This is first art from access to the Chilbolton Observatory datasets.
Archive for the ‘Measurement’ Category
My thanks to Tony Thomas for giving the talkshop the exclusive of his take on this breaking news item:
Gergis findings re-surface – the Hockey Stick lives!
By Tony Thomas 31-03-2014
These are the conclusions of a multi-proxy 1000-year climate reconstruction published today (March 31) in Nature Climate Change, by Dr Raphael Neukom of the Oeschger Centre at the University of Bern, and Dr Joelle Gergis of the University of Melbourne.
Dr Neukom summed up for a University of Melbourne press release:
The study showed the ‘Medieval Warm Period’, as identified in some European chronicles, was a regional phenomenon.
During the same period, temperatures in the Southern Hemisphere were only average. Our study revealed it was not a common climate event that many people have previously assumed.
The paper claims that in 99.7 percent of the results, the warmest decade of the millennium occurred after 1970.
The press release says,“And surprisingly, only twice over the entire past millennium have both hemispheres simultaneously shown extreme temperatures.
One of these occasions was a global cold period in the 17th century; the other was the current warming phase”.”
Twitter climate debate warrior ‘Ima Disbelievin‘ sent me this short article which is worth a post. It’s a followup to the Tony Thomas article a week or so back which covered the story about the American Physical Society APS reworking their position statement on climate change and global warming.
In the American Physical Science’s transcript of discussions relating to their upcoming revision of their position statement on Anthropogenic Climate Change, Dr. Collins states:
So, we build climate models. We assume when we construct those models that the net energy balance of the planet was identically zero or effectively zero at the start of industrialization.
Guest Post emailed to me by Tony Thomas, originally published at Quadrant online:
Finally, Some Real Climate Science
Tony Thomas 18-3-2014
The American Physical Society has been amongst the loudest alarmist organisations whipping up hysteria about CO2, but a review of its position that has placed three sceptics on the six-member investigatory panel strongly suggests the tide has turned.
The 50,000-strong American body of physicists, the American Physical Society (APS), seems to be turning significantly sceptical on climate alarmism.
The same APS put out a formal statement in 2007 adding its voice to the alarmist hue and cry. That statement caused resignations of some of its top physicists (including 1973 Nobel Prize winner Ivar Giaever and Hal Lewis, Emeritus Professor of Physics, University of California, Santa Barbara). The APS was forced by 2010 to add some humiliating clarifications but retained the original statement that the evidence for global warming was ‘incontrovertible’.
By its statutes, the APS must review such policy statements each half-decade and that scheduled review is now under way, overseen by the APS President Malcolm Beasley.
The review, run by the society’s Panel on Public Affairs, includes four powerful shocks for the alarmist science establishment.
On UCLA’s main website there is a ‘space missions’ page. On it there is a section for the Diviner mission, which mapped the Moon’s surface temperature. We covered it in a series of posts a while back, as it is crucial to our understanding of Earth’s climate:
Diviner: The Diviner Lunar Radiometer is one of seven instruments aboard NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter spacecraft, which was launched on June 18, 2009. It is the first instrument to create detailed, global maps of surface temperature over the lunar day and year. Diviner’s measurements are also used to map compositional variations, derive subsurface temperatures, assess the stability of potential polar ice deposits, and infer landing hazards such as roughness and rock abundance. Read more here.
But the links to the diviner subdomain are broken, and although references to other pages about the mission such as press releases and news articles are found by searching the UCLA site, the science has gone. OK, so websites get changed, links get broken, servers crash and don’t get rebooted for a while. So what? Why does this matter?
Announcement on the SORCE Status page:
(updated 24 Feb. 2014)
TIM daily solar measurements have resumed in a new operations mode.
The TIM, along with all other SORCE instruments, ceased collecting solar measurements after a battery cell failure on 30 July 2013. The LASP SORCE spacecraft operations team has implemented a new means of operating the instrument to acquire continued TSI measurements in the present limited-power mode. These measurements are expected to be more intermittent and of lower quality than those during the primary mission phase due to thermal and pointing issues, and this will be reflected in the time-dependent uncertainties given in the released data files.
Lisa Goddard of the International Research Institute for Climate and Society, Columbia University, Palisades, New York has a commentary article in Nature Climate Change today entitled ‘Heat hide and seek’ which caught my eye. In part it says this:
Natural variability seems to be capable of accounting for changes in ocean heat uptake of the magnitude experienced. Many recent studies point to the role of PDO in this recent hiatus. What is particularly compelling is that this period has also been one of negative PDO. Further suggestive evidence is that the last period with decade-scale trends in global mean temperature as weak as that experienced since the turn of the century occurred through the 1950s and early 1960s, which was another period dominated by very negative PDO conditions. This shows that hiatus periods are unusual but not unprecedented.
Scafetta and Willson: “the ACRIM composite as the most likely and precise representation of 35 years of TSI monitoring”Posted: February 21, 2014 by Rog Tallbloke in Analysis, Astrophysics, Dataset, Measurement, methodology, Natural Variation, Solar physics, Uncertainty
Tags: ACRIM, Frohlich, IPCC, PMOD, Svalgaard, TSI, Watts
Nicola Scafetta and Richard Willson have a new paper in press which contains the most thorough analysis yet of the intercomparison of the empirical ACRIM and modeled PMOD TSI series. It’s a comprehensive yet readable paper of high interest to all diligent climate researchers interested in determining the relative strengths of various climate drivers. It is also an important historical document for philosophers of science investigating the shift from observation based empirical solar science to model based dogma underpinning preconceptions of the power of trace gases to control Earth’s surface temperature. The IPCC and Team Wassup’s Leif Svalgaard are not going to like it, and will therefore try to ignore it, thus further underminng their credibility.
ACRIM total solar irradiance satellite composite validation versus TSI proxy models
Nicola Scafetta & Richard C. Willson
From the paper:
PMOD TSI composite (Fröhlich and Lean 1998; Fröhlich 2004, 2006, 2012) is essentially a theoretical model originally designed to agree with Lean’s TSI proxy model (Fröhlich and Lean 1998). It relies on postulated but experimentally unverified drifts in the ERB record during the ACRIM Gap,and other alterations of the published ERB and ACRIM results, that are not recognized by their original experimental teams and have not been verified by the PMOD by original computations using ERB or ACRIM1 data.
John Christy has been interviewed by ‘Talking about the weather‘:
John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama-Huntsville.John Christy is a climate scientist at the University of Alabama-Huntsville. Along with Roy Spencer, he developed the first satellite temperature record of the Earth. Skeptical about catastrophic anthropogenic global warming, he has been invited to speak before Congress several times. He is the director of the Earth System Science Center at UAH.
TATW: What would be the single piece of information that you would convey to people who have strong opinions about climate and little knowledge?
CHRISTY: A fundamental aspect of science is that when we scientifically understand a system, we are able to predict how the system evolves in time. The comparison of model output with observations indicates we have much less understanding than what is needed to predict it with any confidence. I certainly don’t see the predictive skill necessary for policy determination.