In case you needed any more evidence, here are two more studies showing exactly that. The first study, the Berkelely Earth Surface Temperature Study, is a review of the data from 15 sources compiled from almost 40,000 different surface temperature stations around the Earth. This study, run by Berkeley physicist and former global warming skeptic Richard Muller, confirms that the Earth is getting warmer. Muller himself was surprised at how closely the new data matched that of the previous studies.
Comparison of data showing decadal land-surface average world temperature changes from 15 different sources, some going back as far as 1800.
In case you aren’t familiar with the acronyms:
NASA GISS—NASA Goddard institute for Space Studies
NOAA—National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
HadCRU—Hadley center Climate Research Unit (the group that had been accused of scientific malfeasance by global warming deniers, but was later cleared of all wrongdoing).
Credit: Image courtesy of Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature.
The Berkeley study only went back a couple of centuries. The next study, by Svante Björck of Lund University, goes back 20,000 years. By examining ice cores from both the Northern and Southern hemispheres, he was able to show that the warming going on today is unlike previous warming events in Earth’s history. On previous occasions, only one hemisphere warmed at a time, not both as is happening now. This is evidence that the climate change we see is caused by an external force, namely us.
The time-integral of sunspot numbers, properly reduced by earth IR radiation by using conservation of energy, accurately (R2=0.88) correlates with average global temperatures since 1895 as shown in the pdf made public 3/10/11 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
ReplyDeleteThe pdf made public 9/24/11 shows that the equation accurately predicted agt since 1990.
Change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide had no significant influence.
I'm afraid that your contention that the sun is responsible for global warming is not supported by the data. For one thing, the upper atmosphere (stratosphere) is cooling while the troposphere (near the surface) is warming. This finding is incompatible with a solar cause of global warming.
ReplyDeleteAs far as sunspots go, while there has been some correlation in the data prior to 1970, there has been no connection between sunspots and global temperature over the past 40 years. If anything, solar activity should have been causing global cooling.
Check out this explanation:
http://youtu.be/_Sf_UIQYc20
You mistake an observation (of average global temperature anomalies (agt) and sunspot number) for a contention.
ReplyDeleteThe equation uses the direct data to calculate agt with an accuracy of 88%.
The mistaken conclusion that sunspots are not relevant was based on TSI or sunspot magnitude or solar cycle timing (as exhibited in 'this explanation'). The breakthrough is in realizing that a large magnitude for a short time may be as effective as a lower magnitude for a longer time. The time-integral of sunspot numbers takes this into account and also allows the application of the first law of thermodynamics (conservation of energy). The result of using the time-integral of sunspot numbers is graphed on page 14 of the pdf made public 4/10/10 which shows a steady rise in the energy retained by the planet since about 1941 to about 2005.
I track the reports from the 5 agencies that report agt. A graph on page 5 of the pdf made public 9/24/11 shows them and reveals that average global temperatures have been flat for a decade while, since 2001, atmospheric CO2 has increased by 23.6% of the increase from 1800 to 2001.
The good news is that the huge thermal capacitance of the oceans, about 30 times everything else, will slow the temperature decline trend to only about -0.13C per decade (as much as -0.22C per decade if the sun goes really quiet).
But Dan, the whole point is that global temperatures have not been flat. That's the conclusion of all the studies to date, including the Berkeley study above.
ReplyDeleteKathy,
ReplyDeleteThere are five government agencies that report average global temperature anomalies. Links to all five are provided in the pdf made public 3/11/11. They and their average are all graphed through August, 2011 on page 5 of the pdf made public 9/24/11. Three of them report anomalies back to 1880 and their average is graphed on page 4 (of the 9/24 pdf) so you can put the brief period of the five in context (different offsets make the numbers not align but the shapes compare). You can check any of this against the links.
This is the best data available. I have added the September values for all (on my computer) and even the Oct. value for UAH. This did not change the graph significantly. This study shows that temperatures have been flat for a decade.
All studies that claim that the temperature is still rising are simply a regression analysis on prior values. Polynomial fits to data have no predictive value.
Note that the above graph is for 10 year moving average and is for land only. Only 29% of the planet area is land and averaging over 10 years distorts what has been happening lately. UAH dropped 0.17C (global) from Sept to Oct.
Dan, the graph above as well as the graph on your own PDF clearly shows that temperatures have been increasing up to the early 2000's. According to NASA GISS and NOAA (see my explanations of those acronyms under the graph above) 2005 and 2010 were the warmest years on record, with 2009 coming in second. In other words, if the graph was extended for another decade, the temperature lines would continue to rise.
ReplyDeleteI think the conclusion is clear. However, as neither of us are climatologists, I encourage my readers to look at the data for themselves.
Kathy, if you had looked on page 2 of the pdf made public 3/10/11 you would have seen that I already know what the acronyms stand for and the links to their data.
ReplyDeleteThe graph that you looked at on page 4 of the 9/24/11 pdf covers too much time to clearly see the flat for the last decade or so. The period since 1998 is expanded on the graph on page 5 so you can see what I mean.
I have a Master's degree in Mechanical Engineering (13 units of heat transfer) and have been researching this climate issue for over 4 years (my first paper on climate was made public 3/15/2008 and is on the web). I not only have figured out what is going on and why, I have determined a lot of things that the 'consensus' have done wrong and list some of them in the pdf made public 8/11/10 at http://climaterealists.com/index.php?tid=145&linkbox=true
I developed a valid equation based on the physical phenomena.
I calibrated this equation using temperature anomaly data prior to 1990 and then used it to predict average global temperature anomalies since then. There is excellent agreement (in spite of the Mt. Pinatubo dip) between the calculations and the measured trends since 1990 including the 'flat' of the last decade.
Calibration through 2010 shows a predicted temperature decline trend of about -0.13C/ decade. If the sun goes really quiet the decline could be up to about -0.22C/decade.
The acronyms are not explained for your sake, Dan, but for my other readers.
ReplyDeleteAs to your work, self-publishing on the web does not constitute scientific consensus. I've seen numerous counter-arguments to your propositions. Two examples:
http://irregulartimes.com/index.php/archives/2011/07/04/thanks-for-playing-its-global-cooling-dan/
http://greenfyre.wordpress.com/2011/11/08/dan-pangburn/
These blogs were also published on the web. Why should anyone give more credence to your views than theirs?
It's not me you have to convince, but the experts, namely the climatologists. Considering that your predictions contradict the data, that seems unlikely. Until you can prove that your model is better than the current model, I'm sticking with the climatologists.
I wonder how wide the separation between the rising CO2 level and not rising temperature will need to get for you to realize that you have been deceived by the concensus.
ReplyDeleteIt will have to at least exist.
ReplyDelete"None are so blind as those who will not see."
ReplyDelete