Re: [asa] Data doesn't support global warming

From: Rich Blinne <rich.blinne@gmail.com>
Date: Mon Dec 14 2009 - 11:02:51 EST

On Mon, Dec 14, 2009 at 6:45 AM, Bill Powers <wjp@swcp.com> wrote:

>
> I have read recently that, on a national level, there is grave concern for
> the possible loss of significant fractions of the snow melt from the
> Sierras, a source that supplies most of Southern CA and much of the San
> Leandro Valley. Do you have an opinion on these prospects?
>
> Before I address the main question I'll address this one first. The current
consensus is at least in the Southern Sierra the snowpack is holding up.
(John Cristy was not published on this not because people wanted to deny the
results but rather we now have 4 years of studies that say what he
concluded.) The Rockies are a different story. Lakes Mead and Powell are
half full and there is a 50% chance of being empty in the 2020 time frame.
The last time it was this warm in the U.S. we had ghost forests because the
pine bark beetle was not killed off in the Winter. A pine bark beetle
infestation was predicted in 2001 because of global warming and we have it
now with a vengeance. It looks like we're headed for a complete loss in the
pine forests here. This exasperates the water supply problem because of run
off from the forests that are more susceptible to wild fires will pollute
the water supply to the Western U.S. Also in the Rockies we are losing
species due to the elevator effect such as the pika that used to be numerous
in Rocky Mountain National Park. Species are now migrating poleward at a
average rate of 4 miles per decade but that's not fast enough because the
isotherms are moving poleward at 10 miles per decade.

AGW makes some very specific predictions coming from the simulations of the
CO2 forcing. Let's see if the current data fits it:

1. Polar amplification. The warming is faster at the poles than the equator.
The NH warms faster than the SH because the SH has more oceans to store
heat. The NH warming will be more variable than the SH again because of the
ocean composition. The South Pole will experience little to no warming due
to the circumpolar current around Antarctica.

2. The surface and the troposphere warm at a rate of around 0.15-0.18
degrees C per decade in a multi-decadal trend. (We need a multi-decadal
trends to average out decadal length oscillations).

3. The stratosphere will cool.

Glenn distrusts anything but October so I will limit myself to that month.
So what does October look like. (Note: I'm using 2008 because NCDC is
updating their web pages and graphs for their yearly report where they will
announce "*The 2000-2009 decade will be the warmest on record, with its
average global surface temperature about 0.54 C (0.96 F) above the
20thCentury average. This will easily surpass the 1990s value of 0.36
C (0.65
F).*")

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/map-blended-mntp-200810-pg.gif

Polar amplification: check.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/oct/glob-oct-pg.gif

Warming trend: check.

Looks like significant warming but maybe you just distrust surface records
altogether does the troposphere show the predicted 0.12-0.15 degree warming?

UAH Low Troposphere trend for October: 0.14 degrees C per decade warming
RSS Low Troposphere trend for October: 0.16 degrees C per decade warming

UAH Mid Troposphere trend for October: 0.14 degrees C per decade warming
RSS Mid Troposphere trend for October: 0.18 degrees C per decade warming
RATPAC Mid Troposphere trend for January-October: 0.15 degress C per decade

To see how RATPAC and the surface trends line up see this annual comparison
from last year. Note: I'll update this post when all the 2009 data comes out
in the next few days. It's only the graphics that aren't available the
trends above are from 2009.

http://lwf.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/2008/ann/ts-sfc-radiosonde-jan-dec-2008-pg.gif

Finally what about the stratosphere? It's on a 0.2 degree C per decade
cooling trend! Everything lines up for AGW and is why the AGU survey of
climatologists have 97% believe AGW.

This is what Randy and I mean when we say Glenn doesn't engage the totality
of the data. Everything lines up to the same answer whether from computer
models, surface data, satellite data, radiosonde data, or species migration.
Complaining about specific stations is just complete nonsense.

Rich Blinne
Member ASA

To unsubscribe, send a message to majordomo@calvin.edu with
"unsubscribe asa" (no quotes) as the body of the message.
Received on Mon Dec 14 11:03:02 2009

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.8 : Mon Dec 14 2009 - 11:03:02 EST