Comments on: Climate science at work #1 – Jones et al 1985-86 papers in review http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533 Primarily exposing faulty methodologies behind global temperature trend compilations Tue, 07 Sep 2010 00:38:26 -0400 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Romanoz http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24444 Romanoz Sun, 11 Apr 2010 23:34:34 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24444 The Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology on Climategate (Report 8) is <a href="http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmsctech.htm" rel="nofollow">available here</a>. Its a whitewash and in retropspect that is not unexpected given that in the UK the political establishment is united on AGW. Donald Cameron, like former opposition leader Malcom Turnbull, is also afflicted with "meetooism". Richard Courtney of SPPI has written a critique of the Reports Conclusions<a href="http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/comments_uk_p.pdf" rel="nofollow"> here</a>. I tried to find Jones' statement that "there was no statistically significant warming since 1995" but its not there. He made that statement in a subsequent BBC interview! I think that admission puts a different light on the charge that he tried to "hide the decline". Only two submissions, both from skeptics, made the point of a lack of warming in the last decade - Richard Courtney and Peabody Coal! This illustrates the short comings of these semi-judicial procedures. Unless the questioner asks the right questions you are not going to get to the truth! The Report of the House of Commons Select Committee on Science and Technology on Climategate (Report 8) is available here.
Its a whitewash and in retropspect that is not unexpected given that in the UK the political establishment is united on AGW. Donald Cameron, like former opposition leader Malcom Turnbull, is also afflicted with “meetooism”.
Richard Courtney of SPPI has written a critique of the Reports Conclusions here.
I tried to find Jones’ statement that “there was no statistically significant warming since 1995″ but its not there. He made that statement in a subsequent BBC interview! I think that admission puts a different light on the charge that he tried to “hide the decline”.
Only two submissions, both from skeptics, made the point of a lack of warming in the last decade – Richard Courtney and Peabody Coal! This illustrates the short comings of these semi-judicial procedures. Unless the questioner asks the right questions you are not going to get to the truth!

]]> By: KuhnKat http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24363 KuhnKat Sun, 21 Mar 2010 04:10:46 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24363 The lapse rate I believe is for open air. Can this really be used for computing the difference in temps for surface stations at differing altitudes?? I would think surface conditions and differences in circulation and evaporation due to those conditions would invalidate this standard? The lapse rate I believe is for open air. Can this really be used for computing the difference in temps for surface stations at differing altitudes?? I would think surface conditions and differences in circulation and evaporation due to those conditions would invalidate this standard?

]]> By: Ripper http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24354 Ripper Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:20:42 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24354 You have to be careful and survey both sites as the altitude rule certainly didn't apply at Halls creek. Two sites 12km apart and 63 mts different in altitude and the lower site is much colder in winter. http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hcjanjulycomp.jpg You have to be careful and survey both sites as the altitude rule certainly didn’t apply at Halls creek.

Two sites 12km apart and 63 mts different in altitude and the lower site is much colder in winter.

http://members.westnet.com.au/rippersc/hcjanjulycomp.jpg

]]> By: MarcH http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24353 MarcH Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:44:24 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24353 Thanks all. I didn't end up using it in the paper i'm working but it will certainly come in handy down the track. cheers M Thanks all. I didn’t end up using it in the paper i’m working but it will certainly come in handy down the track.
cheers
M

]]> By: Cement a friend http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24352 Cement a friend Thu, 18 Mar 2010 06:53:35 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24352 MarcH the correct lapse rate upto 11,000m is -0.00649K/m. It is more higher up. This brings into question the point of D Hoyt (10) above. There can be no heat flux from CO2 in the atmosphere to the earths surface nearly all the time because temperature of the atmosphere is less than the surface. Unless there is work input, such as for air conditioning, heat can only flow from a high temperature to a low temperature. Even in air conditioning the compressor heats the refrigerant gas to high temperature and this is then cooled and condensed by air (at lower temperature) forced over vanes by a fan. The AGW theory contains an hidden hypothesis which assumes that the heat absorbed by CO2 is not lost and increases atmospheic temperature. This is incorrect. Any molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere at any temperature will radiate heat to space which is close to 0degreeK. CO2, water vapor and clouds(water droplets and ice particles) will slow down the rate of heat loss to space. Because lower gas density in the atmosphere above 11,000m the less chance of radiant heat loss being reduced. In this respect the effect of CO2 is very small because of the small wavelength range of absorptivity/emissivity and the minute quantity present in comparison to the effect of water (gas, liquid and solid). Many articles and books state that water vapor (before consideration of clouds) contributes 95% of the "Greenhouse Effect" see for example A Maurellis 2003 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402 (website of IOP -may have to register but it is free). This figure however represents only about 60% of the longwave radiation because of the window of wavelength in the so called "greenhouse gases". Mans contribute through emission of both water vapor and CO2 (burning of methane-natural gas has more greenhouse effect than burning of coal)is insignificant compared to the naturally occurring variations (particularly cloud formation) and may even be beneficial. This then confirms that the significant temperature changes of the surface can not be caused by emission of CO2. One has to respect the work of WSH and many others who are showing that claimed temperature increases are actually not true. regards and keep strong MarcH the correct lapse rate upto 11,000m is -0.00649K/m. It is more higher up.

This brings into question the point of D Hoyt (10) above. There can be no heat flux from CO2 in the atmosphere to the earths surface nearly all the time because temperature of the atmosphere is less than the surface. Unless there is work input, such as for air conditioning, heat can only flow from a high temperature to a low temperature. Even in air conditioning the compressor heats the refrigerant gas to high temperature and this is then cooled and condensed by air (at lower temperature) forced over vanes by a fan.
The AGW theory contains an hidden hypothesis which assumes that the heat absorbed by CO2 is not lost and increases atmospheic temperature. This is incorrect. Any molecule of CO2 in the atmosphere at any temperature will radiate heat to space which is close to 0degreeK.
CO2, water vapor and clouds(water droplets and ice particles) will slow down the rate of heat loss to space. Because lower gas density in the atmosphere above 11,000m the less chance of radiant heat loss being reduced. In this respect the effect of CO2 is very small because of the small wavelength range of absorptivity/emissivity and the minute quantity present in comparison to the effect of water (gas, liquid and solid). Many articles and books state that water vapor (before consideration of clouds) contributes 95% of the “Greenhouse Effect” see for example A Maurellis 2003 http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/print/17402 (website of IOP -may have to register but it is free). This figure however represents only about 60% of the longwave radiation because of the window of wavelength in the so called “greenhouse gases”. Mans contribute through emission of both water vapor and CO2 (burning of methane-natural gas has more greenhouse effect than burning of coal)is insignificant compared to the naturally occurring variations (particularly cloud formation) and may even be beneficial.
This then confirms that the significant temperature changes of the surface can not be caused by emission of CO2. One has to respect the work of WSH and many others who are showing that claimed temperature increases are actually not true.
regards and keep strong

]]> By: MarcH http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24349 MarcH Thu, 18 Mar 2010 00:30:50 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24349 I based the correction around changes in boiling temp for elevation. About 0.32 per 100m based on this website: http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2oboilcalc.html thanks MarcH I based the correction around changes in boiling temp for elevation. About 0.32 per 100m based on this website: http://www.csgnetwork.com/h2oboilcalc.html

thanks MarcH

]]> By: wsh http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24347 wsh Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:45:44 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24347 It is years since I looked this up - so a I have had a quick look with Google and <a href="http://www.arrowscientific.com.au/educational-material/thermometers---calibrating-them.html" rel="nofollow">this Arrow site</a> gives a figure of 1 degree C per 293 metres. A bit less than kasphar. Quote from near bottom of the Arrow page [In general, for each 293 meter (960-foot) increase in altitude the boiling point changes by 1ºC (1.8ºF)] Added on 19th: kasphar is right - the lapse rate is according to <a href="http://wiki.answers.com/Q/Temperature_change_as_altitude_increases" rel="nofollow">wiki.Answers.com</a> [In the troposphere (the first 4 km or 36,000 feet), and in a non-temperature inversion situation, the temperature drops about 6.5 °C for every 1 km increase in altitude..] It is years since I looked this up – so a I have had a quick look with Google and this Arrow site gives a figure of 1 degree C per 293 metres. A bit less than kasphar.
Quote from near bottom of the Arrow page [In general, for each 293 meter (960-foot) increase in altitude the boiling point changes by 1ºC (1.8ºF)]
Added on 19th: kasphar is right – the lapse rate is according to wiki.Answers.com [In the troposphere (the first 4 km or 36,000 feet), and in a non-temperature inversion situation, the temperature drops about 6.5 °C for every 1 km increase in altitude..]

]]> By: kasphar http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24346 kasphar Wed, 17 Mar 2010 19:22:20 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24346 Rule of thumb is about a loss of 6.4˚C per 1000m elevation gain (ie 0.64C per 100m). Rule of thumb is about a loss of 6.4˚C per 1000m elevation gain (ie 0.64C per 100m).

]]> By: MarcH http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24339 MarcH Wed, 17 Mar 2010 11:24:20 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24339 Warwick, Do you know a simple method of correcting for height when comparing two different weather stations? Station A at 365.8 m, station B 237m. Delta H in this case is 128.8 m. The two stations are about 15 km apart. Station B could be used to extend the record of station A but I need to account for the height difference. Any refs? Warwick,
Do you know a simple method of correcting for height when comparing two different weather stations? Station A at 365.8 m, station B 237m. Delta H in this case is 128.8 m. The two stations are about 15 km apart. Station B could be used to extend the record of station A but I need to account for the height difference.
Any refs?

]]> By: Douglas Hoyt http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533&cpage=1#comment-24258 Douglas Hoyt Tue, 16 Mar 2010 12:14:56 +0000 http://www.warwickhughes.com/blog/?p=533#comment-24258 The increased carbon dioxide and its associated thermal radiation will, at best, slow down any cooling of the oceans. It will not cause their temperatures to rise. The 15 micron band only covers a small portion of the thermal spectrum. The water redistributes this radiation over the entire thermal band and allows it to escape to space in the infrared windows. The models ignore this portion of the physics. Lindzen and Choi recently showed increased thermal radiation to space with increased SSTs, based upon measurements, confirming what I say above. The models incorrectly showed decreased outgoing radiation. The increased carbon dioxide and its associated thermal radiation will, at best, slow down any cooling of the oceans. It will not cause their temperatures to rise. The 15 micron band only covers a small portion of the thermal spectrum. The water redistributes this radiation over the entire thermal band and allows it to escape to space in the infrared windows. The models ignore this portion of the physics.

Lindzen and Choi recently showed increased thermal radiation to space with increased SSTs, based upon measurements, confirming what I say above. The models incorrectly showed decreased outgoing radiation.

]]>