Climate-gate
- Thread starter Photizo
- Start date
and you lose your bet as there is only decline with time in the heat flux from the interior. There is no "sudden" change in that flux, unless you have a "super volcano." Circa 1980 did not.
It is nice to be able to agree with sculptor for a change:
Note that the 1980 sun spot and solar max were "melting the low hanging fruit" to mix my metaphors. I.e. the 11 year prior peak was ~ 1969 and not yet aided much by man's GHG release so the 1980 peak melted an unusual amount of ice & perma-frost. The next peak in ~1991 had to melt deeper layers.
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks!
However my concern is not so much with "near surface" Permafrost (< 1 meter, which is what is being measured/assessed in those reports) but with Permafrost down to >1 meter which appears to be beyond the scope of the studies and subsequently ignored.
I am currently hypothesizing that the recent discovery of sink hole phenomena in Russia for example is due to "deep" permafrost thaw in an essentially oil and gas rich Arctic region.
Do you know of any studies that deal with "deep" >1 meter (down to 100+ meters) permafrost temperature changes especially in the 1980's?
Of course "near surface" Permafrost assessments are necessarily impacted on by atmospheric and solar conditions, however I believe deeper permafrost temperature changes would not be so influenced by atmospheric conditions. and more so by geothermal changes.
Last edited:
Takes about 2-3 years to cycle near surface permafrost but takes thousands of years to cycle deeper permafrost or so I read somewhere...and you lose your bet as there is only decline with time in the heat flux from the interior. There is no "sudden" change in that flux, unless you have a "super volcano." Circa 1980 did not.
It is nice to be able to agree with sculptor for a change:
Note that the 1980 sun spot and solar max were "melting the low hanging fruit" to mix my metaphors. I.e. the 11 year prior peak was ~ 1969 and not yet aided much by man's GHG release so the 1980 peak melted an unusual amount of ice & perma-frost. The next peak in ~1991 had to melt deeper layers.
QQ - You are stacking unrealistic ideas on top of each other:
(1) How can there be sudden increase in the heat flux from the interior? That heat is caused by radio isotope decay and slow cool down of the heat released by gravitational shrinking to form the earth.
(2) there was no "super volcano" that could make relatively brief (less than decade) in circa 1980 - certainly not in Alaska.
(3) Why would the interior heat flux concentrate into Alaska area? In circia 1980?
(4) Why are you rejecting the well measured data of the solar peak radiation in 1980 + & - 3 years that does send heat down more than a meter especially as summers have warm water draining down.
Recall I suggested that is probably how the recent large holes, more than 100 feet deep, quickly formed in Siberia:
"" What caused the large hole to very rapidly appear, I don't know, but tend to think the mechanism was something like this:
Surface liquid water at least a few degrees warmer than 0C formed small lakes* in summer, and that water found a path down to deliver heat that released CH4 from deep and old (from last ice age) methane ice hydrates, but time was needed** to use all the delivered heat. Thus, when winter returned to the area, the lake re-froze after most of the water had drained down and the path down was sealed with ice. This let the pressure of the CH4 from the thermally decomposing hydrates build up until it could, probably in the spring when ice above was not so strong, escape to the surface thru a weak point. Not a chemical explosion, but "pressure explosion" that ruptured the confining "tank."
* Note that there is a small lake visible in some photos taken of the area from helicopter last summer shortly after scientist learned of the new hole. It looks to me to be no more than 1km away from the Yamal hole most famous and first investigated.
** Just like a 0C ice cube dropped in few degree C water does not immediately all melt."
(1) How can there be sudden increase in the heat flux from the interior? That heat is caused by radio isotope decay and slow cool down of the heat released by gravitational shrinking to form the earth.
(2) there was no "super volcano" that could make relatively brief (less than decade) in circa 1980 - certainly not in Alaska.
(3) Why would the interior heat flux concentrate into Alaska area? In circia 1980?
(4) Why are you rejecting the well measured data of the solar peak radiation in 1980 + & - 3 years that does send heat down more than a meter especially as summers have warm water draining down.
Recall I suggested that is probably how the recent large holes, more than 100 feet deep, quickly formed in Siberia:
"" What caused the large hole to very rapidly appear, I don't know, but tend to think the mechanism was something like this:
Surface liquid water at least a few degrees warmer than 0C formed small lakes* in summer, and that water found a path down to deliver heat that released CH4 from deep and old (from last ice age) methane ice hydrates, but time was needed** to use all the delivered heat. Thus, when winter returned to the area, the lake re-froze after most of the water had drained down and the path down was sealed with ice. This let the pressure of the CH4 from the thermally decomposing hydrates build up until it could, probably in the spring when ice above was not so strong, escape to the surface thru a weak point. Not a chemical explosion, but "pressure explosion" that ruptured the confining "tank."
* Note that there is a small lake visible in some photos taken of the area from helicopter last summer shortly after scientist learned of the new hole. It looks to me to be no more than 1km away from the Yamal hole most famous and first investigated.
** Just like a 0C ice cube dropped in few degree C water does not immediately all melt."
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't know in a way that would satisfy you, however seismic data for the 1980's especially 84,85,86 indicates a sudden and inexplicable shift in trends that immediately collapses/reduces after 1986 and then starts to build and has been building ever since that collapse)
Yes I am aware there are many problems with this approach...so I treat it with a grain of salt but still the evidence seems to be compelling regardless.
I never said it did. I am simply exploring the thaw of the Arctic permafrost and Antarctica data incongruities as being potentially ancillary evidence in support of a seismic/geothermal hypothesis.
I am not ignoring it but I am reacting to the "removal" of other significant credible data from the public domain years ago that demonstrated a dramatic increase in solar luminosity starting from the mid 1980's over and beyond the expected solar cycles. Which appeared to co-relate directly to seismic anomaly findings for the same period.
and a good hypothesis it is... but one I doubt for various reasons.
Last edited:
IMO there is so much "data fudging" going on now it is impossible to support any hypothesis properly. However in the late 90's "data fudging" was not such a problem which was when the credible data I speak of was available and subsequently removed from the public domain.
It is little wonder that the worlds scientists, governments etc can not agree on what is actually happening...regarding climate change
It is little wonder that the worlds scientists, governments etc can not agree on what is actually happening...regarding climate change
Last edited:
And now solar output is declining, and has been since 1980.
The graphs posted by Billy T are very different to ones I saw in the late 1990's (not that it means jack sh*t any more...as even if I could reproduce them here today they would be shouted down regardless.
QQ your graph of "seismic pressure" is essentially useless; except possible "cherry picked" for showing a small rate change* in circa 1980. Does not tell what units, where or how deep that pressure is. For example is it averaged along the St. Andres fault in California at a depth of one mile or what? If that is what it is,** what does that have to do with melting permafrost in Alaska?
Secondly a change is pressure may indicate absorption (if increasing) or release of energy, but not necessarily any significant heat transfer which you are postulating. There would be that if the pressure dropped suddenly as during an earth quake. At other times the slow / gradual pressure change, as shown in your graph, could be essentially adiabatic, like slowly compressing air (or releasing it) from the tank at the gas station you fill your tires with. No heat is released in a reversible process - one almost always in equilibrium state - I. e very slow rate of change. For that, work is done, or required, not heat.
* As you note: Your idea needs a "sudden" release of the radio genic isotope decay heat or huge sudden step-up in the conduction of heat up to surface - Only a "super volcano" can do that. None of those for many thousands of years, certainly none in circa 1980.
SUMMARY: You seem to be just another denier of AGW - not interested in facts, willing to repute well established physics, etc. with nothing more than a belief it must be wrong; and wed to your own aternative pet theory. - Yours is not their common one: God would not let it be serious -He has negative feed backs man just does not now about.
** Then it might then its rapid increase in the last few years, may be useful information to home owners in California. I.e. sell out now and move before the long awaited "big one" hits.
Secondly a change is pressure may indicate absorption (if increasing) or release of energy, but not necessarily any significant heat transfer which you are postulating. There would be that if the pressure dropped suddenly as during an earth quake. At other times the slow / gradual pressure change, as shown in your graph, could be essentially adiabatic, like slowly compressing air (or releasing it) from the tank at the gas station you fill your tires with. No heat is released in a reversible process - one almost always in equilibrium state - I. e very slow rate of change. For that, work is done, or required, not heat.
* As you note: Your idea needs a "sudden" release of the radio genic isotope decay heat or huge sudden step-up in the conduction of heat up to surface - Only a "super volcano" can do that. None of those for many thousands of years, certainly none in circa 1980.
SUMMARY: You seem to be just another denier of AGW - not interested in facts, willing to repute well established physics, etc. with nothing more than a belief it must be wrong; and wed to your own aternative pet theory. - Yours is not their common one: God would not let it be serious -He has negative feed backs man just does not now about.
** Then it might then its rapid increase in the last few years, may be useful information to home owners in California. I.e. sell out now and move before the long awaited "big one" hits.
Last edited by a moderator:
sculptor
Valued Senior Member
That rather depends on how you would bracket the modern grand maximum, I would at the least include cycle 22 which peaked about 1990:
So, cycles 18-22 inclusive.
First thing the struck me as unusual is
article said:
abstract said:
As a side note, the article was published in Nature Letters section, which has a lower bar for requirements (iirc) in that authors are not required to supply the data, etc. for replication. I am not saying they will refuse to give the data if requested, just that Nature does not require it.
The trend in Oklahoma was declining temps during this same time period (2000 -2010). Sure enough even with all the data manipulations via GISS I copied the annual temp avg and ran a graph from the closest surrounding stations.
Wichita/Mid
Enid
Perry - record ends in 2009 but its the closest station.
and Guthrie (further away than Perry, but complete record).
All of them show a decreasing temp trend from -0.1 at one site -0.2 at two sites and -0.5 at Guthrie.
Then someone linked to this interesting (full access) paper published earlier by one of the co-authors of the above.
from abstract:
http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/full/10.1175/2011JCLI4210.1
So anyways, with a decreasing temp trend, I am unsure how the instruments captured a decade long rising temp trend. Additionally, with the earlier article indicating cloud cover (H2O) was the significant factor in temp trends I am dismissive of this articles claim to have captured carbon in the act of warming anything.
You have completely misunderstood what they did and measured. It as downward IR radiation from the sky. I only skimmed large parts of the article, but don't think they even mentioned temperature once. Here is their most definite conclusion statement:
"Overall, there are more clear-sky scenes and fewer thick cloud scenes in the winter, summer, and autumn, thus leading to a negative all-sky radiance trend, whereas the opposite is true in the spring. Furthermore, clear-sky radiance is decreasing in all four seasons, which we hypothesize is due to a decrease in the precipitable water vapor in all seasons. Thick cloud radiance is decreasing in autumn and winter. Thin cloud radiance is increasing in spring and decreasing in winter. Diurnal as well as diurnal difference time series contain further significant trends. The trend spectra reveal changes in cloud characteristics that may be attributed to changes in cloud height, temperature, and particle size."
I.e. they found less IR coming back down to earth mainly because of "decease in precipitable water vapor"
Over the US's Southern great plains (Oklahoma, to be more specific) - Surprise! Surprise! - There is a record setting drought out there.
I speculate that the "optical thickness" above their ground based IR detectors was increased / expanded, due to less H2O vapor per meter of physical path. Thus more of the downward radiation they detected came from higher up and thus colder source. I have not read article carefully enough to be sure this is correct - I just noted you falsely spoke of a temperature decrease when even the title of the article:"
"Long-Term Trends in Down Welling Spectral Infrared Radiance over the U.S. Southern Great Plains
Tells they were not at all concerned with temperature changes - but with the seasonal variation as well as diurnal ("Long term trends") downward IR from both clear and cloudy sky conditions.
It is, however, nice to see you trying to get information and better understanding from pier-reviewed sources instead of Big Oil's shills and their newspaper articles.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, so you don't understand the difference between ground level temperatures and downwelling IR irradiance.
article said:
The trend in Oklahoma was declining temps during this same time period (2000 -2010). Sure enough even with all the data manipulations via GISS I copied the annual temp avg and ran a graph from the closest surrounding stations.
Wichita/Mid
Enid
Perry - record ends in 2009 but its the closest station.
and Guthrie (further away than Perry, but complete record).
All of them show a decreasing temp trend from -0.1 at one site -0.2 at two sites and -0.5 at Guthrie.
So anyways, with a decreasing temp trend, I am unsure how the instruments captured a decade long rising temp trend. Additionally, with the earlier article indicating cloud cover (H2O) was the significant factor in temp trends I am dismissive of this articles claim to have captured
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02...13-low-min-records-broken-272-tied-in-7-days/
From the comments: "Don't worry, once the "adjustments" are made to the data, the warming trend will become obvious..."
From the comments: "Don't worry, once the "adjustments" are made to the data, the warming trend will become obvious..."
Last edited:
Even the GOP, long a supporter of denialism, has finally admitted the the climate is warming.
You're sounding like a Type I denier - "the planet isn't warming!" That really isn't supportable at all any more. Might I suggest you switch to Type II denial? ("CO2 isn't a greenhouse gas/CO2 is not increasing!") That's becoming more popular, as Type I deniers are seen more and more often as completely nuts.