south eastern south Australia, given that the sun is the major cause would be very similar. We should find little difference in the overnight temperatures of 3am and 6am, but should find significant increases in the rate of change of temperature anomaly’s leading up to 3pm and then significant decreases in the rate of change of temperature anomaly's. This of course is looked at over time (in this case years). The rate of change should actually grow stronger as the years go on (as we have seen stronger increases in maximum and minimum temperatures).

So does the data suggest this? Let’s find out.

Whilst temperature data at midnight is limited, we do find that the rate of change of temperatures at 3am is on average 0.1 degrees Celsius less than that at midnight. In other words, the temperature at 3am is cooling down a rate of 0.1 degrees quicker than it is at midnight. Perhaps this is because the influence of the sun is now very limited? If Co2 was the major cause of warming, we should not see any pattern at all in this graph of limited years.

As a surprise, the rate of change of temperature anomalies at 6am have decreased significantly from 3am. In fact this rate of decrease has been at 0.5 degrees per 100 years. Why is 6am getting a lot colder with relation to 3am?

When looking at changes between 9am and 6am, we find no major change with the exception of the latest 10 years all being warmer. So the last 10 years, we have seen temperatures at 9am increase significantly more than at 6am. This isn’t surprising as this is when the sun increases, although I have to admit I would have thought the increase would have been more substantial (if the sun was the major cause of global warming).

But now the pattern, as predicted, is starting to hit in. Temperatures at Noon were significantly increasing as compared to 9am at a rate of 0.4 degrees per 100 years and the significant increase in temperatures at 3pm as compared to Noon was even greater (1.2 degrees per 100 years).

No major changes were found in the relationship between 6pm and 3pm, although it must be noted that a large negative trend was found in the last 6-7 years (eg. 6pm has been cooling quicker than at 3pm). And when the sun is starting to lose it’s influence of the temperature (between 9pm and 6pm) in south east southern Australia, we see that the rate of change more recently has been negative at a rate of 0.5 degrees per 100 years. This pattern, though a small sample size, is still obvious when looking at changes in temperature anomalies over time between Midnight and 9pm.

So believe it or not, we have proven exactly what our hypothesis predicted. That the rate of change in neighboring times would increase more significantly over time when the sun is getting hotter (around 3pm) and then decrease with time later in the day. I strongly recommend you view the linked graphs above to see it for yourself.



This is a clear indication, that the major driving force behind temperature change is the sun. Should Co2 levels been the main force, then would have seen no patterns at all in these graphs, but the patterns are clearly obvious and only point to one possible conclusion.

We discussed previously how for south eastern South Australia, the rate of change in temperature at neighbouring times increased as we reached the maximum temperature of the day and decreased as the sun lost its warming power. If Co2 levels were the main cause of global warming, then this pattern would not occur and the rate of change amongst all times would be relatively constant. This of course did not happen. However, this is a clear indication that the sun is the main driving force behind recent global warming.

But this still doesn't answer why minimum temperatures have been increasing. We hypothesised that it also had to do with the sun and a warmer sun would influence the early morning temperatures. As an example, today at mount gambier (south eastern south Australia), first light was recorded at 6.22am and the sunrise at 6.50am. Hence we had a whole 30 minutes of the atmosphere heating up due to the sun before mount gambians actually saw it. The minimum temperature on this day, the 4th of May occurred at 7am with the temperature of 11.1 degrees. What this means is that it occurred shortly after the sun rose. As soon as the sun was high enough in the sky to make a significant difference, the temperatures increased.

If the sun was stronger than normal, then we would have still acquired similar temperatures at 6am as in the past, but the minimum temperature would be increased. The extra power of the sun would increase the atmosphere from first light. We had 30 minutes from first light to the rise of the sun and an extra 10 minutes until we reached out minimum.

Our hypothesis is therefore we should see an increasing trend when we minus the temperatures at 3 and 6am from the minimum temperature. In other words, over time, the minimum temperature should be increasing at a greater rate than at 3am and 6am. If the sun is effecting temperatures at the minimum and maximum, then we would also expect to see no significant trend of time with the difference between minimum and maximum temperature anomalies. I also hypothesise that we might find differences in summer and winter where mount gambier obviously has greater amount of sunlight in the summer than the winter. What differences these are we'll have to see.

So lets to the analysis:



Shown above is the output from minimum minus the 3am and 6am temperature anomalies over time. What is quite clear is the increasing trend, in that minimum temperatures are increasing at a greater rate than the temperature at 3am and 6am. It is obvious that minimum temperatures is not a good indication of overnight temperatures. The trend is so strong that it shows that minimum temperatures have been increasing by as much as 0.8 degrees per 100 years in comparison with 3am temperatures, and by 1.4 degrees per 100 years when compared to 6am temperatures. This 1.4 degree increase is actually very comparable to the 1.6 degree increase per 100 years that we saw minimum temperatures increasing by.

More evidence that minimum temperatures are increasing at a significantly greater rate over the last 50 years than temperatures at 3am and 6am. If co2 was the driving force behind temperature change, then this pattern would not occur, and it occurs so strikingly, that it cannot be ignored.

The difference between maximum and minimum temperatures anomalies in south east South Australia showed a slight increase, in that maximum temperatures were increasing at a greater rate than minimum temperatures, however the increase was not statistically significant.

Also the difference between 3am and minimum temperatures in summer was 27% greater than in winter. Even more than this was the difference between 6am and minimum temperatures anomalies in summer than in winter, which was 67% stronger. This no doubt is because of the sun and perhaps less cloud cover in the summer.

In conclusion, we can say that our hypothesis have been answered. We have proven that over time, minimum temperatures have increased at a significant rate more than overnight temperatures. This indicates that minimum temperature is a poor indication of overnight temperatures, that is largely correlated with maximum temperature. It is therefore most likely the sun that is driving up minimum temperatures and not effecting the temperature before first light.

Hence we have more evidence that co2 could not possibly be the driving force behind global warming and that the sun is the main cause.

For more details on this information. Please see
Gust of Hot Air

All those who think that we should blame Global Warming on Solar Radiation based on a single graph generated in Australia, raise your hand.

Sorry, Mate, you'll have to do better than that.

I looked at that graph earlier and the main point I see is that for shorter intervals of time examined, you get more variability.

But that's just a first impression.
I also don't follow the definition of "minimum." Is it the actual minimum (whenever during the night) or just the lower of the two temp. (3 & 6am)?

Hope to look at it closer, later; but I do agree that solar influences on our planet are a major factor in our climate (and maybe now also) -and should be addressed.

Thanks,
~Later

the minimum is the minimum temperature for the day, which generally occurs around 30 mins after sunrise.

G'day Jonathan,

Just a small point. I have just returned to the site to find that it might actually be a more pleasant place to discuss various views and started reading this post. I find Australian data to be about the most accurate in the world, except that weather stations are very often physically relocated and that is quite difficult to get details on. Such relocations usually mean that urban effect increases dramatically (especially night time) and it is extremely rare to find a weather station that has not had a physical relocation. Thus, the data remains suspect for any comparison over time, especially if other factors may come into play that there are no controls or measurements for.

But the point that I believe is extremely important for Australia is that its climate is so very much influenced by one single climatic phenominum, El Nino/La Nina. El Ninos can last some years but have little long term influence outside their direct years. La Ninas have a much longer influence. Because of the fact that the frequency of El Ninos or La Nina's are not something that is well understood or even well recorded except the last few decades, using Australian data alone runs the risk of doing nothing but analysing the influence of relative temperatures across the Pacific, rather than anything that can be extrapolated up to a world view. Just a thought.


Richard

Here, Climate Change Controversies are discussed by The Royal Society:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?id=6229

The following are covered: -

Misleading argument 1 : The Earth's climate is always changing and this is nothing to do with humans.
Misleading argument 2 : Rises in the levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere are the result of increased temperatures, not the other way round.
Misleading argument 3 : Computer models which predict the future climate are unreliable and based on a series of assumptions.
Misleading argument 4 : It's all to do with the Sun - for example, there is a strong link between increased temperatures on Earth with the number of sunspots on the Sun.
Misleading argument 5 : The climate is actually affected by cosmic rays.
Misleading argument 6 : The scale of the negative effects of climate change is often overstated and there is no need for urgent action.

This is the Adobe pdf download version:

http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=4085

I believe I'm correct in saying that all of those arguments have appeared in the SAGG forum.

I'm sorry guys, no disrespect to any SAGG members, but I have more confidence in the above source than I do in the opinions of contributors to this forum. If you really want to argue the case, rather than trying to convert ignorant fellows like me, maybe your time would be better spent with people at the sharp end of the research, like those. This is why I've chosen generally to ignore the topic here. I simply don't have the knowledge to contest what is said, and so I have to make a decision about who I will trust to provide answers of the highest value and reliability.

That is not a comment on intelligence and integrity.

G'day redewenur,

The trouble with this site is that it is a 'simple guide'. There is no real science discussed, only opinion. That's fine, since almost all of the climate change arguments are generally opinion but it would be nice if a scientific body might actually refer to some science even in a simple guide.

For instance, the article agrees that CO2 really does follow warming not the other way around then says, but hey the last lot of increase is not 'natural' so therefore it must be causing warming or at least 'positive feedback'. Trouble is there is no science to back this up either. So what that the current CO2 increases are due to human activity. The 'misleading' argument being attacked is not that there is an increase in CO2 caused by humans but rather that CO2 doesn't cause warming.

The submission, in my view, isn't even well presented. It basically calls a statement misleading because an increase in CO2 is man made, but then never connects any dots to suggest just why ANY increase in CO2 causes warming. 'Positive feedback' is the general argument I've seen by those that have no real knowledge of paleo-climate. The trouble is there just isn't any evidence that it has every occurred except perhaps once around 30 million years ago and then other factors had great importance, none of which are relevant to today.

There certainly has been much higher levels of CO2 in the past. There certainly has been much higher temperatures. You can correlate solar activity with temperatures but not CO2 levels.

Just because any institution puts forward any argument or opinion and that institution is highly respected does not make the argument right. In this case the arguments are not even very good.

In about September last year it was predicted that a cooling event would occur because of a major drop in solar radiation. None of this was factered into any climate change computer models. The sea ice in parts of the Arctic have increased dramatically, after a few years of drops. The particularly specious argument put forward on that site about computer models is that it indicates that modelling includes clouds. This just is not the case. Thus far no models have been able to predict what will happen with the climate by including changes in cloud patterns because the complexities of cloud formation isn't even understood well enough to create the basis for a model of what is happen right now or in the past, let alone in the future.

I would think that anyone with an interest in science would at least be able to see opinion for what it is, opinion. What is written in this post is opinion. It is backed up by science because this is an area I have some knowledge in but I haven't referenced anything because that wasn't the point being made. Why should the opinion of a web site that says "Royal Society" be any better than someone with a passion for a subject willing to argue on this site?

The bottom line is science is not a democracy. It is not ruled by concensus or opinion. Bad science remains bad science regardless of how many people are said to agree with it. In this case simple logic should lead a reasonably critical thinking person to wonder about the argument made on the Royal Society Website concerning CO2 and warming connection simply because there doesn't seem to be any science at all that supports the argument made. Where is the evidence that positive feedback really is something that the earth's climate does with increased CO2? Where is there any evidence that how the CO2 is produced is the important factor in creating global warming? Man made = warming. Volcanic eruption <> warming. Just how does that logic argument work?

But I respect anyone's right to uncritically accept the opinions of others. Just be prepared to have such acceptance be met with considerable skepticism.


Regards


Richard

"Just because any institution puts forward any argument or opinion and that institution is highly respected does not make the argument right.'

- I agree - but, for most of us I'm afraid, as I've said, such institutions are our best bet.

"Why should the opinion of a web site that says "Royal Society" be any better than someone with a passion for a subject willing to argue on this site?."

- Maybe you should address that question to the Royal Society; but the question could be reversed: "Why should the opinion of someone with a passion for a subject be any better than the opinion of the the Royal Society?."

I think your passions are being wasted on this site. Not because you're a fool, or that the people on this site are fools - quite the contrary - but surely your time would be better spent in debating this with, as I remarked earlier, the people at the sharp end. Suppose you visited the site, one day, to find that we all agreed with you whole heartedly. What would you have achieved? What would it change on the world stage? You could hardly take that to those grand institutions and say "Hey! Look! The guys an gals on SAGG agree with me, so I must be right."

"But I respect anyone's right to uncritically accept the opinions of others"

- Yes, of course, to the extent that the requisite and proper critical analysis is not possible, and there's a duly discriminatory process in the acceptance.

I agree with redewenur,

Richard and Jonathan should make their points in the scientific community, i.e. they should write articles and publish those in peer reviewed journals, present their work at conferences etc.

Science is indeed not a democracy and theoretically it is possible for a whole field to engage in flawed research, but you cannot reverse the argument and claim that just because you have objections this is the case here. A specific point is that there is plenty of theoretical evidence that increasing CO_2 will lead to warming and it is just implausible that it would not cause warming (on purely theoretical grounds alone). What you do is you leave the physics out and demand that a link between CO_2 and warming must be rigorously proven by other means. You only focus on those "other means" and shoot holes there.

If indeed Richard is correct then that means that a whole branch of climate science is not well motivated. The signs of that would be all over the place, because you would then have dissenting scientists who couldn't get their papers published. They would, of course, not remain silent. We could read the unfairly rejected papers with the flawed referee reports on the home pages of the scientists. I know of a few physicists who did precisely that when their papers were unfairly rejected. You can only imagine what would happen if there was a systematic bias leading to articles being rejected unfairly.

Also, you would expect that there would be a lot of bad quality papers in the leading climate science journals. One way to test that would be to pull of an Alan Sokal type hoax.

"Man made = warming. Volcanic eruption <> warming. Just how does that logic argument work?" -RicS

I'd like to discuss that one also with you sometime (along with the CO2 thing).

I was disappointed in the Royal Society site also, but on second reading, it's not quite as bad as my first impression (which was about the same as RicS's review). Some of the other R.S. links were even better.

Discovered a few things I hadn't heard before:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/downloaddoc.asp?id=1630
"However, Parker recently reported in the journal Nature that analyses of temperature trends show that globally "temperatures over land have risen as much on windy nights as on calm nights, indicating that the observed overall warming is not a consequence of urban development".

...and some things I didn't understand (more later).

...and some things I didn't agree with:
"It has been alleged that the increased level of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere is due to emissions from volcanoes, but these account for less than one per cent of the emissions due to human activities."
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/page.asp?tip=1&id=6230

*_*

So this is why I can't get no satisfaction...
?

"...chosen generally to ignore the topic here."
I'm glad that reasoning doesn't apply to the evolution, genetics, anthropology, bees, philosophy, theology, or physics & cosmology topics on these fora.

Suppose you visited the site, one day, to find that we all agreed with you whole heartedly. What would you have achieved? What would it change on the world stage? You could hardly take that to those grand institutions and say "Hey! Look! The guys an gals on SAGG agree with me, so I must be right." -rede

Thanks for the good laugh, rede; I realized that this IS my goal here, but I just want to be able to take it to my friends and neighbors.

I'm hoping to return with some good questions, of limited scope, with the hope of learning more overall about this important subject.

While it does bother me that I can't resolve this intractable issue with a single "thread," I'm still willing to do some digging and worry this bone some more, if I'm able.

~samwik

My responses may have more than a little to do with the civility that one encounters on most of the other topics that you mention. The history of the climate change threads has many sour notes, and is largely unsavoury. It's riddled with sarcasm and personal attacks of both the subtle and unsubtle varieties. Nobody is obliged to use this forum and, if they are sensible, will do so only if they find the experience beneficial in some way. Good luck with the continuance of these climate debates. I hope that you will, indeed, find them beneficial.

G'day all,

A number of points raised in rapid succession.

1. Why Post Here?

Why not! Firstly, I do find it interesting to look at other views, especially those that do not agree with mine and any good debate aids me in honing my arguments when I actually have to get up in front of an audience and present them (something that I am terrible at). As to presenting research elsewhere, perhaps you might suggest where. I have attempted several times to have the Wiki entries modified, often in very small details relating to global warming, and the people that argue on that site really are some very respected climate scientists. However, Wiki's system, frankly sucks, for amending anything where you have a dissenting opinion. You can spend a great deal of time and effort creating a reasoned article or even a very small insertion only to have it simply deleted by someone else, with no right of protest or argument. I only went to Wiki because several times people here suggested that it was the place to connect with those that actually were willing to argue the fundamental points. It is certainly not that. One of the founders of Wiki has acknowledged this problem and they are changing the system.

As to publications, I can get my research published in several publications, pretty much all of them supported by right wing US organisations, thus tainting the research, regardless of any lack of bias. Some of my research is being published but it has taken months and a huge amount of effort to get a short article accepted that is likely to be attacked quite viciously, without any right of reply by me to any of those attacks as they are likely to appear in publications that do not afford such rights.

2. CO2 - The Physics. To quote the Count: "A specific point is that there is plenty of theoretical evidence that increasing CO_2 will lead to warming and it is just implausible that it would not cause warming (on purely theoretical grounds alone)." Sorry, I don't agree with that statement at all. Just what theoretical evidence exists and what physics experiments have been done to support any such theoretical evidence? This is something that I see brought up a lot. It sounds good and because you are then asking the dissenter to prove a negative, you can make the person disagreeing with CO2 as a warming mechanism look the fool. There are two aspects to this argument. The paleo-climate evidence. This does not support any nexus between CO2 and warming at all. The second is the analysis of gases in the atmosphere and what effect, if any, they have on relfection, refraction, radiation, re-radiation etc of solar radiation. Once again there just isn't any evidence that CO2 should or does cause warming. The problem with reducing the argument further to the point where CO2 is studied purely in a lab to determine what it does to the radiation of heat is that is the same as comparing Venus with the Earth. It is easy to establish most gases have an absortion effect on radiating heat and will trap shorter wave length radiation. But that supposes that CO2 is the only player in town and no other mechanisms are in play, such as the formation of clouds. On a purely theoretical basis, you can "prove" that most gases "might" cause warming in the atmosphere, assuming no other influences at all. The trouble with CO2 is that even on the purely theoretical level it has only a limited spectrum where absorption of radiation occurs. Thus, it isn't even a good gas to use at the very purely theoretical level. Methane is a much better gas to use.

So to the Count specifically, just what evidence, even theoretical, are you relying on to suggest that CO2 should in theory cause warming? The much more important question, is then demonstrate where this has EVER actually occured on the Earth. I do not believe that Dr Hansen's suggestion that Venus can be used to suggest that CO2 has an effect on a planet like earth is a very good argument since most climate scientists will immediately point out that CO2 on Venus (at around 96% of the atmosphere) has a very large moderating effect on the temperatures. In other words it keeps the planet considerably cooler than it would be without it, even if the temperatures are at levels that are not survivable for life that we comprehend.

3. Urban Effect and Wind - To Samwik.

You might have missed the post I did on this particular research. I actually reviewed this particular piece of research and found the data did not match the conclusions and that some incredible assumptions had been made with no basis in science or research in order to even undertake the "research". This research is seriously flawed, yet is now used by a great many supporters of global warming and by other researchers to "dial in" a much lower urban effect than would normally be accepted if not for this research. Research is built upon other research. The trouble with this particular research is that assumptions were made that were not based on prior research and now other research is using this research without looking at just how the data was gathered, what assumptions were made, and even just how the authors managed to turn a result that ran completely counter to their argument around so it seems to support their basic proposal.

There was a comment that global warming is now a billion dollar industry. It is much larger than that. Pure research funded by the US Government adds to $3 billion annually. Donations to the WWF, Greenpeace and various environmental organisations that rely now very much on the global warming argument push the figure much much higher. The latest estimates that looked to have reasonable validity indicated that global warming is a $15 billion dollar industry now employing about 150,000 people. And that figure does not include carbon trading or research such as into Greenland ice masses, the populations of polar bears, fur seals, fish, etc, where the conclusions often mention global warming as a matter of course.

Just to give a very small example of how hard it is to run up against any part of this industry, I was carrying on a discussion with the mentor of the author of the article in question and it was a very pleasant discussion over many many months about problems with Surface Air Temperature collection. The report was brought up by him in response to a minor comment I made about some interesting research relating to the enormous changes in night time SAT records within as much as 60 metres of a road that went from unsealed to sealed. He asked me to read it and comment on it to him. I did and, not wishing, to get into any argument about the paper because or discussions over many months were about something I felt far more important, I simply commented that I could not see any references to support the basic assumptions made for the methodology of data collection. That was the last I ever heard from the good professor I had been speaking with. In the area where it could not damage the climate change movement, the collection of SAT diffiencies, there was no problem being critical, seeking assistance and receiving it in abundance. But in an area where the Institution that the Professor overseas has made a name for itself in its very fervant support of global warming even the mildest comment was seen as a reason to cease all further communication.

Now the research is deeply flawed and it is my view it should not have been published or passed peer review. It should not have passed the professor's oversight. But it did and it forms a major plank to the global warming arguments, especially those used against any researcher that focuses on urban effect as a possible culprit for 20th century on warming. What it needs is a submission critiquing the scintific methodology used. If you want to see how hopeless the prospect of that being published anywhere is, then you only have to turn to the analysis of the "Consensus" study that was shown to be so deeply flawed as to not be of any value at all. Yet, no matter what the credentials of those that wished to rebut that particular published research, Science, the publisher refused to even include a letter to the editor critical of it.

With respect to this research, if anyone wishes, I'll happily post extracts from the research itself, point out the defiencies or what scientific methodologies used fail basic requirements and leave the conclusions to the reader to decide just how good the research was.

But that bit of research actually addresses a number of points raised, including the suggestion that ... well everyone can't be wrong can they? I think one comment was that the whole area of research is not well motivated. I assume that comment meant that if my arguments had any validity then this is the problem that then occurs. Funny thing is that I would not have agreed with you until I was given the job of reviewing major research papers on climate change specifically the methodologies used and whether there were flaws. Since I couldn't find any papers that did not have any major flaws my faith in unbiased scientific endeavour in this field has been completely destroyed. Of course being told to change my conclusions, specific criticisms of some methodologies and then being sacked because I wouldn't probably didn't hurt my skepticsm either.

But very few people can actually get hold of full research papers and even fewer still have a background in various sciences that allow an examination of the scientific methodologies used or the assumptions relied upon to the extent where flaws and errors readily stand out.

I'll give a simple example of how sensible people can very easily be fooled. The paper on wind and urban effect being deeply flawed! Sorry, that was a dig but since the actual flaws are not being examined here in this thread (but have been before hand some months ago) that is unfair. This is simple maths that most people cannot work out. Three people go to lunch and decide to split the bill. It comes to 25 euros. Each person gives the waiter a 10 Euro note. The waiter isn't stupid and comes back with 5 one euro coins. Each person takes a Euro and the tip is then two euros. So the three people then paid 9 Euros after they took back their coin each but put in 30 euros in total. After the 2 euro tip, what happened to the other euro?

Most scientists and even those that do University maths get stumped on this little slight of money demonstration. Now this is a really easy bit of data involving almost no figures and no scientific assumptions.

I found the really easy way to present a climate change research paper so that it will be accepted without query is to simply ignor the data gathered and conclude whatever you want. Journalists just do not read the data, nor, it seems, do those that in the review process, should know better. The trouble with this is that you really can get caught. Look at the nice little graph that became known as the "Hockey Stick" curve. Eventually it was pointed out by enough people that the data had been selectively applied that the research received some criticism. Not enough for it not to be used by Mr Gore in his movie but at least some scientists were aware that it was pretty much garbage. Now the researchers for the research that created this graph were paid salaries by Universities, research grants, were given computer time, travelling expenses, etc, etc. They profited handsomely from something that in say Enron would have landed you in jail. So what happened? Did they have to pay anything back? Huh! They just continued doing more research with, it would seem, continued bias.

The beauty of the urban effect / wind research is that the data did not correspond with the conclusions but an explanation was created to "correct" for this "anomoly" but the fundamental advantage was that the assumptions used had no basis in science but those that support the argument in respect to global warming would never dream of critically examining the assumptions, so the assumptions were allowed to stand from the very beginning, rendering the whole research a waste of time. Pity that it is now used by the IPCC and so many others to just discard any suggestion that urban effect may actually have something to do with any warming trends observed.

Feel free to criticise my post here as long as nothing is a personal attack. I have written in generalities for the moment but would very much like to see what arguments crop up against what I have written so I can provide a more detailed and focused response, with real data and research where necessary. I would very much like to see the topics in this forum to match what is being argued so if a discussion develops in respect to the physics of CO2 for instance then I will attempt to put that in a new thread to cover just that. Same with the argument relating to urban effect etc. Right now none of the threads are particularly focused which means that a great many issues are brought up resulting in replies from me especially that are probably long enough so few will read them. I'd like to correct this if I could so that, even if you don't agree with me, what I write is in a form that is readible should you wish to do so.


Regards


Richard

Wow, an afternoon of light reading to look forward to.

I'll get back -eventually.

~Sam

Thanks for the great (pun intended) post. I'll have some more questions later, but for now I need a clarification.

Which research are you talking about when you say:
"Now the research is deeply flawed and it is my view it should not have been published or passed peer review. It should not have passed the professor's oversight. But it did and it forms a major plank to the global warming arguments...."

...and this also? "...discussion with the mentor of the author of the article in question and it was a very pleasant discussion over many many months about problems with Surface Air Temperature collection."

Is it the research with the "LULC" info, or some of the Royal Society stuff? (i'm thinking LULC, but just want to be sure).

I'd appreciate a link to the thread you refer to:
"You might have missed the post I did on this particular research."

I'd like to ask you about the CO2 "evidence" too, but first I need to get a good question. I agree it is hard to focus in on a narrow enough question so that the argument doesn't devolve into "sides."



hahaha...that's something I've only "dreamed" about at this point.

~Later
~~SA

Hiya Richard,
Happy Spring!

So....
"Thus far no models have been able to predict what will happen with the climate by including changes in cloud patterns because the complexities of cloud formation isn't even understood well enough to create the basis for a model of what is happen right now or in the past, let alone in the future." -RicS

I'm actually impressed with how much they've learned about clouds in the past ~15 years. I'm finding a lot of stuff out there such as:

"The aim of the CERES scientists is to determine the fluxes of radiative energy, or radiation, out of the Earth/atmos-phere system and within the system and to use those fluxes to examine the radiative forcing of climate and climate change, including the radiative forcing from clouds. The latter presents a major climate measurement challenge, as the effect of clouds on climate is the ensemble of thousands of cloud systems, so that average changes as small as 2 W/m2 are important at the sametime that individual clouds can change local radiation fields by as much as 1000 W/m2.
....Net cloud radiative forcing for July 2000, as derived from data of the Terra CERES, using ERBE-like fluxes. Clouds cool the Earth by reflecting solar radiation back to space, but warm the Earth by trapping thermal infrared radiation, some of which would otherwise be lost to space. The net of these two effects of clouds on the radiation balance is called the NetCloud Radiative Forcing. Note the strong cooling effect (negative values) clouds have on the middle and high Northern Hemisphere latitudes during summer. Low level marine boundary layer clouds west of California, Peru, and southern Africa also strongly cool, because of their low altitudes. Net heating by clouds (positive values) occurs for thin high cir-rus clouds and can be seen over the African Sahel and some of the southwestern U.S. The positive values seen nearAntarctica are highly uncertain, and values in that vicinity will eventually be determined much more accurately with the more advanced Terra CERES and Aqua CERES data products that merge MODIS snow/ice detection and CERES radiative fluxes."

I think you're familiar with the SAT data, but I didn't know about all the other parameters that they measure:

The six Earth-observing instruments on Aqua are:&#10022;Atmospheric Infrared Sounder (AIRS) &#10022;Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer for EOS (AMSR-E) &#10022;Advanced Microwave Sounding Unit (AMSU) &#10022;Clouds and the Earth’s Radiant Energy System (CERES) &#10022;Humidity Sounder for Brazil (HSB)&#10022;Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS)

Level 1A Radiance Counts (for AIRS, AMSU, and HSB separately)Level 1B Calibrated, Geolocated Radiances (for AIRS, AMSU, and HSB separately)Level 2 Cloud-Cleared Radiances
Radiative Flux Product:Clear-column Radiance\Outgoing Longwave Radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere\Outgoing Shortwave Radiation at the Top of the Atmosphere\Net Longwave Flux at the Surface\Net Shortwave Flux at the Surface\Atmospheric Temperature Product: Temperature Profile through the Atmosphere (30 levels)\Tropopause Height\Stratopause Height\Humidity Product:Water Vapor Profile through the Atmosphere\Total Precipitable Water\Cloud Liquid-Water Content\Precipitation Indication\Cloud-Ice Indication\Cloud Product:Cloud-Top Pressure\Cloud-Top Temperature\Fractional Cloud Cover\Cloud Spectral Properties\Cloud Type\Ozone Product:Ozone Profile through the Atmosphere\Total Ozone\Trace Constituent Product: Total Carbon Dioxide\ Total Carbon Monoxide\Total Methane\ Surface Analysis Product:Sea Surface Skin Temperature\Land Surface Skin Temperature\Infrared Surface Emissivity\Microwave Surface Emissivity\Surface Albedo
Each of these products is described in the EOS Data Products Handbook, Volume 2.
Fluxes of outgoing radiation at the top of the atmosphere\Shortwave radiation (solar radiation reflected from the Earth/atmosphere system)\Total radiation (reflected and emitted)\Longwave radiation (emitted from the Earth/atmosphere system)\Radiation in the 8-12 micrometer atmospheric window\Fluxes of shortwave and longwave radiation at the Earth’s surface\Fluxes of shortwave and longwave radiation at multiple levels in the atmosphere\Cloud properties (cloud fraction, height, optical depth, particle size, water/ice phase)Aerosol optical depth.
Each of these products is described in the EOS Data Products Handbook, Volume2.



"Just what theoretical evidence exists and what physics experiments have been done to support any such theoretical evidence?" -RicS

About CO2 and greenhouse effect:
...and this is more for everybody; I know you're probably familiar with all this stuff.
Here's a great site to explain things, and they use technical data. I learned a lot!
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~fasullo/pjw_class/greenhouse.html

Do you accept this "Atmospheric Window" idea?

http://atoc.colorado.edu/~fasullo/pjw_class/bandabsorption2.html

I guess that's my "focused" question.

Then I'll ask about the "wall around the window."

Finally I think it boils down to does CO2 absorptions of those particular wavelengths equate with warming/climate change. But I want to get your answers to the above questions first.

I found some refs to "the science" of greenhouse effect which mentioned the basic experimental work for this was done back in the early 20th century. I'm gonna look for that stuff too, but it's not as easy as finding the current stuff. I'm amazed how much stuff they're doing.

Do you have concerns about how they (like NASA) are interpreting all this data?

http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/71129.pdf
"After two months of initial routine checkup, the two CERES instruments (FM-1 and FM-2) installed aboard the NASA EOS Terra spacecraft begin taking scientific observations on February 26, 2000. They have since provided global broadband radiation measurements of outgoing longwave radiation (OLR) and reflected solar radiation (RSR) from the Earth for over three and half years.
This paper will show preliminary comparisons of the intraseasonal variability, defined as variations with period of 20 to 60 days, of OLR and RSR deduced from the first year of the CERES/Terra observations against those derived from the NOAA/NCEP Reanalysis 2 system"
"The technique of Wong and Smith (2002) is used to transform the regional time series of daily mean OLR and RSR over the entire Earth from both the CERES and NCEP data into global maps of intraseasonal variations of OLR and RSR. Specifically, the individual regional time series is first transformed into frequency space using discrete Fourier Transform. The individual regional variance associated with the intraseasonal time scale is then obtained by integrating the resultant power spectrum over the frequency range of interest...."

Well that's enough for now. I hope to find that early research soon; will let you know.

If I'm being naive about this, you don't need to spend a lot of effort explaining things; (I hope) I'll pick up on the point with a minimum of reference.

And I wouldn't be surprised if you've already posted "responses" that address my "points" above. Please feel free to just direct me around to various other threads if you can.

Hope all is well, Richard.

Sincerely,
~Sam

So two posts and two questions:

"Which research are you talking about...." -21588

&

"Do you accept this "Atmospheric Window" idea?" -21606
http://atoc.colorado.edu/~fasullo/pjw_class/bandabsorption2.html

Just to keep it focused
~~SA

G'day Samwik,

Not the best right now but will look at what you have asked and will attempt to address it shortly.

Quick comment on clouds. My comment related to being able to adequately address cloud formation, influence, etc, in global climate models. It was not a comment that no research was being done on clouds or the mechanisms. Far from it. Very extensive research has been and is being conducted. The question is whether this research has reached the point where a model of what clouds do in relation to climate can be created. My personal view is that that stage is a long long way off.

As to the question of CO2, I'll have to look at your references and the calculations that have been presented and just how they came into being. Whether they are an attempt to model what the author believes should or is happening in the atmosphere as a result of CO2 or are an attempt to provide a theoretical basis for CO2 being a greenhouse gas could result in quite different responses, including the big problem with most models that attempt to show that CO2 causes warming in the atmosphere and that is that the warming that has been observed is in the wrong parts of the atmosphere to match the models, at least the ones that I have looked at in any depth. But these comments are generalities and are not specific to the questions you've raised, which will require that I have a decent look at what is being put forward and how it came into being.


Regards


Richard

Yes, I noticed that brought up....
...also from Pielke R-321.pdf
"Inadequate sampling of tropical land areas might be a significant factor in the CCSP [2006] finding that "the majority of observational data sets show more warming at the surface than in the troposphere," while 'all model simulations show more warming in the troposphere than at the surface.'" -p.26

The equations at the beginning of that paper also made me realize how difficult it is to be sure of the validity of the fundemental assumptions on which a proposition is based.
Good ol' P.Chem.

Somewhere around here I have a formula for calculating dewpoint; but that's another story....

Oh yeah, I've gotta go get those early references (probably not online), and a book on cosmology ('nother thread).

Hey! Rain??

~SA