Mollweide maps October 2012 for UAH layers, IPCC hotspot visible, sure, over New York

Posted: November 11, 2012 by tchannon in Analysis, atmosphere, climate, Dataset, weather

Image

Image

Image

Doug Proctor Cotton asked about the fabled GHG hotspot over the tropics. Above is old code of mine. Could do this with any dataset in the database.
[I apologise for the error]

A fixed hotspot might vanish in a change plot, the above. OHOH all that horrid AGW gas since 1979 must have done something, mustn’t it?

Equal area is the correct map. There is no around the corner it is the whole surface in one with an accurate area representation of all parts.

A spot of fun is in the Pot Lid PDF which opines the GCM fail to handle mass movement on the supposition/assumption it “doesn’t matter”, are 2.5D not 3D, although that is really 3.5D and 4D because time is a dimension. I could add more from a completely different background.

http://declineeffect.com/?page_id=189

I hope Dean will allow me this extract

Image

I might post up Hovmuller plots which gives a different view. They are rather large. Alternatively RSS now have Hovmuller plots which are professionally done whereas I am struggling with very little resource.

Comments
  1. Berényi Péter says:

    The Pot Lid paper of Brooks relates to Miskolczi’s work, who also invoked the virial theorem in an attempt to explain a curious empirical finding, namely that overall atmospheric IR optical depth has not changed a bit over the last six decades (it keeps lingering around 1.87) in spite of a ~23% increase in carbon dioxide levels.

    He came to this conclusion while working for NASA through a contractor, doing detailed radiative transfer analysis on large datasets. So up to that point there was no specific theory involved beyond using HartCode, a state of the art line-by-line radiation transfer package developed by himself.

    However, when he tried to gain permission from NASA to publish a theoretical paper on self regulation of IR optical thickness in wet & semi-transparent planetary atmospheres, he was fired.

    IDŐJÁRÁS (Weather) Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
    Vol. 111, No. 1, January–March 2007, pp. 1–40
    Greenhouse effect in semi-transparent planetary atmospheres
    Ferenc M. Miskolczi

    Journal of Quantitative Spectroscopy & Radiative Transfer 90 (2005) 323 – 341
    An inter-comparison of far-infrared line-by-line radiative transfer models
    David P. Kratz, Martin G. Mlynczak, Christopher J. Mertens, Helen Brindley, Larry L. Gordley, Javier Martin-Torres, Ferenc M. Miskolczi, David D. Turner

    IDŐJÁRÁS (Weather) Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service
    Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251
    The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation
    Ferenc M. Miskolczi and Martin G. Mlynczak

  2. tallbloke says:

    Actually Peter, he resigned, after his boss Martin Mlynczak logged into the journal Ferenc had submitted his second paper to using Ferenc’s credentials and withdrew the paper.

    http://tallbloke.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/why-the-sun-is-so-important-to-climate/

    “Why Dr Ferenc Miskolczi and Dr Miklos Zagoni have been put under pressure to be silent about Miskolczi`s research concerning the atmosphere and the greenhouse effect.

    In 2004 Dr Ferenc Miskolczi published a paper ’The greenhouse effect and the spectral decomposition of the clear-sky terrestrial radiation’, in the Quarterly Journal of the Hungarian Meteorological Service (Vol. 108, No. 4, October–December 2004, pp. 209–251.).

    The co-author of the article was his boss at NASA (Martin Mlynczak). Mlynczak put his name to the paper but did no work on it. He thought that it was an important paper, but only in a technical way.

    When Miskolczi later informed the group at NASA there that he had more important results, they finally understood the whole story, and tried to withhold Miskolczi’s further material from publication. His boss for example, sat at Ferenc’s computer, logged in with Ferenc`s password, and canceled a recently submitted paper from a high-reputation journal as if Ferenc had withdrawn it himself. That was the reason that Ferenc finally resigned from his ($US 90.000 /year) job.

    I want to make it clear: NASA never falsified or even tried to falsify Ferenc`s results, on the contrary, they fully understand it. They know that it is correct and see how important it is.

    To make sense of their actions, they probably see a national security issue in it. Perhaps they think that AGW is the only way to stop, or to slow, the coal-based growth of China.

    In my circumstance where I have been dismissed from my Government paid position in Hungary, I think the information vacuum (in Hungary), has the same type of origin.

    I believe someone is in the background trying to convince the establishment (media, science, politics) that Miskolczi’s results are against our national security interests.

    First, they tried to frighten me, and then when that did not work, they kicked me out from my job. So now I am turning to the wider internet to publicise Miskolczi`s work, as I know that his results are valid and true. There is no way and no need to hold them back for the world to understand them.

    Tomorrow, for the first time in my life, I am jobless.”

    Budapest, 31 Dec, 2009

    Dr Miklos Zagoni
    (57)
    physicist
    Hungary

    http://miskolczi.webs.com

  3. tallbloke says:

    Nice work again Tim, and I don’t want you to “hand the blog back”, I’m proud to have you sharing it with me.

    Interesting to note the lower tropospheric cooling over the UK for the last 33 years according to the UAH dataset isn’t it?

    Looks like it warmed a bit in New York and Washington DC though. That’s probably what all the fuss has been about. :)

    How long would it take to repeat the map making process for LT covering different epochs (of, say 3.7 years to capture the ENSO cycle) so we can see what the non-stationarity of the regional trends is like?

  4. Berényi Péter says:

    The funny thing is Dr. Zagoni used to be a fierce environmental activist, he still is in his core. He just turned his position upside down on carbon dioxide, that’s all. Makes him extremely inconvenient.

    Unfortunately all Hungarian research institutes depend on international contracts or grants to some extent, so they are pretty vulnerable to pressure.

    But if the U.S. of A. is making a national security issue of it, and to restrict China’s coal based boom at that, they’ve certainly shot themselves in the foot. Chinese communist bureaucrats, beyond the blood bath of Tienanmen square, in full control of a pseudo-capitalist overgrowth and in possession of much US Treasury bonds just don’t care. The ever growing revenue stream from corruption is too appealing for that.

    However, the real sucker is Europe, if it goes on like this, we’ll be left with no power of any kind, no industry, no jobs, no nothing.

  5. tallbloke says:

    I concur. Time for the Eurocrats to wake up and smell the molotov cocktails coffee.

  6. tchannon says:

    Astute connecting. And yes I was particularly interested in the optical depth work when I came across it some time ago but is way outside of my fields.

    Here are some start points

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/06/30/svalgaard-8/#comment-152027

    http://climateaudit.org/2008/06/30/svalgaard-8/#comment-152032

  7. Doug Proctor says:

    Tim, thanks for the response (even though I am a proctor/minor university official, rather than a cotton/fabric for making jeans!). [mod: corrected, not intentional as I gather you realise, is a long failing where I check and still get it wrong –tim]

    I followed back on a reference to a prior blog on stratospheric vs tropospheric temp vs time (Stephen Wilde) and observed that the TLS shows volcanic eruptions, while the TLT shows the El Nino event, but the opposite does not occur. Interesting.

    As the stratosphere readings are from higher, I suggest:

    1) volcanic eruptions actively add energy to the system, as additional sunlight is captured. The volcanic “injections” of energy could be released as increased radiative emissions to space OR smeared around the globe and increase (for some time) the overall heat energy of the Earth.

    2) an El Nino event, however, merely redistributes energy at a lower level, so that the final release to the stratosphere and, eventually, space, is the globally unchanged.

    Thoughts? Neophytes think original what the experts know is background, so I have few illusions.

    The suppression of Miskolczi’s work: the money pie must be small and controlled by only a few people for this to be effective, but the anxiety demonstrated by Climategate, the Climategate reviews and the defense of Mann sure supports this idea. A Lafamboise review of the climate study grants and granting process would be most interesting in this regard.

    A sideways thought:

    The lack of a mid-tropospheric hotspot in these images is clear. It is puzzling that the warmists don’t find this disturbing, but there are other clear discrepancies between the “facts” as seen and as discussed (the non-increase of hurricanes while the warmists proclaim the increase is just one).

    While the skeptics, though dialogue such as this, become more educated and aware, what is happening on the other side, the warmists? The increasing shrillness of Romm and McKibben and Gore are suggestive that their dialogues are inspirational rather than instructional. Do they clutch AR4 to their chests with one hand while they fend off non-IPCC studies with a cross held out before them?

  8. Doug Proctor says:

    By the way: the Brooks plot (below the IPCC plot, above) actually shows a “cool” spot in the tropics. Is this statistically valid? Does it represent a negative feedback mechanism whereby a thermal gradient has been established while draws heat energy away from the poles/other areas, a safety value mechanism that actually opens more than necessary to reduce the temperature to “normal”?

  9. tchannon says:

    Doug,
    One of the awkward features of a human delusion is that there is nothing at all. In this case no excess heat and so there is nothingness. No hotspot, no coldspot, just normal.

    What you mention is why I put up the Hovmoller plots because that might give a clue on time sequence.

  10. Brian H says:

    Discovery: UHI causes hotspots, if the U is hot (energy-intensive and large) enough.