Russian heat waves are oftten of Anthropo-political nature as this one was in the wake of Czechoslovakia’s invasion.
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/69-71.htm
Notice the excessive positive anomaly is strictly confined to the USSR borders, and considering the area involved lifted global temperatures by ~ 0.3 C.
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by vukcevic
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist
If the current 2 year La Nina – which is still hanging in there – turns into an El Nino 2012 will certainly be warmer than the 11th placed 2011. What’s your point?
↧
Comment on Keith Seitter on the ‘uncertainty monster’ by referenceurs internet
Much stimulating locations you have noted , recognize it for posting . “Success is a voyage, hardly a purpose. The doing is frequent plus eminent than the result.” by Arthur Ashe.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope
Chief doesn’t understand that science often advances incrementally. He apparently wants it to follow his assertions and has decided to keep pushing the pseudoscience that the elevated levels of CO2 naturally arise.
Whatever happened to Murry Salby and his similar pseudo-argument?
↧
Comment on Nuclear power discussion thread by Alex Heyworth
The bottom line on Japan and nuclear power is that, given it is both a major earthquake zone and prone to tsunamis, it is one of the least suitable locations on Earth for nuclear power plants. Maybe they should think about putting nuclear power stations on offshore platforms 
↧
↧
Comment on Nuclear power discussion thread by Alex Heyworth
This blog has recently been exhibiting really weird behaviour regarding where your post ends up. I just added a post at the bottom of the thread, it ended up several places back up the thread. Anyone know the explanation?
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope
Chief said:
“There is no semantic difference between the mean annual increase (defined as in the NOAA graph as the increase in CO2 ppmv annually) is temperature dependent. “
You really do have huge issues communicating anything technically. That is not even a valid sentence. You say “difference between” but you only qualify one of the terms “mean annual increase”. The other term that you need to difference isn’t specified.
“The increase shown varies with temperature quite evidently.”
No, the strength of the periodic fluctuation varies with temperature. The mean annual increase is caused by fossil fuel emissions.
You are back to flip-flopping again. Either that or you are very confused.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Beth Cooper
CH @12.40am.
Rodeo? )
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope
<blockquote>"Really Webby – the mean annual CO2 increase was 0.48 on 1992 and peaked in 1998 at 2.93. I’m figuring that quite a lot of the increase in CO2 in the atmosphere was from a warming Earth. This was not neccessarily ocean outgassing despite your idiotic one dimensional ideas. "</blockquote>
The average increase over the last several decades has been about 1.5 PPM CO2 per year. My analysis shows that seasonal variations generate a 3 PPM change in CO2 for every 1 degree change in sea surface temperature (SST). That is consistent with seasonal outgassing.
That said, a brief warming period did hit the equatorial ocean in 1998, and <a href="http://nomad3.ncep.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/pdisp_sst.sh?ctlfile=monoiv2.ctl&ptype=ts&psfile=on&var=sst&level=1&op1=none&op2=none&month=jan&year=1990&fmonth=dec&fyear=2000&lat0=-21&lat1=9&lon0=-180&lon1=180&plotsize=800x600&title=&dir=" rel="nofollow">you can see this in the NOAA data</a>. It is quite obvious that the glitch is about 0.5 degrees C, which according to my analysis, would add 1.5 PPM (3x change) to the Mauna Loa readings. That is exactly the difference between 2.93 and the average 1.5 PPM increase per year from fossil fuel emissions. But since this temperature increase was temporary, it did not cause a long term change in the 1.5 PPM per year advance. It was just a brief ocean warming spell -- the ocean breathed out CO2 and then eventually sucked it back in when the temperature fell back to the steady state in subsequent years.
I hope this is starting to make sense to you as it is all very consistent.
<blockquote>"I am tired of your stupid ad homs – I have such a broad background in everything from physics and hydraulics to fluvial geomorphology to environmental economics. I have 30 years of reading in science and I know a damn sight more than you will ever know about science, literature, art, history, popular culture and rodeo."</blockquote>
Hmmm. Maybe someone should alert the media.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist
‘There is no semantic difference between the mean annual increase (defined as in the NOAA graph as the increase in CO2 ppmv annually) is temperature dependent. The increase shown varies with temperature quite evidently. And the variation in increase results from temperature changes.’ I realise it is a bit daring to start a sentence with an and. But what do I care.
So here is the data
year temp. anom (degrees C – gistemp) mean annual CO2 increase (ppmv)
1992 0.16 0.48
1998 0.76 2.93
Again with the hand waving, insults, quibbles and red herrings? I haven’t changed anything – the mean annual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere is temperature dependent. You keep saying the warm oceans outgas – although I wouldn’t necessarily limit temperature effects to the ocean. I keep telling you that is a significant conceptual failure on your part. But hell – with so many – what’s one more.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Latimer Alder
Can anybody remind us just how many seats the greenists won, please?
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Latimer Alder
Just looked it up.
It was zero.
Again.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist
El Chichón was in 83 – so odds are this is volcanic. We are looking at increases in temp. (looks like) in the stratosphere where sulphides are injected – and there was a decrease in tropospheric temp.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by peeke
Polls. While they might provide the idea of interaction between reader and author of a blog entry they are absolutely useless tools. This poll shows why:
“Michael McMann Is an outstanding scientist and human being”
Excuse me, how am I going to assess McManns qualities as human being? What a joke.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope
Chief is now starting to come around to what I have been saying. A temporarily warm season will provide a temporary large outgassing of CO2 to the atmosphere which will then get sucked back in to the ocean when the excess surface water heat diffuses into the deeper waters in subsequent years.
This is the SST for 1998:
http://img18.imageshack.us/img18/7246/sst1998.gif
The glitch of 0.5 degree increase in 1998 is multiplied by 3 to generate a temporary 1.5 PPM in CO2 concentration as measured at Mauna Loa.
Yet, I must state again for those keeping score, the most that a warming ocean can add to cumulative CO2 is only based on the absolute increase in temperature. So if the ocean warms by 1 degree C over a number of years it will add only a few PPM to the atmospheric CO2 concentration, not the 100 PPM caused by fossil fuel emissions. Fossil fuel emissions have a ratcheting cumulative effect, but seasonal temperature fluctuations don’t.
This is further evidence that the novel seasonal time series analysis that I recently posted is spot on:
http://theoilconundrum.blogspot.com/2012/03/co2-outgassing-model.html#SST_CO2
I will add the 1998 glitch to that post, so Chief should be thanked for strengthening the CO2 outgassing argument
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by climatereason
WebHubTelescope
I had understood that every 1 degree C rise in water temperature caused outgassing of 7ppm. This depends on the SST in the first place-warmer waters outgas more- and the surface warming is often not very consistent so the outgassing is not consistent either.
What figure are you working from?
tonyb
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist
The ocean temperature increase was nowhere near temporary but increased steadily over recent decades. The causes of the recent warming – in so far as we have a satellite record – show that the warming happened in the short wave and there was cooling in the IR. Given that warming in the early part of last century was mostly natural and warming resumed after 1976 – après the Great Pacific Climate Shift – we are entitled to think that much of the consequent change in atmospheric CO2 was the result of these other systems in which the fluxes are 2 orders of magnitude larger than anthropogenic emissions. We are entitled to think that these fluxes are not in equilibrium – as from the data. And that much of the accumulated CO2 in the atmosphere is of natural origin because of natural warming of the planet.
The point being that there is a likelihood – if the planet cools – of a turnaround in the accumulation. We have so little data that it becomes increasingly difficult to do anything but speculate. We speculate that the world is cooling because of ocean circulation – hardly just a glitch – and declining solar activity both for the rest of this decade and as a longer term probability.
Me – “I am tired of your stupid ad homs – I have such a broad background in everything from physics and hydraulics to fluvial geomorphology to environmental economics. I have 30 years of reading in science and I know a damn sight more than you will ever know about science, literature, art, history, popular culture and rodeo.”
You – ‘Hmmm. Maybe someone should alert the media.’
By all means – tell them that I am a lonesome cowboy with degrees in engineering and environmental science. But you accuse me of not caring about science – how can that be?
The problem with the climate war is that curiosity no longer the ruling facor and everything is reflexively shoe horned into an ideology. Think instead of it as an exercise in natural philosophy where wonder and puzzlement are mixed in equal measure.
Now if we could possibly avoid snarks – it would be much more pleasant educating you.
↧
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist
It is a pleasure Webby – I am sure I am happy to continue to educate you. Although what I was saying is that warming of the ocean and atmosphere increases both outgassing and respiration. The world has been warming – and so these natural fluxes to the atmosphere increase.
Here is the IPCC relevant section – note table 7.4 but note that these are not static but dynamic and the errors are +/- 20%.
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by Chief Hydrologist
Beth me darlin’ – a cowboy’s gotta do…
↧
Comment on Week in review 3/23/12 by WebHubTelescope
“Idiot. I will speak to Jim separately but I would advise him not to put his Easter eggs in a basket with you.”
So by your lame reasoning 4.6 ppmv * 0.5 degrees gives 2.3 PPM, which is a far cry from 100 PPM.
The reason is that Spencer multiplies this out by around 40 years so he gets
4.6 ppmv/degree/year * 0.5 degrees * 40 years = 92 PPM.
That’s why I said that he maintains this increase year on year to explain the 100 PPM change.
It really doesn’t matter that you can’t seem to grasp this. What matters is that the top-tier climate scientists understand the physics and chemistry. No way does Spencer’s theory explain the modern-day CO2 increase, unless you resort to JimD’s bookeeping fudge factor, which does a sleight-of-hand concerning where the excess CO2 is coming from.
↧
More Pages to Explore .....
