I saw several articles around the media – such as this from the ABC – Ozone hole healing a slow process –
and thought it worth while posting the satellite ozone and temperature data – some close fits there at times.
So the recent improvement is a false dawn.
This surprised me – not only the little warming step of 0.2°C in UAH but the difference gets markedly noisier after 2005.
In Australian data the warming step is much more marked and looks a year or so later.
The Sydney Morning Herald ran this article – Typhoon Haiyan influenced by climate change, scientists say – there must be hundreds of articles written along the same general drift. In this case a map of sea surface temperature (SST) anomalies is presented by the SMH for the period 3rd to 5th Nov.
Note the location of the warm anomaly is from 160-165 East and between 5 South & 5 North.
Here is a map of Typhoon tracks including the Haiyan path extended as far east to its origins as I can find.
Note that Haiyan originated in the grid box 155-160 East and 5-10 North. A fair distance from the grid box where the weak SST anomalies highlighted in the SMH article were supposed to cause the Typhoon to form.
Note also that the storm moved westwards to near 145 East before the windspeeds attracted attention and the Typhoon was reported.
At this NOAA site you can make SST anomaly maps for 3 or 4 day periods and personally I am not seeing SST anomalies that stand out as being exceptional in late October – early November.
I have been looking for an animation of the jet streams in that region, no luck so far. I thought this page was interesting discussing the Madden-Julian oscillation.
Those of us who know the ABC well would be surprised to see such an article – presumably the pressure behind the scenes has demanded some sort of explanation – a form of damage control.
Pacific cooling explains slowdown in global warming: study
Tim was well known around Canberra climate sceptics and has a www site WELCOME TO TIM CURTIN’S CYBERHOME. Bio notes about Tim.
Funeral Notice from the Canberra Times 7 August 2013
Japanese scientist Kyoji Kimoto proposes that there is a long standing error in IPCC AGW theory.
According to IPCC’s AGW theory,Climate Sensitivity CS (With Feedback WF) is expressed as follows.
CS(WF)=CS(No Feedbck NF)x(Feedback effects)=1.2K x 2.5=3K
In IPCC theory, it is the most important postulation that CS(NF) is 1.2K,
which is based on Cess’s calculation having mathematical error – for details downbload 76KB 6 page pdf report.
From energy budget of the earth,CS(WF) is 0.2-0.5K instead of 3K,
which coincides with obsevational CS(WF) of 0.2-0.8K by other methods.
Other posts on this blog along similar subjects.
IPCC models have failed to correctly deal with changes in air density – 2011 by Canadian Dean Brooks
Recent Evidence for Reduced Climate Sensitivity – March 2008
Hoyt,D., 2007: The collapse of arguments for high climate sensitivity.
How MINISCULE is the Anthropogenic Greenhouse Effect ? – 2006 – Sherwood Idso’s 1998 paper online.
A Critical Examination of Climate Change – Dr Doug Hoyt 2005
Saw this gem headlined – Sudden stratospheric warming responsible for UK’s icy blast – which contrives to blame cold wintry conditions on warming without mentioning (in 475 words), that the temperature fluctuations in the stratosphere are associated with migration of the jetstream.
But if you listen to the video explanation by Peter Gibb you will see he does refer to the polar jet.
BBC readers in a hurry who just scan the headline and move on without taking time to watch the video could take away a message that would please the IPCC.
That is a big call – like many I have been watching the SOI unable to make up its mind. Anyway – read what the Bureau of Meteorology is saying.
“Forecasters surprised by El Nino turnaround” on ABC news
Pacific’s late retreat to neutral considered unusual – Bom official statement 23 October 2012
Recent (preliminary) Southern Oscillation Index (SOI) values – source of SOI numbers and stats every day.
Main page for dear old BoM.
This has been sent in by Dr Douglas Hoyt to promote discussion – what do readers think?
The greenhouse effect works by having an additional CO2 molecule absorb radiation and re-emit it back to the surface resulting in a net warming of the system.
The anti-greenhouse effect works by having an additional CO2 molecule being struck by an oxygen or nitrogen molecule which –
1) excites the CO2 molecule which then, in turn, emits radiation, some of it to
space, resulting in a net cooling of the system.
2) The oxygen or nitrogen molecule has lost energy in the process, so is now slower, which is how the cooling is manifested.
Increased greenhouse gases have an absorber/heating function and an emitter/cooling function. It is not clear if the two functions are perfectly balanced but they should probably both be about the same.
The presence of both processes happening could provide an explanation for absence of the tropical hot spot. It could also explain the fact that the effective temperature of the earth has remained at about 255 K to within the accuracy of the measurements ever since it has been observed by satellites.
I haven’t seen any mention of the anti-greenhouse effect in any discussions. If one performs the greenhouse calculations with an instantaneous doubling of CO2, you will overlook the anti-greenhouse effect. This plot at – THE HOCKEY SCHTICK – is supportive of the above remarks.
Timothy Curtin, “Applying Econometrics to the Carbon Dioxide “Control
Knob”,” The Scientific World Journal, vol. 2012, Article ID 761473, 12
pages, 2012. doi:10.1100/2012/761473.
Download a copy and lets have your views.