A picture is worth a thousand words

After Matt Drudge linked this Christopher Booker column in London’s Daily Telegraph, the usual dupes are declaring global warming a myth. Booker claims:

the latest US satellite figures showing temperatures having fallen since 1998, declining in 2007 to a 1983 level – not to mention the newly revised figures for US surface temperatures showing that the 1930s had four of the 10 warmest years of the past century, with the hottest year of all being not 1998, as was previously claimed, but 1934.

A quick look at a graph of the satellite-measured temperatures exposes Booker’s cherry picking:

i-d2f39b393e711b8df76d390195c71723-sc_Rss_compare_TS_channel_tlt.png

Temperatures have been rising steadily at 0.178 degrees per decade, but with fluctuations above and below the trend line. If you study the graph closely, you’ll see that there was one month in 1983 (during an El Nino event) which was warmer than a couple of months in 2007. Comparing a couple of months instead of looking at all of them is deceitful, but seems to be the usual practice at the Telegraph.

The second part of his sentence is misleading as well, since NASA never claimed that 1998 was the warmest year in the US.

Comments

  1. #1 JB
    December 1, 2007

    Lance said: “I have not yet seen evidence that conclusively supports the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is likely to cause a disastrous change in climate over the next century”.

    Given that such a “hypothesis” [sic] is not falsifiable, since “disastrous” is a subjective term, it has no scientific value.

  2. #2 luminous beauty
    December 1, 2007

    dhogaza,

    If Lance is a Ph.D. dropout, then judging solely on his apparent grasp of physical principles and mathematical reasoning, it’s because our unacknowledged budding genius hasn’t completed an associate degree in Physics.

    I would infer the financial excuse is a bit of face-saving rationalization.

  3. #3 Eli Rabett
    December 1, 2007

    Dropping out of a Ph.D. program in physics is generally considered a sign of intelligence by those of us who have completed them. Eli may have to reconsider.

  4. #4 JB
    December 1, 2007

    Actually, Eli, the smartest ones are those who have steered clear of physics as a profession in the first place.

    By and large, two types of people* are attracted to physics: genius wannabes and Jesus wannabes.

    *We won’t count the actual geniuses (Einstein, Feynman, Bethe, Newton) because they make up an exceedingly small percentage.

  5. #5 Ian Forrester
    December 1, 2007

    IanP #75 said: “As carbon dioxide dissolves in sea water, an EQUILIBRIUM is established involving the carbonate ion, CO32¯. The carbonate anion interacts with cations in seawater. According to the solubility rules, “all carbonates are insoluble except those of ammonium and Group IA elements.” Therefore, the carbonate ions cause the precipitation of certain ions. For example, Ca2+ and Mg2+ ions precipitate from large bodies of water as carbonates. For CaCO3, the value of Ksp is 5 × 10¯9, and for MgCO3, Ksp is 2 × 10¯3. Extensive deposits of limestone (CaCO3) and dolomite (mixed CaCO3 and MgCO3) have been formed this way”.

    I’m afraid his chemistry is wrong. As carbon dioxide dissolves in sea-water the major ion (by a large margin) is bi-carbonate, not carbonate. Calcium bi-carbonate is very soluble in water (approx. 16%) so the solubility limit is never reached.

    The reason for the carbonate deposits (reefs etc) is through biological action, not simple chemistry.

  6. #6 dhogaza
    December 1, 2007

    I would infer the financial excuse is a bit of face-saving rationalization.

    Well, given that my younger friends enrolled in PhD programs in math, linguistics, or computer science all have funding … the thought did cross my mind, too :)

    OK, they do a little tutoring to help make ends meet, too, but I can’t think of one person I know who’s dropped out of a PhD program for financial reasons …

  7. #7 IanP
    December 1, 2007

    Thanks Mr Forrester, I stand corrected – a typo on my part.

    But back to the Gakkel volcanic activity…. It seems to me that nobody has much comment on this idea.

    I believe that high geothermal gradients caused by a relatively shallow magma rising within the mantle and partly extending into the crust with some volcanic extrusion at the sea floor contributes to the decline in polar ice. If you assume that the water temperatures beneath the polar ice and in the water above this chamber are approximately 0 degrees centigrade (say 0.5-1 degrees) then a very small amount of heating (say 0.05 degrees) will heat the water plus 10% above normal. Water temperature studies over similar spreading centre volcanic systems at much lower latitudes and where average water temperatures are much higher (10-15 degrees centigrade) have detected warming water. The effects of the high geothermal gradients in these areas may not be so pronounced (commonly less than 1% increase) and in many cases they are not able to be measured accurately by current methods (water depth above these centres is often many hundreds of metres).

    I have been offered the comment above that the polar ice is melting from the surface and so what happens in the water beneath the polar icecap is irrelevant. I dont accept this – but I can find no records that indicate that there is polar ice melting at the ice – water interface. Common sence would suggest that there is.
    Surely the reader physics scholars among you can give me some more feedback!

  8. #8 Chris O'Neill
    December 1, 2007

    But back to the Gakkel volcanic activity…. It seems to me that nobody has much comment on this idea.

    How could this possibly have been responsible for the record low ice on the East Siberian Sea and the North-west Passage, McClure Strait being ice-free in particular? Is the whole of the Arctic underlain with volcanic activity?

  9. #9 luminous beauty
    December 1, 2007

    Chris,

    Don’t bother. I’ve tried to get IanP to explain why the ice directly over the Gakkel Ridge hasn’t melted, but it doesn’t seem to be a problem for him.

    IanP,

    You want some feedback? Here goes.

    Whether you want to admit it or not, your speculative hypothesis doesn’t bear the least bit of scrutiny. It’s pure crap. Go out. Get drunk. Get laid. Get some distance. Get your mind off this and on to something fruitful. You are becoming obsessed.

    Come back when you’ve had a chance to think things through, rationally.

  10. #10 dhogaza
    December 1, 2007

    Come back when you’ve had a chance to think things through, rationally.

    Those who push forward crankpot speculation aren’t rational, so don’t get your hopes up.

  11. #11 dhogaza
    December 1, 2007

    Not to mention CRACKPOT ones :)

  12. #12 Peter Bickle
    December 2, 2007

    Hi all

    I thought E&E had no pulling power, stuffed the ole HS up did it not…..

    Regards from a NON WARMING NEW ZEALAND
    Peter Bickle

  13. #13 Chris O'Neill
    December 2, 2007

    Regards from a NON WARMING NEW ZEALAND

    Lucky you.

  14. #14 Ian Gould
    December 2, 2007

    IanP: a further regarding your volcanic warming theory.

    Pools of meltwater can be seen on top of the Greenland icecap (and elsewhere) and are large enough to be seen from orbit.

    That would seem to be pretty definitive proof that they’re melting from the top down not from the bottom up.

  15. #15 JB
    December 2, 2007

    Chris O’Neill asks: “Is the whole of the Arctic underlain with volcanic activity?”

    No, but if I am not mistaken, it’s waste heat from the submarine nookyaler reactors that is responsible. I have calculated the total waste heat produced by the US and Russian fleets and the melting is commensurate with this.

    As the ice sheet grows smaller, the problem becomes exacerbated (and worse, too), since there is a smaller area under which the subs must congregate.

    I suspect that when the ice sheet is at a critical size, the whole thing will disappear in a puff of steam. I have modeled this and named the critical point the “steam puff collapse”.

    By my calculations, it will occur some time in the next two decades. At that point, the subs will have nowhere to hide and will have to adopt other measures — eg. towing around huge barges painted the color of ice bergs, which would also be good for the polar bears.

  16. #16 Nick Barnes
    December 2, 2007

    IanP @ 207 says:

    If you assume that the water temperatures beneath the polar ice and in the water above this chamber are approximately 0 degrees centigrade (say 0.5-1 degrees) then a very small amount of heating (say 0.05 degrees) will heat the water plus 10% above normal.

    “10%”? 10% of what?
    I’m really enjoying this. It’s almost as good as radians versus degrees.

  17. #17 IanP
    December 3, 2007

    Chris #208. I agree that the areas to which you refer are melting due to the warming air temperatures over the last few centuries and that this warming has lead to arctic ice melting, ice loss from Siberian sea, NW passage etc etc. What I am proposing is that the problem has been recently enhanced by increased intrusive activity along a spreading ridge, an axis of high sea floor geothermal gradients, intrusives and volcanic flows. We cannot measure the thickness, or idealy changes in thickness of the ice sheet above or in the vicinity of Gakkel so I am not clear just how much melting is also occuring from any warming effect of the Gakkel area.

    Of course ice melt due to inceased air temperatures at the ice – air surface is occuring – we can see that from space as Luminous Beauty points out or from the numerous observations but I am suggesting that the dramatic decrease in ice which seems to have started early this century (see previous graph) reflects an additional heating – possibly by the process which I have outlined.

    I am not obsessed or a crackpot as some of your posters seem to think. If you discuss my ideas with geophysists trained in sea floor spreading/oceanic intrusives and crust/mantle composition you will find that I have made some plausible observations.

  18. #18 Marion Delgado
    December 3, 2007

    Dano, Boris, et al. Indeed, we should do better than that, really. Maybe even macros. But in any event, make a list of answers on RealClimate, Logical Science, etc. – Open Mind, Colby Beck, DeSmog Blog. And just say, asked and answered.

    Then they’ll just say any and all sources are nonsensical liars.

    If you stand way, way back you’ll find that the targeting goes in phases – first they attacked the very notion of a consensus. Then they attacked peer review. Now, they attack data.

    And if you take away data gathering, a consensus on what the data gathered means, and peer review, absolutely nothing whatsoever is left of science. And that’s the big picture.

  19. #19 Marion Delgado
    December 3, 2007

    Actually, screw all you guys. I just realized where the “greener planet” is in terms of MY BANK ACCOUNT!

    I am joining the skeptics as of now. Lance, ben, etc., read this carefully. You are absolutely correct about the dishonesty of that cherrypicked thing the so-called line of best fit aka straight line approximation (how can something so crooked be called “straight”). Guess what? (And I want you to pick this up and run with it).

    THE BEST FIT TO ANY DATA IS THE DATA ITSELF. To accept any less, especially from the people who gather, and hence control the data itself, is to invite abuse.

    So just memorize that. The best fit to the data IS the data itself! We can win this and defeat Globe-Al Hot Air Warming.

  20. #20 Marion Delgado
    December 3, 2007

    Of course ice melt due to inceased air temperatures at the ice – air surface is occuring – we can see that from space as Luminous Beauty points out or from the numerous observations but I am suggesting that the dramatic decrease in ice which seems to have started early this century (see previous graph) reflects an additional heating – possibly by the process which I have outlined.

    Since this is a reasonable WAG, almost*, it deserves a reply (finally). No, not heating, no, not the decrease in ice, but

    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2007/11/071113200545.htm

    some of the changes in the Arctic Ocean may be cyclical, while still influenced by AGW. a spiral rather than an upslope.

    *Since there’s no precipitating reason for wild-ass-guessing to begin with.

  21. #21 Chris O'Neill
    December 3, 2007

    I agree that the areas to which you refer are melting due to the warming air temperatures over the last few centuries

    Agree with who? I wasn’t talking about the last few centuries.

    I am not obsessed or a crackpot

    Gee I wonder if crackpots say they’re not crackpots? Yeah that’s a hard one.

  22. #22 Lance
    December 3, 2007

    Many posts since my last one Friday I see,

    I will try to at least answer the thoughtful ones.

    Ian Forrester,

    You have overstated the findings of the ACEX study. If you go past the press release and main web page to the actual study results you will find the following in the abstract,

    “Initial offshore results, based on analysis of core catcher sediments, demonstrate that biogenic carbonate only occurs in the Holocene-Pleistocene interval. The upper ~170 m represents a record of the past ~15 m.y. composed of sediment with ice-rafted sediment and occasional small pebbles, suggesting that ice-covered conditions extended at least this far back in time. Details of the ice cover, timing, and characteristics (e.g., perennial vs. seasonal) await further study.”

    So it would appear that your claim that this study disputes ice free summer Arctic Ocean conditions in the Holocene is incorrect. (Note to others: Notice I didn’t call Ian a liar or delusional nor did I impugn his motivation or intellect.)

  23. #23 Lance
    December 3, 2007

    As to my “dropout” status, I am continuing to teach evening classes and work on my research project. I am not a “traditional” student so a recent divorce means I have to pay the mortgage etc.

    It is disappointing, but not surprising, that my candor regarding my educational status has been used to disparage me. Although I do find Eli and JB’s remarks about physics PhD’s amusing.

  24. #24 Lance
    December 3, 2007

    JB,

    I agree that terms such as disastrous, dangerous and catastrophic, when used in conjunction with climate change, are subjective. However, I am not the one that has injected these emotional terms into the discussion. Such hyperbole is the currency of folks like Al Gore, Greenpeace, Environmental Defense and other climate alarmists that have driven the media frenzy on the subject.

    I see little evidence that the 0.6 C warming of the last century has caused any great calamity or is beyond what might be expected from natural climate variability. The “steep linear trend” that Tim points to in the satellite record has all of a 0.178 degree C / decade signal. If extrapolated to the end of the century, and there is no reason to believe that this particular upward trend would continue, it would amount to all of 1.78 C for the entire century. Hardly the stuff of catastrophe.

  25. #25 Gareth
    December 3, 2007

    The “steep linear trend” that Tim points to in the satellite record has all of a 0.178 degree C / decade signal. If extrapolated to the end of the century, and there is no reason to believe that this particular upward trend would continue, it would amount to all of 1.78 C for the entire century. Hardly the stuff of catastrophe.

    Consider the end of the last ice age. Global temperatures rose by roughly 5C over 5,000 years. This is considered rapid climate change. It changed the face of the planet, and it did so at a rate of temp change of a mere 0.01C per decade. I leave it for the reader to compare the current and historic rates of change and determine just how “steep” the current trend is.

  26. #26 Lance
    December 3, 2007

    Gareth,

    You are assuming that the “trend” of the last thirty years is going to continue. Need I point out that you have no idea what trajectory the next thirty years will produce. The last ten have certainly not indicated an upward trend.

  27. #27 Eli Rabett
    December 3, 2007

    Dear Lance, unfortunately, neither JB or I do.

  28. #28 Ian Forrester
    December 3, 2007

    Lance, you are obviously not interested in trying to really understand the science behind AGW. I find that surprising for some one who has stated that they are a graduate student in a scientific discipline. You are only showing your biases and lack of respect for honest scientists when you choose to believe the work of an unqualified (unqualified in paleo-climatology at least) scientist whose work is linked to a known anti-AGW website and published in a truly disreputable journal. But that is your decision to make.

    However, if you think that some one can tell the whole history of ice cover in the Arctic Ocean by finding a few burned up branches on a beach then I think you have made the right decision in not furthering your graduate studies in the sciences, perhaps the fine arts might be more appropriate, they are always looking for people with vivid imaginations.

    As for your comments about CO2 and temperature, you are even more ignorant of the science than I at first thought or you are simply lying. No-one can have studied even first or second year physics or chemistry without being aware of the IR absorption properties of compounds, especially C=O bonds.

  29. #29 Lance
    December 3, 2007

    Jeff Harvey,

    I’m glad to hear you wish to keep things civil. I actually think we don’t disagree on that much when it comes to the consequences of human interaction with the biosphere. You say,

    “I have added that humans are altering and simplifying natural systems in a myriad of other ways.”

    I have never argued about the “other ways”. As I have said my main disagreement with you is whether anthropogenic CO2 is the bogey man some claim. Your reference to “an increase in extreme weather events” is not empirically demonstrable, as the two most recent historically inactive hurricane seasons can attest.

    You then reference The Union of Concerned Scientists. This is a political organization. In 1998, for instance, UCS assured the public that American analysts had exaggerated North Korea’s ability to produce nuclear weapons, and that the Pyongyang regime was still many years away from being able to develop such an arsenal. Needless to say they were wrong. Their statements, as to North Korea’s nuclear weapons program, were clearly based more on political ideology than empirical science.

    I am very uncomfortable when any group that ostensibly claims to be scientific in nature uses that mantle to advance their political agenda, even when I agree with much of that agenda. The UCS clearly falls into this category, as does Environmental Defense.

    I am distressed that two people that share similar views on environmental issues could be placed in adversarial positions. I think it is a sad commentary on the divisiveness that is generated by groups and individuals that have used AGW as a wedge to further their political goals.

  30. #30 Lance
    December 3, 2007

    Ian Forrester,

    I notice you completely ignored the fact that the ACEX study you claimed as evidence that the Arctic Ocean hadn’t been ice free in tens of millions of years makes no such claim. This is disappointing, since I took the time to find the study that your link eventually leads to and quote from its abstract. Had you not read the paper you claimed proved your point?

    Then you make a series of childish remarks about (one of the many) “peer reviewed” scientific studies that support the idea of ice free Arctic Ocean summers in the Holocene presented in Pielke’s article. Apparently peer review is only to be trumpeted as the mark of sacred text when the conclusion of the paper is to your liking.

    Then to top of your little harangue you attack me personally. What exactly did you expect this to accomplish?

  31. #31 Ian Forrester
    December 3, 2007

    Lance, I am not trying to accomplish anything. You are doing a very good job all by yourself. You try to tell us that you are a scientist then you show by your comments that you do not even understand some very basic principles. That to me shows that you are just on this blog as a troll, not some one who has any thing of substance to offer, or some one who knows of their limitations and is seeking information.

    As I said above, if you want to believe in burnt up branches (do you also look into the entrails of dead sheep – oh sorry you are not a biologist), then that to me is not rigorous science. The branches could have been carried on top of the ice, did you never think of that possibility?

    As I said earlier you would be better suited to fine arts.

  32. #32 IanP
    December 3, 2007

    Dear IanP skeptics,

    Just as an example of the effect of relatively small, recent volcanic eruptions under ice you should take a read of the account of the 1999 eruption in Iceland in the NY times …

    “In 1996, an eruption beneath the Vatnajokull ice cap, Europe’s largest ice mass, led to a jokulhlaup that forced sediment, meltwater and ice out along the 12-mile stretch of the glacier’s edge. The flow of water out of the glacier created a river to rival the Amazon in size…” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/science/17ice/.html

    I would be very surprised if this water wasn’t a tad warmer than the seawaters surrounding Iceland. I’d also be surprised if this event didn’t lead to a significant melting and weakening of the Vatnajokulull ice cap.

    This account (and many others if you care to take a look) obviously refers to an on-land eruption which is more easily observed than the volcanic eruptions and intrusive activity beneath many hundreds of metres of Arctic ice and water such as at Gakkel.

  33. #33 guthrie
    December 3, 2007

    I’m off to bed. Anyone checked IanP out on the crank scale?

  34. #34 dhogaza
    December 3, 2007

    The last ten have certainly not indicated an upward trend.

    Why, oh why, does lance cherry-pick 1998 as the start point once again when *everyone* here knows it’s a cherry-pick, and *everyone* knows that cherry-picking data is dishonest.

  35. #35 ianP
    December 3, 2007

    Thanks Guthrie – sleep well! If you want some bedtime reading try this from an Iceland website promo ‘Iceland on the Web’… I could give you plenty of scientific studies but I fear they may contain words that are too long for you!

    http://iceland.vefur.is/iceland_nature/Glaciers-in-Iceland/vatnajokull.htm

    This includes some nice lines e.g. ….”The study of volcanoes, especially active ones, located under glaciers, or “glacivulcanology”, if not already an area of study, should become one in the future, in order to unlock more of the secrets of our planet. Undoubtedly, anything learned from the Vatnajokull incident and others like it can be applied to other fields…”

  36. #36 Lee
    December 3, 2007

    in 216, Nick points out:

    ——
    IanP @ 207 says:

    >If you assume that the water temperatures beneath the polar ice and in the water above this chamber are approximately 0 degrees centigrade (say 0.5-1 degrees) then a very small amount of heating (say 0.05 degrees) will heat the water plus 10% above normal.

    “10%”? 10% of what? I’m really enjoying this. It’s almost as good as radians versus degrees.
    ——

    ummm… no wonder IanP doesn’t see that there are major quantitative holes in his argument – he doesn’t understand ‘quantitative’.

  37. #37 dhogaza
    December 3, 2007

    Thanks Guthrie – sleep well! If you want some bedtime reading try this from an Iceland website promo ‘Iceland on the Web’… I could give you plenty of scientific studies but I fear they may contain words that are too long for you!

    Iceland is a volcanic island, therefore artic ice melt is due to sea-floor spreading that has not been measured by the scientific community.

    This is your logic?

  38. #38 IanP
    December 4, 2007

    Dhogaza,

    Yes, Iceland is a volcanic island and it has many active volcanoes. It is a VERY small portion of the Mid Atlantic Ridge a sea floor spreading volcanic centre not unlike the Gakkel ridge. The only reason we know the extent of the volcanic activity on this small portion of the mid Atlantic ridge is because it is ABOVE sea level and visible. The remainder of the mid Atlantic Ridge (many thousands of kilometres of volcanic activity) and ALL of the Gakkel Ridge, which is very similar to the Mid Atlantic Ridge, are under many hundreds of metres of water and ice cover. That is why we cannot measure and easily record volcanic eruptions at Gakkel.

    My logic is …. there are active volcanoes spread along the Gakkel ridge which has a length of around 2,000km and which is covered by over 1,000m of water and ice. Surely significant Gakkel volcanic activity (like that on Iceland and undoubtedly along considerable lengths of these submerged active volcanic ridges) will have some consequences to the Arctic ice cap?

  39. #39 Ian Gould
    December 4, 2007

    ” “In 1996, an eruption beneath the Vatnajokull ice cap, Europe’s largest ice mass, led to a jokulhlaup that forced sediment, meltwater and ice out along the 12-mile stretch of the glacier’s edge. The flow of water out of the glacier created a river to rival the Amazon in size…” http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/17/science/17ice/.html

    I would be very surprised if this water wasn’t a tad warmer than the seawaters surrounding Iceland. I’d also be surprised if this event didn’t lead to a significant melting and weakening of the Vatnajokulull ice cap.”

    Actually Ian P in the absence of any proof that this volcanic event DID result in any significant warming of the ocean around Iceland I’d say it’s an argument against, rather than in favor of your argument about the Gakkels.

    Anyone want to find maps of ocean temperatures in the Atlantic in 1999?

  40. #40 Davis
    December 4, 2007

    IanP, here’s why you sound like a crank: you have an idea that you push in spite of (a) lacking evidence in favor of it, and (b) being provided with evidence against it. (Providing reasons why your idea is possible is not the same as providing supporting evidence.)

  41. #41 Ian Gould
    December 4, 2007

    A simple thought experiment: it requires much less energy to heat a given volume of air (at one atmosphere) than it does to heat the same volume of water.

    If sub-ocean volcanoes are having a significant impact on climate over a radius of hundreds of kilometres, terrestrial volcanoes should be having a much greater impact on temperatures over a much larger area.

    Anyone aware of any evidence that this is the case?

  42. #42 Jc
    December 4, 2007

    Gouldichops asks:

    Anyone aware of any evidence that this is the case?

    Didn’t Mt. St Helens(?)have an effect on global temps in the 70′s when it blew up?

    Rabbet:

    You’re the gas guru and historian around these parts. You know, don’t you?

    Anyone want to find maps of ocean temperatures in the Atlantic in 1999?

    Don’t be so lazy and find out for for the rest of us as w’re waiting with baited breath. And no cribbing either.

  43. #43 Ian Gould
    December 4, 2007

    “Didn’t Mt. St Helens(?)have an effect on global temps in the 70′s when it blew up?”

    It had a COOLING effect because of all the dust it added to the atmosphere.

  44. #44 Eli Rabett
    December 4, 2007

    No. Mt. St. Helen’s blew out sideways. Nothing got to the upper trop

  45. #45 Jc
    December 4, 2007

    So Gouldmeister, you argue it had a cooling effect. In other words the blow up actually did affect the temps around the globe. Why do you thinking seeping wouldn’t have any effect in the relatively localized area like the pole if there is massive seepage? The effect in terms of the air and water is different in that volcanic gunk coming out in the water would tend to heat it.

    By the way I can’t remember if it was Helens or some other pimple that blew its top.

  46. #46 Jc
    December 4, 2007

    thanks Eli.

    I’m not sure which one did it’s thing in the 70′s but a big blow up was blamed for the cooling after.

  47. #47 Ian Gould
    December 4, 2007

    “Why do you thinking seeping wouldn’t have any effect in the relatively localized area like the pole if there is massive seepage?”

    First, the pole isn;t “relatively localised”. second there’s absolutely no evidence, so far as I know, for a localised warming effect around volcanoes because, say, 10 kilometres.

    The two mechanisms (cooling by blocking sunlight and warming by direct heat transfer) are totally different. To comapre the two is like arguing because Hitler killed millions of people he should have been able to knock out Ali at his prime.)

  48. #48 Ian Gould
    December 4, 2007

    “I’m not sure which one did it’s thing in the 70′s but a big blow up was blamed for the cooling after.”

    THat would have been Mt. Pinatubo in the Philipines.

  49. #49 Jeff Harvey
    December 4, 2007

    JC,

    Mt St. Helens erupted phreatically in May, 1980 (not in the 1970s). As Eli said, the blast was laternal. When Mt. Tambora, in Sumbawa erupted in 1815 (perhaps the biggest eruption in recorded history), it led to quite cold summers in the northern hemisphere the following year. The most important point is that cataclysmic eruptions, most recently like Pinatubo’s in 1991, do generate cooling but only for a very short time.

    Let’s be honest here: don’t the sceptics posting here think that the scientific community has actually considered IanPs banal point re: the hypothetical influence of rift volcanism on the declining extent of Arctic ice? Like, hey, it bemuses me how a few armchair AGW sceptics drop ideas here as if they’ve hit on something new that thousands of climate scientists doing research haven’t considered.

  50. #50 Lee
    December 4, 2007

    So,lt me get this straight. Large terrestrial volcaninc eruptions are known to have caused short-term, 1-3 year global cooling via aerosol and particulate mechanisms.

    And this is evidence that mid-arctic-ocean eruption events with no observed change in their behavior over time (hell, with almost no observations, period) release sufficient direct heat (that’s a lot of unobserved heat!) to cause a hypothetical and unobserved oceanic warming across the entire arctic ocean, and thus lead to declines in ice cover, except over the spreading center itself, where somehow that massive heat release somehow leaves the ice cover minimally changed.

    Is that about it?

    I’m enjoying this, actually. Better than Comedy Central. This is every bit as good as calculating percent temperature changes from a ’0C’ starting point.

  51. #51 dhogaza
    December 4, 2007

    Let’s be honest here: don’t the sceptics posting here think that the scientific community has actually considered IanPs banal point…

    You might be a crank if … you come up with an obvious idea and imagine that thousands of specialists working in the field haven’t thought of it.

  52. #52 gp
    December 4, 2007

    Well, it does seem reasonable to assume that some of those thousands of specialists will have thought of IanP’s pet idea. But – and not wishing to be crank shafted here, guys – unless having thought of it, they then did a few quick calculations & concluded it was nonsensical (which may be the case), then there should be a report or a paper somewhere. Maybe a little searching would set Ian’s mind at rest and allow him to move on to some other novel explanation.

  53. #53 mgr
    December 4, 2007

    gp: There would be no need for publication. This is a classic back of envelope calculation.

    One needs to quantify the energy released, volume of water affected, and consider the effect of thermoclines and haloclines in the distribution of energy through the aquatic system.

    Convection is more efficient that conduction, given that we are discussing eruptions 1,000 meters deep (e.g. well beneath the halocline and thermoclime), the immediate warming effect is likely limited to the volume known as artic bottom water through convection, and is unlikely to be transferred to the surface water via conduction.

    Mike

  54. #54 Hugh
    December 4, 2007

    Jeff H (for whose comments I have great respect) states:
    “Mt St. Helens erupted phreatically in May, 1980″

    Hmmm…from my reading of Francis & Oppenheimer (2004) St Helen’s had a seismic, not a phreatic (steam explosion) trigger, whose underlying cause was a mass of ascending magma 2km below the surface. Or is this just another of those “the tyranny of consensus” issues?

  55. #55 IanP
    December 4, 2007

    At last I have some thought on this. Yes gp (#252), contrary to Hr Harvey (#249) and dhogoza (#251) I can find no references to “thousands of specialists” let alone any having considered this as an incremental factor to explain some of the rapid decline in Arctic ice.

    Hugh (#254) makes an excellent comment in that St Helens had a magma chamber 2km below the surface. The volcanoes at Gakkel, like St Helens and Iceland have considerable sized magma chambers beneath them at shallow crustal levels. These do contribute heat to overlying crust as well as overlying water and ice in the case for Gakkel (see my comments on geothermal gradients in previous posts). As magma ascends this heating is enhanced in the crust and we can observe some effects of this with corresponding volcanic eruptions. It is not silly to assume that the water above this magma and surrounding the sea floor eruptions (which are associated with the magma rise) are causing the water to warm. To my knowledge there have been no significant studies to quantify this.

    Incidentally, the cooling you refer to following subareal eruptions is mostly caused by fine ash in the atmosphere and has little comparison to sea floor eruptions which tend to be less violent in character due to water pressure and other factors.

  56. #56 JB
    December 4, 2007

    Lance said: “I am not the one that has injected these emotional terms into the discussion.”

    Yes, you did and you’re now trying to change the subject. The fact is, your statement (which seemed to come out of the Andromeda Galaxy or somewhere thereabouts) “I have not yet seen evidence that conclusively supports the hypothesis that anthropogenic CO2 is likely to cause a disastrous change in climate over the next century” is utterly vacuous.

    Lance also said: “The last ten [years] have certainly not indicated an upward trend.”

    Ah, yes, the “Global warming stopped in 98″ mantra.

    We know it well.

    Too bad it ain’t so.

    It turns out that even if one includes the peak year of the El Nino (in 1998), there is still a statistically significant warming trend since using either GISTEMP and HadCRU data)

  57. #57 mgr
    December 4, 2007

    Hugh–USGS has Mt St. Helens as phreatic type eruption. Whose consensus?

    IanP–I think you do not consider the effect of the rate of heat transfer between the magma bodies, the bottom water, and the surface water upon which the ice rests in your WAG. Each zone requires conduction as the primary mechanism of heat transfer. I suspect you have conceptualized the process as catastrophic, rather than as gradualistic; and have not considered the rate of radiative heat loss.

    Mike

  58. #58 ianP
    December 4, 2007

    Mike (#253) “One needs to quantify the energy released, volume of water affected, and consider the effect of thermoclines and haloclines in the distribution of energy through the aquatic system.”

    Yes, ‘back of the envelope’ calculations show that this is a valid mechanism for slight warming of the close-to-freezing water near the sea floor. This is unlikely to be an instantaneous effect but accrued over many years by the persistence of underlying magma chamber with dimensions of many tens of kilometres. Sure, there will be some amount of insulation by the overlying cold water and ice column as well as the Gakkel ocean crust. The bottom cold water may be without significant current movement to transfer the heat appreciably. Perhaps the heat gradient will also affect sea currents.

  59. #59 mgr
    December 4, 2007

    IanP said: “The bottom cold water may be without significant current movement to transfer the heat appreciably. Perhaps the heat gradient will also affect sea currents.”

    No sale, this is contrary to basic physical science and observation. The mechanism is convection, and it would apply in this case. Convective heat transfer would be limited to the bottom water. Ocean currents do not occur in the bottom water, but in zone above the thermocline/halocline. The ocean is stratified by density/temperature.

    Let’s see your back of the envelope calculation.

    Mike

  60. #60 IanP
    December 4, 2007

    Mike, I’m not an expert in this field but I understand that the ‘permanent thermocline’ refers to the thermocline not affected by the seasonal and diurnal changes in the SURFACE forcing. It is located below the yearly maximum depth of the mixed layer and the influence of the atmosphere. The ‘seasonal thermocline’ is not affected by the diurnal changes in the surface forcing. In general, it is established each year by heating of the surface water in the summer, and is destroyed the following winter by cooling at the surface and wind-driven mixing. The diurnal thermocline refers to the thermocline that is generally established each day by heating of the surface water and is destroyed the following night by cooling and/or mixing.

    Freezing increases the salinity under the ice and the dense water sinks to the ocean floor and leaves the arctic basins to enter the Greenland and Norwegian Seas, where it mixes with water that sinks under the influence of surface cooling. The resulting water mass has a salinity of 34.95 psu and a temperature of −0.8° to −0.9°C. It fills the Arctic Ocean at all depths below 800 m (the sill depth to the Atlantic). Water enters the Atlantic in bursts, when the passage of atmospheric depressions lifts the thermocline and allows Arctic Bottom Water to flow over the sill. Overflow events in the Denmark Strait and across the Iceland-Faeroe sill contribute some 5 Sv (5 × 106 m3s−1) to the formation of North Atlantic Deep Water.

    Heat generated by an underlying mantle plume(s) at Gakkel will warm the Arctic Bottom Water.

  61. #61 Ken
    December 4, 2007

    Aren’t records of Arctic ocean temperatures kept? I’d think a trend of rise in surface water temperature that doesn’t follow ocean currents, or seasonal and climatic trends would get noticed. Someone would have said “Hey, the water’s got warmer and it’s melting the ice” long before now – and provided temperature measurements to show this is the case. That hasn’t happened.

    So – I want IanP to link/reference to evidence that there has been such a rise in temperature (that is inconsistent with currents, seasons and climate trends) before I take volcanism as a significant cause of Arctic sea ice loss seriously.

    Besides the usual denialist starting point of ignoring and dismissing all that is known about climate, the lack of credible sources says this is straw clutching by someone who wants AGW to not be true. Like other simple single cause alternative hypotheses, this appears sound and reasonable only to the uninformed and the real mistake was to take it to a blog like this one rather than one that promotes any and all such alternatives and don’t care if there’s no scientific evidence.

  62. #62 IanP
    December 4, 2007

    Good point Ken. Unfortunately the water that we are considering is under ice in a very remote and difficult work area. The surface/near surface water temperatures are not of any value in this debate and I am unaware of any database of water temperatures on or near the Arctic sea floor. Does anyone have data on this?

    This is kind of ‘reverse’ themocline. I’m sure the effects of localised heating the bottom Arctic waters will diminish with decreasing depth and they will be unlikely to be detected in the top few hundred metres. Note that the Arctic ice cap is commonly many hundreds of metres thick.

    My contention is that there could be small ‘melting effects’ of the icecap through this underlying heat source (s) and it may contribute in a small way to the rapid decline of Arctic ice over the last few years – by weakening the icecap through melting from below.

  63. #63 Ian Gould
    December 4, 2007

    “Good point Ken. Unfortunately the water that we are considering is under ice in a very remote and difficult work area. The surface/near surface water temperatures are not of any value in this debate and I am unaware of any database of water temperatures on or near the Arctic sea floor. Does anyone have data on this?”

    But Ian, if the heat isn’t being transferred to the surface, it can;t be contributing to the warming at the surface.

  64. #64 IanP
    December 4, 2007

    Ian, The heat would not be transfered to the surface …”I’m sure the effects of localised heating the bottom Arctic waters will diminish with decreasing depth and they will be unlikely to be detected in the top few hundred metres.”

    This has nothing to do with global warming just the reduction in the Arctic ice which has accelerated over the last few years.

  65. #65 Lee
    December 4, 2007

    IanP, did you just say that heat that is not transfered to the surface has something to do wit ice melting at the surface?

    Ian, is this part of the mechanism whereby heating of 0.5C water by 0.05C constitutes a 10% increase in temperature?

  66. #66 Davis
    December 4, 2007

    IanP, you’re missing Ian G’s point. If the heat isn’t being transferred to the surface, then it can’t be contributing to the ice reduction. The ice is at/near the surface.

  67. #67 Ken
    December 4, 2007

    IanP – Being primarily a loss of sea ice, the loss is at or near the ocean surface. With no evidence of sea temperature changes attributable to volcanism and a definite recorded trend of increasing surface air temperature you still believe (or would like to) the former and appear to disbelieve the latter as cause of sea ice depletion. Go figure.

  68. #68 John Mashey
    December 5, 2007

    Vacations are nice; when one catches up with a week or two of a thread, one can see the forest and not be tempted to waste time posting. From this one, I conclude:

    IanP has led many on a merry chase, achieving much wasted time.

    In #101, he introduces a topic, with keywords (like gakkel) easy enough to allow anybody who cares to find a lot of information fairly quick.

    In #109, he uses the “I’m not an expert, please can someone knowledgable help me?” approach.

    In #260, he makes detailed scientific comments that would seem to bely “I don’t know much” claim. But wait, sometimes certain people quote stuff they don’t understand (in an effort to seem knowledgable) without attribution. But, surely, after Tim’s detective work on the Schulte plagiarism, no one would do that in Deltoid…

    Oops,they would:

    First paragraph of #260 is from:
    http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/search?id=thermocline1

    Second paragraph is from:
    http://amsglossary.allenpress.com/glossary/browse?s=a&p=68
    under “Arctic Bottom Water”

    Good cut-and-paste!

    The last sentence of #260 has to be true, but numbers matter, as Lord Kelvin sayeth:
    “…when you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in numbers, you know something about it; but when you cannot measure it, when you cannot express it in numbers, your knowledge is of a meagre and unsatisfactory kind…”

    So, vents are hot. Does the surface notice? If I jump, the Earth has to move. Does it move enough to be interesting?

    A: No, although Google: worldjumpday to see an amusing attempt at geoengineering to fix global warming.

    ======
    As it happens, it took about 10 minutes to get:

    Google: gakkel ridge ocean depth heating water temperature

    One of the first-page hits was a nice, short description of finding plumes from hydrothermal vents along Gakkel,with really nice charts:

    http://www.earthscape.org/r1/hea01/hea01b.html

    It says:
    “We can “see” the plume because the particles of minerals in it scatter more light. Our instruments can measure how a beam of light is transmitted through the water. Sometimes the hydrothermal plume has a small increase in temperature over the surrounding seawater, too. It is important to realize that the hydrothermal plume is mostly seawater, so the temperature difference is very small. The plume is about a 10,000 to 1 mixture of seawater to vent water.”

    and

    “Notice that the peaks in the temperature profile are only about 1/100 of a degree! It is much easier to spot a plume with the light-scattering sensor. Then we know where to “zoom in” on the temperature data to look for a signal.”

    Put another way, at 2600m deep, the max peak effect was ~.01C, and by 2300m, the effect had disappeared, being totally dominated by the normal temperature gradient (and any effects from oscillations, inflows from Atlantic, etc). To even find any temperature signal in the noise, they need to use light-scattering.

    So much for that.

    ===
    Bottom line:

    a merry chase indeed, but a well-recognizable pattern.

  69. #69 Hugh
    December 5, 2007

    Mike
    Thanks for that.

    From USGS: “The climactic eruption began at 0832 PDT on May 18, probably triggered by an earthquake of magnitude 5 that caused failure of the bulging north flank as a 2.3-cubic-kilometer rockslide-avalanche. This failure rapidly unloaded the volcanic edifice, and probably caused the water in its hydrothermal system to flash to steam, initiating a series of northward-directed hydrothermal blasts that devastated an area of 600 square kilometers.”

    I take your point entirely but I’m sort of aware of an ongoing debate in relation to the chicken-and-egg issue of whether it was the earthquake or a phreatic explosion that actually set the thing off. I’m not sure if that’s semantics or science but I find the use of the word ‘probably’ twice in the posted paragraph interesting.

  70. #70 Davis
    December 5, 2007

    I bow to your superior internetting and commenting skills, John.

  71. #71 Marion Delgado
    December 5, 2007

    My experience has been the dead opposite. Physics-trained friends and associates have seemed to me both more competent in assessing the structure of scientific arguments and more humble in making the assumption that people in other fields know their stuff. The ones I found to have extreme crank knowitallness, I am sorry to say, were invariably engineers, if they had any connection to science. If not, economists, either with degrees or soi-disant.

  72. #72 jc.
    December 5, 2007

    LOL Marian.
    You’re the worst offender and you’re accusing others of your own failings. Talk about projection. I’m picking myself up off the floor.

    Gouldiechops

    Rethink your reply dude in face of what i actually said rather than what you think i said or pretended I said.

  73. #73 Nick Barnes
    December 5, 2007

    IanP@262:

    Note that the Arctic ice cap is commonly many hundreds of metres thick.

    Bzzt. Next contestant, please.

    We are talking about Arctic sea ice. Even the thick multi-year ice is only a few metres thick. It floats on the surface waters, of which you say:

    The surface/near surface water temperatures are not of any value in this debate

    The ice will not be melted by the water unless the water is warm.

    Oh, and:

    I am unaware of any database of water temperatures on or near the Arctic sea floor. Does anyone have data on this?

    But in a recent post you sounded off authoritatively about the temperature and other characteristics of the Arctic Bottom Water. Where do you think those numbers came from? Of course data is gathered on the temperature and salinity of deep waters in the Arctic Ocean, just as it is in every ocean in the world. This is one of the things that the RV Polarstern does. You know, the ice-breaker research vessel. Which steams through the “hundreds of metres thick” arctic ice every summer.

    The same RV Polarstern which had a full day of rain very close to the pole this summer, and spent weeks looking for sea ice floes which were large enough and thick enough to attach research buoys.

    You claim to have done research on Arctic sea ice, and yet you don’t know the most basic physical facts about it. You are a troll. Welcome to my killfile.

    Everyone, stop feeding the troll.

  74. #74 Dano
    December 5, 2007

    You claim to have done research on Arctic sea ice, and yet you don’t know the most basic physical facts about it. You are a troll. Welcome to my killfile.

    Everyone, stop feeding the troll.

    The Google: alas, still no ‘wisdom’ button.

    Best,

    D

  75. #75 Who Cares
    December 5, 2007

    Lance said (in #223):

    It is disappointing, but not surprising, that my candor regarding my educational status has been used to disparage me. Although I do find Eli and JB’s remarks about physics PhD’s amusing.

    This is because you are working on the internet. Everyone can claim titles (or working on getting one) without others being able to verify the truth about those claims.
    The result of this is that people are less (or not) impressed by that kind of argument unless it is backed up by behavior that goes with the position.
    Even worse is trying to make such a claim on a blog where there is a good chance of other people having university grade titles. Because those people do know what is required to actually get said titles.

    Unfortunately for you, your posts show a lack of the skills required successfully get a doctorate. It is this lack that has people laughing about your claim you are attempting to to get.

  76. #76 Lance
    December 5, 2007

    More ad hom BS from an anonymous blow hard.

    Who Cares, indeed.

  77. #77 ben
    December 5, 2007

    Tim and others: I tried clicking on the graph above to get to the data, but all I get is the monthly data, and it’s in some binary format that I can’t read.

    Does the simple ordered pair data used to plot that exact graph above exist anywhere? I’d like to plot it for myself.

  78. #78 ben
    December 5, 2007

    Is this the data here? If so, what does one do with a binary file of type “.dat”? Neither Excel nor Matlab can do anything with these files.

  79. #79 Dano
    December 5, 2007

    More misuse of ad hom from someone with no argument.

    Ad hom: your argument is wrong because you are an idiot.

    NOT ad hom: your argument is wrong because of x, y, z and by the way, you are an idiot.

    Best,

    D

  80. #80 Who Cares
    December 5, 2007

    @ben:
    You might want to go up a level and then select either the netcdf or uah directory. Both contain the same data, the netcdf in a self describing format and the uah in a format that can be read using the software found at http://www.nsstc.uah.edu/data/msu/

    @Lance:
    You can insult the person at the same time you deal with that persons arguments. That is not the ad hominem fallacy. You can’t even get out using the ‘you have a potty mouth so I win’-defense because then you implicitly concede that you have no valid point(s) to defend. That said claiming that what I say is trash by calling me names is the ad hominem fallacy.

    You brought your study into this debate as an appeal to authority. I explained why that has little chance to work on a ScienceBlogs blog.
    Then I explained why people are laughing about this claim.
    Lets do a recap on what you have claimed and why I concluded that you are either not doing a doctorate level study or incapable of completing said study.
    Around post #157 you claim this:

    Though it has been mocked and disparaged by some in this discussion my training as a physicist, although not yet complete, gives me the ability to understand physical systems, evaluate data and then decide if the proposed hypothesis is supported by that data.

    I replied to that in post #164 asking you why if you are capable of that didn’t you notice the deficiencies in the E&E research linked or why Booker was being dishonest.
    Post 200,202,203,206 pick up your appeal to authority and are sarcastic about both that and the fact that you build in an escape.
    Like I said we cannot verify the truth about you so all we have is how you behave and you failed at skills that you should have picked up doing your master. While requiring (some of) those skills to be able to understand why Lambert objected to the way Booker behaved and criticize Lamberts post.

  81. #81 dhogaza
    December 5, 2007

    Lance just needs to learn the difference between the ad hom fallacy and trash talkin’ personal insults.

  82. #82 Dano
    December 5, 2007

    Using ad hom is a rhetorical tactic.

    The smarter folk know this and use it anyway, the others are just tools when they use it.

    Best,

    D

  83. #83 ben
    December 5, 2007

    Thanks for the try, who cares, but still no luck. Isn’t the data available anywhere in a simple comma delimited format for us non-climate scientists or other people not used to dealing with large data sets?

  84. #84 Marion Delgado
    December 5, 2007

    As all know, I am the soul of kindness, unlike the abrupt and dismissive and snarky Dano. But I must confess, his description of what is and is not an ad hominem argument is accurate. I can only hope his regrettable sharpness will at least reinforce the point.

    This despite the fact that Matt Drudge has hinted he may be a cross-dresser.*

    (*Though what Matt Drudge being a cross-dresser has to do with unsound science escapes me, I do see him quoted here a lot)

  85. #85 Marion Delgado
    December 5, 2007

    I’ll answer ben’s last question because I think it’s of general relevance. It’s really not that sort of data. It’s best suited to imaging, it’s stream-bit data in some cases. It’s available in 3 formats, one of which is text data with positional separation. You could open that format right up in Excel or (freeware, multi-platform) OpenOffice. Just realize it’s a lot of entries.

    I am installing a few packages in my R to handle data import, and am working on that data as a target. R is awesome, basically a freeware version of the stastical part of mathematica, a kind of mathematic and matlab substitute. If you have that and Euler, you’re good to go with a lot of science modeling. (I would also recommend python, perl, and the 3 main sqls, mysql, postgre and sqllite. The average home computer now can be quite a good research environment.

    I may post something about R-importing if I get ambitious and I’ll mention it on comments.

  86. #86 Jc
    December 5, 2007

    Dano best D

    Ad homs? Naaa. who needs them when Marion has this profile.

    http://www.blogger.com/profile/3521067

    I think the most important thing about Marion is his star sign LOL.

  87. #87 Robert
    December 5, 2007

    ben, who didn’t take my advice earlier but should have, asked again:

    Thanks for the try, who cares, but still no luck. Isn’t the data available anywhere in a simple comma delimited format for us non-climate scientists or other people not used to dealing with large data sets?

    [Yup.](http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2007/11/a_picture_is_worth_a_thousand_1.php#comment-653158)

  88. #88 John Mashey
    December 5, 2007

    re: #285
    Marion probably knows this, but with all due respect to Wolfram & co, really, R is an offshoot, not of Mathematica, but of Bell Labs’ S (John Chambers & co), whose original version was done in the mid-1970s.

    S:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S_(programming_language)

    R:
    http://www.r-project.org/
    http://www.r-project.org/contributors

    Like UNIX, C, and a bunch of other things, this is one of those useful side-effect derivatives of the “good old days” when the Bell System had a nice monopoly and funded a lot of research… :-)

  89. #89 Lance
    December 6, 2007

    Who Cares and Dano,

    Personal insults carry no weight in any rational discussion, other than to identify those making them as acting in bad faith or having no recourse to logical constructs.

    However, it is all too clear that your real aim is personal smear not meaningful dialogue.

  90. #90 dhogaza
    December 6, 2007

    Personal insults carry no weight in any rational discussion, other than to identify those making them as acting in bad faith or having no recourse to logical constructs.

    Really? And just how does it follow that someone who calls you an idiot has no recourse to logical arguments or is acting in bad faith.

    Care to provide us an argument in formal logic for that?

    Idiots exist. Calling one an idiot does not prove bad faith.

  91. #91 Who Cares
    December 6, 2007

    @Lance:
    You are truly a riot. First you come in with post #276 which is just a personal insult directed at me when I politely explain (#275) why you don’t get the recognition you think you deserve. Then you have the actual gall to state:

    Personal insults carry no weight in any rational discussion, other than to identify those making them as acting in bad faith or having no recourse to logical constructs.

    However, it is all too clear that your real aim is personal smear not meaningful dialogue.

    Following this standard and looking on your behavior in #276 and #289 it is clear that you are acting in bad faith and have no logical constructs to counter my arguments which makes it all to clear that your real aim is personal smear not meaningful dialog.

    Now that we’ve had the ‘eye splinter beam’-moment I’m going to try and help you (again) by explaining what a good argument would have been instead of trying to insult me and/or trying to use the ‘you are a potty mouth so I win’-defense.
    Explain why you failed to notice the deficiencies in the E&E report and why you failed to notice the cherry picking by Booker. Better make it good explanations since you should know what goes into the making of a good research paper and you should know basic statistics if you are working on a physics doctorate.

  92. #92 bill r
    December 7, 2007

    Ben:
    Here’s the data in text format. To find it yourself:

    1. click on the graph
    2. Search for “Zonally Averaged Monthly Anomalies”.
    3. Click on the link right below that
    4. That leads you to a list of files for each band for land only, ocean only, and land and ocean combined in both *.sav and *.txt formats. Unless you have IDL, dl the *.txt version.

  93. #93 Robert
    December 7, 2007

    bill r wrote:

    1. click on the graph
    2. Search for “Zonally Averaged Monthly Anomalies”.

    I thought that ben could’ve figured that out from my post #22. I was wrong.

  94. #94 Barton Paul Levenson
    December 7, 2007

    Just a point about sunlight — the Solar constant is indeed about 1366 W m^-2. But since the Earth receives it on its cross-sectional area, pi r^2, but is a sphere with surface area 4 pi r^2, it only gets about 342 W m^-2 per unit area. And since Earth has a nonzero bolometric Bond albedo (about 0.306 according to NASA), the absorbed flux is still less, about 237 W m^-2.

    Of course the geothermal flux is only about 0.087 W m^-2, so sunlight still overwhelms it.

    -BPL

The site is undergoing maintenance presently. Commenting has been disabled. Please check back later!