Read the Sunspots

[ScottSA]

Incidently, the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because the Little Ice Age ended then.

That isn't actually a reason. The little ice age is defined as a period of cooler temperatures, so all you are effectively saying is that the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because it's risen.

Quite right. The cooler temperatures ended, obviously leading to warmer temperatures. The fact that the cooler temperatures of the Little Ice Age are defined as "cooler" is because the temperatures prior to it were warmer. Disinformation surrounding the Little Ice Age is rampant, but certainly in Europe, at least, temperatures were considerably warmer than they are today.

[shoggoth]

That isn't actually a reason. The little ice age is defined as a period of cooler temperatures, so all you are effectively saying is that the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because it's risen.

No. It's because there's been a cycle between Ice Ages and Interglacial periods. Those cycles are not man made.

The little ice age has nothing to do with interglacial and glacial periods, it was a period of cooler temperatures a few hundred years back, it wasn't an actual ice age

[ScottSA]

The little ice age has nothing to do with interglacial and glacial periods, it was a period of cooler temperatures a few hundred years back, it wasn't an actual ice age

Regardless of what one calls it, it was a period of cooler temperatures that followed a period of warmer temperatures, that followed...you get the message. The point is that man didn't make any of the previous warming periods, yet they happened. One would think that this is strong evidence for natural warming periods having nothing whatsoever to do with man.

[Electric Monk]

A recent study of total solar output, just UV output, and Cosmic radiation finds that since 1985 the climate has been warming while solar output would indicate cooling.

Sun's in the clear, indicates study.

The text of the study can be found at The Royal Society Journal A.

Their conclusion "There are many interesting palaeoclimate studies that suggest that solar variability had an influence on pre-industrial climate. There are also some detection-attribution studies using global climate models that suggest there was a detectable influence of solar variability in the first half of the twentieth century and that the solar radiative forcing variations were amplified by some mechanism that is, as yet, unknown. However, these findings are not relevant to any debates about modern climate change. Our results show that the observed rapid rise in global mean temperatures seen after 1985 cannot be ascribed to solar variability, whichever of the mechanisms is invoked and no matter how much the solar variation is amplified."

[margrace]

No matter what anyone says the weather is changing. We have had horrendously hot weather and little rain, now with the 2nd day of summer and with everything planted and growing gloriously the temperature will drop to 3 above tomorrow night. In our area that means chance of frost in some areas. I don't care what you say or what you believe, we do have to eat don't we.

I guess George Bush caused weather changes?

And you are supposed to be a lawyer????

[margrace]

What bothers me is the current focus on ONE small variable - CO2 - whose role is cleary not completely understood - but it is taken as some kind of FACT - that is we reduce our Co2 output everything will be peachy!! This is utter nonsense - since there are a myriad of other variables which need to be included and which we as humans have NO influence over.

While co2 is just one variable I think the focus is on it because levels are increasing rapidly which has given it the potential to be a large warming factor in recent and coming decades. I don't think we can reduce co2 output and will have to just wait and see what happens.

Doesn't the research show that climate warmed FIRST, followed by increases in CO2 levels?

At last an issue where Buffycat and I are on the same page, though she still won't concede I'm not the devil incarnate (well, the Jewish variety).

Funnily enough my cousins husband, a card carying Jewish Lawyer in Kingston. does not agree with you.

[betsy]

Here's another article on Patterson.

"Dr. Patterson, whose specialty is paleoclimatology, is well aware that his views on climate change place him in a minority within the scientific community. But if he’s feeling the heat, he doesn’t show it. “As a scientist I can only go where the science takes me, and not where someone like David Suzuki wants me to go.” When he does get criticized, it’s rarely about the science, he says, but rather is an “ad hominem attack of some sort, like ‘Patterson’s in the pocket of Big Oil.’ Well I wish!”

In any event, science is not a popularity contest, he points out, and the general consensus is not always right.

He cites the example of continental drift, a concept laughed at by most scientists until distinguished Canadian geophysicist J. Tuzo Wilson championed the cause in the 1960s. A more recent example from the 1980s was the theory, considered preposterous by the medical establishment at the time, that bacteria might be the cause of peptic ulcers. Australian physician Barry Marshall, who proposed the idea, was eventually proven right, and he and colleague Robin Warren last year won the Nobel Prize in Medicine for their efforts.

Of course, there are many other examples of scientists who bucked the trend and turned out to be wrong. Asked if he has any doubts, Dr. Patterson replies, “Sure I could be wrong … but I don’t think so.”

Dr. Patterson may take comfort in the fact he’s not entirely alone in his views. A number of colleagues share his position, including Fred Michel at Carleton, and Jan Veizer and Ian Clark at the University of Ottawa, among others. “At these [two] institutions, climate researchers who agree with my perspective on climate change actually outnumber the alarmists,” he says.

What these scientists essentially agree on is that the Kyoto Protocol is pointless because carbon dioxide emissions are not driving climate change. The computer models are simply wrong and do not match actual observations. Instead, Dr. Patterson points to solar variability – changes in the sun’s solar cycle – as the likely culprit. The sun experiences an 11-year sunspot cycle as well as much longer cycles of solar activity, and these trends in the sun’s output correlate well with temperature records dating back hundreds of years, he says.

Asked how the scientific community, the media and Al Gore could get the story so wrong, Dr. Patterson says it’s mainly because the debate has become so politicized. Environmental activists have taken what should be rational scientific debates and turned them into occasions for “evangelizing and antagonizing,” even though “they don’t really know what they’re talking about.”

Some climate skeptics, fearing the public backlash or damage to their scientific reputations, decide to keep their views to themselves, says Dr. Patterson. Others, notably scientists working for federal agencies, were effectively muzzled under “previous regimes,” he says."

http://www.universityaffairs.ca/issues/200...rarians_02.html

Edited July 15, 2007 by betsy

[sunsettommy]

If you are still using SURFACE weather reporting stations.You are using biased data.

The last month there has been an ONGOING AUDIT of these 1221 weather reporting stations.So far most of the first 63 have been shown that the weather reporting stations do not meet minimum standards for collecting data.

The data quality are compromised.

This means that they are probably not valid data to base specific conclusions on.

Satellite data are much better.They show NO warming since 2003.

I have been posting the many revelations of POOR QUALITY SURFACE weather reporting stations at my forum.The data has a significant warming bias built in.

If you want to see them.PM me and I will give you the URL.

This issue is addressed here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archi...an-heat-island/

As for satellite data, there have been many periods of 4 years in which temperature hasn't risen in the satellite record. Natural variation is enough that the rise isn't year on year, and you can get multiple years in which temperature doesn't appear to increase, followed by a few years of large increase. It's not a smooth line. Besides the satellite data does show warming in the last 3 decades, so do ocean surface measurements and boreholes.

LOL,

You completely misunderstood the purpose of the AUDIT.So has Realclimate.

Gawd did you bother to read through the link?

The Surface weather reporting stations THEMSELVES are the focus of the Audit.NOT the Urban Island Effect of a city or region that is different from the microclimate around the stations themselves.

LOL

Edited July 15, 2007 by sunsettommy

[sunsettommy]

July 2, 2007

Climate Science Responds to Real Climate’s Web Posting Of July 2 2007

EXCERPT:

Real Climate (specifically Gavin Schmidt) has chosen to respond to the approach to better document and assess multi-decadal land near-surface temperature trends by a set of argumentative statements (see the posting “No man is an (Urban Heat) Island”). Unfortunately, rather than engaging in a scientific discussion of the issues that are raised by the documentation of poor station siting by http://www.surfacestations.org, he has elected to communicate a defensive polemic on the subject on Real Climate.

Here are his highlighted points, and the Climate Science response:

1. Real Climate: “Mistaken Assumption No. 1: Mainstream science doesn’t believe there are urban heat islands….”

Climate Science Response: The issue of poor siting is not an urban heat island issue, but is a question of the very local environment around each site regardless of whether the site is urban or rural. Real Climate’s bias is clearly shown in that they cite the Parker (2005,2006) papers, yet ignore the peer reviewed papers which rebut the Parker conclusions;

Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32, No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407.

and

Walters, J. T., R. T. McNider, X. Shi, W. B Norris, and J. R. Christy (2007): Positive surface temperature feedback in the stable nocturnal boundary layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12709, doi:10.1029/2007GL029505

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/02/...of-july-2-2007/

LOL

[sunsettommy]

That isn't actually a reason. The little ice age is defined as a period of cooler temperatures, so all you are effectively saying is that the reason the temp has risen so much in the last 100 years is because it's risen.

No. It's because there's been a cycle between Ice Ages and Interglacial periods. Those cycles are not man made.

The little ice age has nothing to do with interglacial and glacial periods, it was a period of cooler temperatures a few hundred years back, it wasn't an actual ice age

Sure it does.

It came in the interglacial time.

lol

[shoggoth]

LOL,

You completely misunderstood the purpose of the AUDIT.So has Realclimate.

Gawd did you bother to read through the link?

The Surface weather reporting stations THEMSELVES are the focus of the Audit.NOT the Urban Island Effect of a city or region that is different from the microclimate around the stations themselves.

LOL

The start of the the RealClimate article includes this:

The new focus of attention is the placement of the temperature sensors and other potential 'micro-site' effects that might influence the readings.

This is slightly different from the more often discussed 'Urban Heat Island' effect which is a function of the wider area (and so could be present even in a perfectly set up urban station)

So perhaps you didn't read the link?

[sunsettommy]

LOL,

You completely misunderstood the purpose of the AUDIT.So has Realclimate.

Gawd did you bother to read through the link?

The Surface weather reporting stations THEMSELVES are the focus of the Audit.NOT the Urban Island Effect of a city or region that is different from the microclimate around the stations themselves.

LOL

The start of the the RealClimate article includes this:

The new focus of attention is the placement of the temperature sensors and other potential 'micro-site' effects that might influence the readings.

This is slightly different from the more often discussed 'Urban Heat Island' effect which is a function of the wider area (and so could be present even in a perfectly set up urban station)

So perhaps you didn't read the link?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You still missed it!

Realclimate are the ones clouding the issue by bringing in UHI into the discussion.It is a dishonest inclusion they are trying create into something that was not the issue.

Anthony Watts and people like me are interested in the SURFACE weather reporting stations themselves and how they are designed and maintained.How they do their paperwork when the stations are moved or modified.And so on.

It is amazing that you fail to see how Climate Science is exposing Realclimates ignorance and obtuseness on the issue.

The Surface weather reporting stations are being AUDITED.You get it yet?

Did you bother to look at Watts website telling us what the audit is about?

It is an AUDIT!

So please drop this city UHI misdirection gambit that Realclimate is trying to force in.It only makes you look foolish.

One more time and hopefully you see how dishonest realclimate is.This time I will bold it for you.

1. Real Climate: “Mistaken Assumption No. 1: Mainstream science doesn’t believe there are urban heat islands….”

Climate Science Response: The issue of poor siting is not an urban heat island issue, but is a question of the very local environment around each site regardless of whether the site is urban or rural. Real Climate’s bias is clearly shown in that they cite the Parker (2005,2006) papers, yet ignore the peer reviewed papers which rebut the Parker conclusions;

Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same? Geophys. Res. Letts., 32, No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407.

and

Walters, J. T., R. T. McNider, X. Shi, W. B Norris, and J. R. Christy (2007): Positive surface temperature feedback in the stable nocturnal boundary layer, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L12709, doi:10.1029/2007GL029505

http://climatesci.colorado.edu/2007/07/02/...of-july-2-2007/

It was right there under your nose.

I read through a number of comments on Realclimate and they never answered Doug Hughes questions.It was revealing because it made them look like dummies.

LOL

[sunsettommy]

http://www.norcalblogs.com/watts/weather_stations/

Shoggoth,

Why not start reading this blog about How not to measure temperature It is now up to part 22.

It is from Anthony Watts.

You will quickly see how dishonest Realclimate is.

[sunsettommy]

The AUDIT is about the,

MICROCLIMATE around the Surface weather reporting stations.

Where the reporting stations are being installed.

How they are maintained.

The documentation quality on the maintenance of the stations.When they were moved or where they were moved to.

How well the NOAA standards are being adhered to:

Proper Siting

http://www.nws.noaa.gov/om/coop/standard.htm

By now it should be obvious that UHI is not the issue.

Edited July 15, 2007 by sunsettommy

[shoggoth]

Realclimate are the ones clouding the issue by bringing in UHI into the discussion.It is a dishonest inclusion they are trying create into something that was not the issue.

The realclimate article was a short summary of mistaken assumptions about the surface record in general. It wasn't specifically about the issue you seem to think it is. The title of the article made it quite clear there would be talking about the urban heat island effect. And how can they be clouding the issue when they make the distinction crystal clear at the beginning? Look how clear it is made:

The new focus of attention is the placement of the temperature sensors and other potential 'micro-site' effects that might influence the readings. There is a possibility that these effects may change over time, putting in artifacts or jumps in the record

and then directly afterwards they say:

This is slightly different from the more often discussed 'Urban Heat Island' effect which is a function of the wider area (and so could be present even in a perfectly set up urban station).

RealClimate bring up Urban Heat Island Effect precisely because it's "more often discussed" (It's the longer running hobby-horse for those trying to discredit the surface record - see http://www.junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/UHIE.htm and http://www.warwickhughes.com/climate/fairbanks.htm for examples). They are addressing misconceptions about the surface record in general.

RealClimate mention Observant readers will have noticed a renewed assault upon the meteorological station data that underpin some conclusions about recent warming trends for this reason.

Anthony Watts and people like me are interested in the SURFACE weather reporting stations themselves and how they are designed and maintained.How they do their paperwork when the stations are moved or modified.And so on.

Which is fair enough for those who genuinely think like that. But in my opinion a good deal of the people in this are ones who want the surface record to be discredited by it just as they want it to be discredited by satellites or urban heat island effect or whatever they can use.

1. Real Climate: “Mistaken Assumption No. 1: Mainstream science doesn’t believe there are urban heat islands….”

Climate Science Response: The issue of poor siting is not an urban heat island issue, but is a question of the very local environment around each site regardless of whether the site is urban or rural. Real Climate’s bias is clearly shown in that they cite the Parker (2005,2006) papers, yet ignore the peer reviewed papers which rebut the Parker conclusions;

It's quite clear the mistaken assumption RealClimate is answering regards the urban heat island effect, not the issue of microsite effects, they mention: "The new focus of attention is the placement of the temperature sensors and other potential 'micro-site' effects that might influence the readings. There is a possibility that these effects may change over time, putting in artifacts or jumps in the record"