Scientists warn of dangers of 'Hothouse Earth'

[Doug1029]

16 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

We know that over the time period you were looking at that the Temperature was rising and already knew over that time period it does not seem to corrolate with sunspot activity over that time. So all you did was just look at something (two varibles) you and I and a lot over others already knew didn't corrolate! Now things have changed, something has changed. You even admit to only less than 0.07 degrees of warming since 2014 and your a Warming Alarmist! LOL! Looking at records that are undoubtedly shifted to the warm side. One thing we do know that has changed is that Solar Cycle 24 has been incredibaly weak and now entering Solar Minimum. Also we sure do have Sunspot record since 2010! Finally sorry I didn't use your correct lingo. 

I just noted something:  the sunspot cycle just completed (Cycle 24) has been "incredibly weak."  Yet those same years had some of the highest temperatures ever recorded.  How do you explain that?

ftp://ftp.swpc.noaa.gov/pub/weekly/RecentIndices.txt

https://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata_v3/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt

Use the annual means (J-D column).  That gets rid of seasonal corrections.

I suggest you conduct the correlation test yourself.  The data is in those two tables.  Then you and everybody else can tell whether there's a correlation or not.

Your assumptions are showing.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

10 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

I just noted something:  the sunspot cycle just completed (Cycle 24) has been "incredibly weak."  Yet those same years had some of the highest temperatures ever recorded.  How do you explain that?

Gavin Schmidt and Co. using dirty computer programs to adjust temps higher in recent years and lower in years past. We've discussed this before. 

Gavin Schmidt in a post on RealClimate, "It is clear that many of the temperature watchers are doing so in order to show that the IPCC-class models are wrong in their projections. However, the direct approach of downloading those models, running them and looking for flaws is clearly either too onerous or too boring."

But then they don't make the code availible to people. See this.  So Gavin Schmidt has no credibility, challenging people to examine their source code in public but then refusing to release the source code so it can be examined until under intense presure they released some of the code.

Quote

A year or so ago, after intense pressure and the revelation of another mistake (again by the McIntyre/Watt online communities) the GISS did finally release some of their code.  Here is what was found:

Here are some more notes and scripts in which I've made considerable progress on GISS Step 2. As noted on many occasions, the code is a demented mess - you'd never know that NASA actually has software policies (e.g. here or here. I guess that Hansen and associates regard themselves as being above the law. At this point, I haven't even begum to approach analysis of whether the code accomplishes its underlying objective. There are innumerable decoding issues - John Goetz, an experienced programmer, compared it to descending into the hell described in a Stephen King novel. I compared it to the meaningless toy in the PPM children's song - it goes zip when it moves, bop when it stops and whirr when it's standing still. The endless machinations with binary files may have been necessary with Commodore 64s, but are totally pointless in 2008.

Because of the hapless programming, it takes a long time and considerable patience to figure out what happens when you press any particular button. The frustrating thing is that none of the operations are particularly complicated.

So Schmidt's encouragement that skeptics should go dig into the code was a) obviously not meant to be applied to hiscode and roughly equivalent to a mom answering her kids complaint that they were bored and had nothing to do with "you can clean your rooms" -- something that looks good in the paper trail but is not really meant to be taken seriously. 

Source: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/temperature_measurement/

[ChrLzs]

Ah yes, "climate-skeptic.com"....  it's the place to go for real science .. er .. cherry picked handwaving like that unscientific claptrap above.

Forgive me if I too will go with the consensus from real scientists.  Given that their results and predictions are very similar to other peak bodies like the Climatic Research Unit and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, I rather prefer sources like NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies - some nice graphs and an especially graphic animation (drag the slider to the right..).

https://climate.nasa.gov/vital-signs/global-temperature/

Lost Shaman will dispute the NASA data, of course, but when it comes to specifics about the issues, he will drift off and cherry pick more data from the likes of the websites he frequents... ie the ones which reinforce his own beliefs.

 

[Doug1029]

11 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Gavin Schmidt and Co. using dirty computer programs to adjust temps higher in recent years and lower in years past. We've discussed this before. 

Gavin Schmidt in a post on RealClimate, "It is clear that many of the temperature watchers are doing so in order to show that the IPCC-class models are wrong in their projections. However, the direct approach of downloading those models, running them and looking for flaws is clearly either too onerous or too boring."

But then they don't make the code availible to people. See this.  So Gavin Schmidt has no credibility, challenging people to examine their source code in public but then refusing to release the source code so it can be examined until under intense presure they released some of the code.

Source: http://www.climate-skeptic.com/temperature_measurement/

What has Gavin Schmidt and Company got to do with it?

Watts is a well-known, PAID, misinformation service.  It makes its money by putting out false information to the public, the idea being to discredit science and forestall regulation for the likes of Exxon and the Koch Brothers.  Watt's entire qualifications consist of an undergraduate degree in meteorology and an aware from a defunct club of meteorologists.  No professional organization endorses him.  That means, he is qualified to read weather forecasts that were written by somebody else over the air, but the American Meteorological Society doesn't trust him to do his own forecast.

McIntyre's claims of mistakes in Michael Mann's data analysis were disproven years ago.  We've had several discussions of that here on UM.  McIntyre's side lost the lawsuit - $250,000 which Mann donated to charity.

Doug 

[Calibeliever]

The strategy seems to be: hand waving and spouting cherry-picked nonsense until you just finally get exhausted. You have to take the time to actually read, then counter over and over (despite the fact that it barely on-topic) this imaginary, tin-foil hat pseudo-science until you just give up because when talking to myopic zealots, their "beliefs" can't be altered by facts. And when confronted with an uncomfortable truth they just move the goal posts (or the entire pitch). It's become a religion, which truly baffles me. 

To be clear: I also stand on the side of empirical evidence and statistical analysis, and I tend to trust those with actual scientific credentials and experience over those who read conspiracy sites and think they're really really smart and see something the rest of us don't. You call yourself a climate skeptic.. I'm an EVERYTHING skeptic and I've looked at this issue very skeptically for over 2 decades now. Not every prediction can be 100% correct, but an overwhelming pattern has emerged which is immune to cherry-picking a handful of oversights and mistakes. The planet is warming due to man-made carbon emissions: Fact. What will be the fall-out from that 10, 50, or 100 years from now? That's where the gray area is, but my money is solidly in the camp that it won't be great for humanity as a whole and it will result in a lot of human suffering that could be avoided.

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

What has Gavin Schmidt and Company got to do with it?

 

You and I have discussed this several times. Schmidt and Co. at GISS take the legitimate need for SOME adjustments and run the entire Temperature record through dubious computer programs and everytime they do this the result is cooler and cooler temperatures for past years and warmer and warmer temperature for recent years. They done this several times if not 4-6 times (l've lost count) in the last decade alone. The end result of all these computer generated adjustments being basically rewriting the Planet's Instrumental temperature record.

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

Watts is a well-known, PAID, misinformation service.  It makes its money by putting out false information to the public, the idea being to discredit science and forestall regulation for the likes of Exxon and the Koch Brothers. 

So if you don't like what someone has to say about Climate science or Climate change then just call them a Paid shill and try to discredit the person. How original Doug! 

 

1 hour ago, Doug1o29 said:

McIntyre's side lost the lawsuit - $250,000 which Mann donated to charity.

You got a link or source for that? I'd think such a truth (?) would be plastered all over the internet yet I looked and looked and have so far come up empty handed attempting to verify this claim. I'll keep searching. 

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

You and I have discussed this several times. Schmidt and Co. at GISS take the legitimate need for SOME adjustments and run the entire Temperature record through dubious computer programs and everytime they do this the result is cooler and cooler temperatures for past years and warmer and warmer temperature for recent years. They done this several times if not 4-6 times (l've lost count) in the last decade alone. The end result of all these computer generated adjustments being basically rewriting the Planet's Instrumental temperature record.

If you're going to make such claims, then you need to put up some data/studies to support them.  I know of one that would do that - the Burnette study that I have posted on here before.  But that's one study, in one place - Manhattan, Kansas.  I am working on two similar datasets for Oklahoma City and Stillwater.  We will need thousands of such studies to define what has actually happened over the last two centuries.  How about you do one for someplace in Texas?  The Texas record begins with 32 stations in November 1888, so it will be 60 years shorter than that for Oklahoma; although, there might be some records available in the Forts files, maybe going back to the 1840s?  Also, there are some Oklahoma and perhaps other stations that could be used to estimate missing Texas data, provided the Texas stations aren't too far away - 50 miles is about the limit.

It is taking me about 15 to 18 months to transcribe the data for OKC/Stillwater (190 years of it).  That's nearly full-time work and doesn't count the time spent testing datasets.  There is a paywall for those records, but it is easily bypassed.  If you're interested, I'll help you get around it.

Instead of whining and ranting about NOAA, why not prove them wrong?  This is your chance to help us show what has actually been happening over the last few hundred years.  Of course, we might find that NOAA was right all along.  That's a risk of doing original research - it happened to me on my Masters Thesis.  But at least, if we prove NOAA right, then we'll all have that much more confidence in their work.

 

Exactly how to prove NOAA wrong?  Compile a bunch of temperature datasets from different parts of the world (at least 30).  Then develop a general model that predicts temperature change for each of the 30 datasets.  Do the same with NOAA's predictions for those same cities.  Then see if there is a coefficient that when multiplied by a city's records, predicts NOAA's data.  If there is, and especially if it changes over time, NOAA's results are in serious question.  It would be time to publish the results.  Also, we can get maybe 30 papers on weather datasets besides.  And then there are correlation issues between the datasets and various climate proxies.  There's enough work here for an entire department.

This is your chance:  be part of the solution, or continue whining about it.  I'll help you do it.

Doug

Edited August 10, 2018 by Doug1029

[lost_shaman]

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

It is taking me about 15 to 18 months to transcribe the data for OKC/Stillwater (190 years of it).  That's nearly full-time work and doesn't count the time spent testing datasets. 

 

3 hours ago, Doug1o29 said:

This is your chance:  be part of the solution, or continue whining about it.  I'll help you do it.

 

I'd take you up on the offer if you could tell me how I'd pay my bills for the next 18 months? 

Edit: I used to study US daily weather maps that went back to 1871, a couple of years ago my old laptop failed, I had to down grade due to having my teenage daughter living with me and subsequently found that DjVu Lizardtech add on needed to view these was not available anymore or at least not compatible with my new Chromebook.  Are you familiar with these old US daily weather maps Doug?

Edited August 10, 2018 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

3 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

 

I'd take you up on the offer if you could tell me how I'd pay my bills for the next 18 months? 

Edit: I used to study US daily weather maps that went back to 1871, a couple of years ago my old laptop failed, I had to down grade due to having my teenage daughter living with me and subsequently found that DjVu Lizardtech add on needed to view these was not available anymore or at least not compatible with my new Chromebook.  Are you familiar with these old US daily weather maps Doug?

I am not familiar with the DAILY maps, but there are MONTHLY maps attached to each (monthly) issue of the US Weather Bulletin.

That's one way to get out of making a difference.  You don't need to work on this exclusively for 18 months.  So what if it takes three years or four.  This is a huge project.  People are going to be working on it for a long time.  With Texas, the datasets don't go back as far, so you're talking maybe a year.  It's amazing what one can get done during commercials.  Also, I expect the precip data, being simpler, won't take as long.

Anyway, I just found another 12 years of 19th century data for Oklahoma - that's about three week's work.  Should finish the transcriptions this winter.  After that, I start looking for errors.

Nice thing about it:  the datasets get easier as you go.

Anyway, I'm going home.  See you on Monday.

Doug

[pbarosso]

uh huh suuuuure. man is bad..we get it

[Doug1029]

14 hours ago, pbarosso said:

uh huh suuuuure. man is bad..we get it

How did you reach this conclusion?

Doug

[lost_shaman]

So Doug, are you enjoying these below average temperatures? 

According to the 7 Day forecast for the next 8 days (Aug. 12 - 19) in Stillwater, OK, where you work, including today you are going to average -3.3125 degrees F below Average temperatures for August (81.5F). Sounds pretty nice to me since I can't stand the summer heat personally. 

During the same time frame (Aug. 12 - 19) in Dallas, TX is forecast to average -3.375 degrees F below average temperatures for August (87F). That sounds pretty nice to me too. 

During the same time frame (Aug. 12 - 19) in Vernon, TX , where I live, is forecast to average +0.5 degrees F above average temperatures for August (83.5F). Not too bad, but this is why I don't buy lottery tickets! LOL! 

So between these three places, where I live, where my Daughters live, and where you work, forms a right triangle with the hypotenuse between Vernon, TX and Stillwater, OK ~ 200 miles that consists of most of Central North Texas and most of Central Oklahoma. Averaging the averages of the temperature departure for these three places we get -2.0625 degrees F below average August Temperatures forecast for the next 8 days for this large region of our little spot on Earth. 

Now you'll say this is just weather being weather and I agree of course it is, but it will go down in the books and contribute to the 30 year average of our personal Climate for this regional area. Also last August and the year before we saw below average temperatures for this regional area during the same 8 days in (*,**)Mid-August. Again just weather being weather but also last year and the year before are in the books and will also contribute to the 30 year Climate for our little region of the Earth. 

*Dallas, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017)     +0.699 F

*Dallas, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2016)      -4.295 F

*Vernon, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017)     -2.250 F

*Vernon, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2016)     -1.813 F

**Stillwater, Ok (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017) -0.125 F  (unable to find 2016 August daily temps for Stillwater, OK)

Edited August 12, 2018 by lost_shaman

[ChrLzs]

Yup, I reckon if I had a complete lack of understanding of proper methodology, and a desire to find data that reinforces my biased viewpoijnt, I could cherry pick hundreds of locations with below average temperature.  Meantime, Rome is afire..

[Tatetopa]

On 8/7/2018 at 6:37 AM, lost_shaman said:

And finally CO2 molecules that do absorb a BBKW Photon near the sureface of the Earth don't re-emit a photon as Climate Alarmist Scientists assume actualy collide with othe atmospheric moleicules before they they can re-emit a photon and there for the return to an unexcited state without raditating heat in the IR spectrum and since the atmosphere is saturated already this just contribute heat to the atmosphere in the form of convection as oppesed to re-emiting heat back to the Earths suface.

What happens when a collision occurs?  I think a photon is emitted.  A molecule or atom can't return to a state of lower excitation without emitting a photon can it?  The energy and wavelength of the photon depends on the energy quanta not on location in the atmosphere right?

If CO2 molecules do not emit a photon but bounces more energetically  into other molecules, isn't that heat?

[lost_shaman]

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

What happens when a collision occurs? 

Ok when a collision occurs kinetic energy from one molecule is transferred to another atom or molecule. Just in a very similar way as one pool ball strikes another, the first loses kinetic energy and slows down and transfers some of its kinetic energy to the other ball it strikes that then speeds up. The majority of our atmosphere Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon are transparent to solar radiation and out going Black Body radiation while greenhouse gases are not that is why the Earth is not a Ball of Ice. Solar radiation strikes the Earth's surface and warms it which in turn warms the near surface atmosphere through similar collisions between the surface and the Transparent gasses, but greenhouse gasses can absorb Infrared photons emited by the surface of the Earth in the form of Longwave Infrared radiation higher up in the Atmosphere too, thus warming the atmosphere through collisions with the Majority of the atmosphere that is transparent to the Solar Flux (incoming sunlight referred to as shortwave radiation). The Earth's surface is warmed by the Solar Flux of the Sun's shortwave radiation. The surface then as all matter does, re-emits this heat in the form of Black Body radiation. The wavelength of Black Body radiation is determined by the heat of the Black Body. The Earth's surface temperature is cool enough that it's black body radiation is in the Longwave Infrared spectrum. We can feel it but we can't see it, whereas good portion of the Sun's Black body radiation is in the shortwave spectrum that includes visible light.

So heat is simply the kinetic energy of Atoms and Molecules. Heat gets transferred in two ways 1) absorption of Photons and 2) collisions with other Atoms, molecules, and resistance to the flow of electrons, or other subatomic particles. i.e. by kinetic transfer of energy.  

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

I think a photon is emitted.

It is not. At least not with a collision as we are talking about here. All matter emits Black body radiation however and the wavelengths are determined by the matters temperature. But we are talking about about collisions that transfer heat via kinetic energy. The two major Greenhouse gasses in our Planet's atmosphere are Water vapor and CO2. These consist of three bonded Atoms, for Water and Water Vapor these are H-O-H (H2O) and for CO2 it is O-C-O. Because these are three bonded Atoms they are able to vibrate in ways that say Oxygen we breath can not (O2) is O-O for example. So take CO2 for instance, CO2 can vibrate in four ways, and this property allows a CO2 molecule to absorb certain photons of different wavelengths in the Infrared spectrum. So a CO2 molecule in an unexcited state looks like this O-C-O, when a black body photon from Earth's surface is emited the Earth's surface loses kinetic energy and cools, when that BB Infrared photon strikes a CO2 molecule it can be absorbed by CO2 causing it to vibrate in one of four major vibrational states. When that happens the CO2 molecule gains kinetic energy because the vibrations are movement (i.e. heat). Now the CO2 Molecule consisting of its three Atoms that are bonded do not like to be in an excited state which is again one of four major vibrational states that look something like this (O<CO/OC>O), (O^C-O/O-CvO),(O^CvO),(O^C^O/OvCvO). The second vibrational state is neutral and does not re-emit a photon, the other three vibrational states can re-emit a photon and return the CO2 molecule to it's unexcited state. However, this takes time for a re-emission to take place and in the lower and Mid-atmosphere collisions with other atmospheric species happen faster so that the CO2 molecule that absorbed a Black Body photon emitted from Earth's surface and caused it to vibrate (heat up) will collide with another atmospheric species first and this transfers CO2's vibrational kinetic energy to the Atom or molecule it collides with (heating it up) and returns via the strong bonds between CO2's (O-C-O) back to CO2's unexcited state. So in the case of a collision no photon is emitted. A collision between an excited vibrating CO2 molecule with other atmospheric species in the lower and Mid-atmosphere causes convection not re-emission of a BBLW photon. 

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

A molecule or atom can't return to a state of lower excitation without emitting a photon can it?  The energy and wavelength of the photon depends on the energy quanta not on location in the atmosphere right?

 

Yes. No. See above.

 

2 hours ago, Tatetopa said:

If CO2 molecules do not emit a photon but bounces more energetically  into other molecules, isn't that heat?

Yes it is in the form of convection which causes the heat to rise in the atmosphere, as opposed to a BBLW Infrared photon being re-emitted back to the Earth's surface.

Edited August 13, 2018 by lost_shaman

[Tatetopa]

4 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

Yes it is in the form of convection which causes the heat to rise in the atmosphere

   Warm air is less dense because the molecules are moving faster and making more space around themselves in simple terms, right?  Earth heats up air, air rises, causes thermals, birds of prey and other heavy birds love these.  Warm air also pulls up more water if it is over a body of water.   Warm air has more energy than the cooler air around it so then it bangs into other molecules in the atmosphere and transfers some energy.  They get warmer..  If it is a CO2 molecule that bangs into nitrogen or oxygen or argon and transfers energy, it gets back to a less excited state by transferring some of that kinetic energy.  So an O2 molecule  or an N2 molecule or an Argon atom take heat as kinetic energy even though they couldn't absorb the original photon that excited the CO2 molecule.  It seems like this leaves the CO2 molecule ready to absorb another photon.

A certain amount of carbon dioxide  is great, it helps prevent an Ice Age.  But it seems that this effect would continue to heat the planet as CO2  (and other green house gasses  like methane) increase as a % of the atmosphere.

Are you saying that we have reached equilibrium, or not yet?

[lost_shaman]

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

 Warm air is less dense because the molecules are moving faster and making more space around themselves in simple terms, right? 

Yeah.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Earth heats up air, air rises, causes thermals, birds of prey and other heavy birds love these.

True.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

Warm air also pulls up more water if it is over a body of water. 

Yes, and over land too. You get more convection over land because it heats up more quickly than bodies of water. Also vegetation produces aerosols that contribute to cloud formation and rain, which then drops the water vapor back onto the land and then the extra heating evaporates the water in the soil and this repeats. But in simple terms your are right, the land would dry up like Mars without the evaporation of water from the Oceans.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

 Warm air has more energy than the cooler air around it so then it bangs into other molecules in the atmosphere and transfers some energy.  They get warmer..

In a way,.. Energy is conserved. Also heat always flows in one direction. Warm air must lose energy to heat cool air. As warm air loses energy to cool air, the warm air contracts and the cool air that gains the heat expands. This causes wind, also warm air can hold more water vapor than cool air so as it loses heat and contracts this causes water vapor to condense into water droplets and the presence of aerosols allows this to happen even faster.

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

If it is a CO2 molecule that bangs into nitrogen or oxygen or argon and transfers energy, it gets back to a less excited state by transferring some of that kinetic energy.  So an O2 molecule  or an N2 molecule or an Argon atom take heat as kinetic energy even though they couldn't absorb the original photon that excited the CO2 molecule

Yeah. 

 

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

It seems like this leaves the CO2 molecule ready to absorb another photon.

Yes. But not just any photon, it has to be a photon with a wavelength in one of CO2's bands. 

 

1 hour ago, Tatetopa said:

A certain amount of carbon dioxide  is great, it helps prevent an Ice Age.  But it seems that this effect would continue to heat the planet as CO2  (and other green house gasses  like methane) increase as a % of the atmosphere.

It may seem that way, but when a Black Body heats up its peak wavelength is displaced toward shorter wavelengths. Wien's wavelength displacement constant. So if the Planet warms its Black Body radiation is displaced to shorter wavelengths that fall outside of CO2s main absorption band. So more and more CO2 fails to warm the Planet further because even more of the Earth's Black body radiation falls outside of CO2s main absorption band and flies right past CO2 into space cooling the planet until the Planet cools enough for its peak Black body radiation wavelength to lengthen enough to fall back into CO2s main absorption band again.

Edited August 13, 2018 by lost_shaman

[Doug1029]

17 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

So Doug, are you enjoying these below average temperatures? 

According to the 7 Day forecast for the next 8 days (Aug. 12 - 19) in Stillwater, OK, where you work, including today you are going to average -3.3125 degrees F below Average temperatures for August (81.5F). Sounds pretty nice to me since I can't stand the summer heat personally. 

During the same time frame (Aug. 12 - 19) in Dallas, TX is forecast to average -3.375 degrees F below average temperatures for August (87F). That sounds pretty nice to me too. 

During the same time frame (Aug. 12 - 19) in Vernon, TX , where I live, is forecast to average +0.5 degrees F above average temperatures for August (83.5F). Not too bad, but this is why I don't buy lottery tickets! LOL! 

So between these three places, where I live, where my Daughters live, and where you work, forms a right triangle with the hypotenuse between Vernon, TX and Stillwater, OK ~ 200 miles that consists of most of Central North Texas and most of Central Oklahoma. Averaging the averages of the temperature departure for these three places we get -2.0625 degrees F below average August Temperatures forecast for the next 8 days for this large region of our little spot on Earth. 

Now you'll say this is just weather being weather and I agree of course it is, but it will go down in the books and contribute to the 30 year average of our personal Climate for this regional area. Also last August and the year before we saw below average temperatures for this regional area during the same 8 days in (*,**)Mid-August. Again just weather being weather but also last year and the year before are in the books and will also contribute to the 30 year Climate for our little region of the Earth. 

*Dallas, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017)     +0.699 F

*Dallas, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2016)      -4.295 F

*Vernon, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017)     -2.250 F

*Vernon, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2016)     -1.813 F

**Stillwater, Ok (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017) -0.125 F  (unable to find 2016 August daily temps for Stillwater, OK)

This is a five-month cooling trend.  So what?  The 1960s downturn lasted 15 years.  The 1998 one lasted 7 years.  And the 1903 one in this same area lasted 17 years.  None of those was a harbinger of global cooling.  If it continues into 2028, give me a call.

Here's August 2016 for you.

http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/orders/IPS/IPS-88121EB2-FB90-4C46-9E23-E623B868C232.pdf

Doug

[Tatetopa]

I was trying to do a little homework here.  I looked up Wein's Law

It looks like for relatively lower temperatures, the curve flattens  out.  I did check on the Earth's temperature.

Name	Temperature (Kelvin)
1	Sun	5778
2	Venus	737
3	Mercury	440
4	Moon	>100 to <400
5	Earth	288
6	Mars	210
7	Jupiter	165 (1 bar level, mean)
8	Saturn	134 (1 bar level, mean)
9	Uranus	76 (1 bar level, mean)
10	Neptune	72 (1 bar level, mean)
11	Pluto	50 (1 bar level, mean)

Source: NASA

Earth is at 288K.  That would seem to put Earth's black body curve into a pretty flat area with a peak that is measurable but a broad spread of radiation. How much rise in surface temperature does it take to move the peak far enough for added CO2 to make no difference.  It looks like on the scale of these curves, a few degrees, 10 or 20 would make only a slight difference.  That much shift might make a difference to us though.

[Doug1029]

LS -

You said that science was your hobby.  Why not get serious and actually do some science?  We discussed above that the extinction CO2 level for plant growth has never been measured in C4 plants.  That's your opening.  Vernon, Texas has lots of C4 grasses.  Grow a bunch of them in boxes using various CO2 levels.  See if it matches the 60 ppm rate measured for C3 plants.

Doug

[lost_shaman]

19 minutes ago, Doug1o29 said:

LS -

You said that science was your hobby.  Why not get serious and actually do some science?  We discussed above that the extinction CO2 level for plant growth has never been measured in C4 plants.  That's your opening.  Vernon, Texas has lots of C4 grasses.  Grow a bunch of them in boxes using various CO2 levels.  See if it matches the 60 ppm rate measured for C3 plants.

Doug

That's an interesting idea Doug. Seems relatively simple, has nobody not ever tried this before? 

[Doug1029]

19 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

That's an interesting idea Doug. Seems relatively simple, has nobody not ever tried this before? 

To the best of my knowledge, no.  You'd have to do a literature search to find out for sure, but you'd have to do one of those anyway.  It's a good place to start.

Doug

[Calibeliever]

19 hours ago, lost_shaman said:

So Doug, are you enjoying these below average temperatures? 

According to the 7 Day forecast for the next 8 days (Aug. 12 - 19) in Stillwater, OK, where you work, including today you are going to average -3.3125 degrees F below Average temperatures for August (81.5F). Sounds pretty nice to me since I can't stand the summer heat personally. 

During the same time frame (Aug. 12 - 19) in Dallas, TX is forecast to average -3.375 degrees F below average temperatures for August (87F). That sounds pretty nice to me too. 

During the same time frame (Aug. 12 - 19) in Vernon, TX , where I live, is forecast to average +0.5 degrees F above average temperatures for August (83.5F). Not too bad, but this is why I don't buy lottery tickets! LOL! 

So between these three places, where I live, where my Daughters live, and where you work, forms a right triangle with the hypotenuse between Vernon, TX and Stillwater, OK ~ 200 miles that consists of most of Central North Texas and most of Central Oklahoma. Averaging the averages of the temperature departure for these three places we get -2.0625 degrees F below average August Temperatures forecast for the next 8 days for this large region of our little spot on Earth. 

Now you'll say this is just weather being weather and I agree of course it is, but it will go down in the books and contribute to the 30 year average of our personal Climate for this regional area. Also last August and the year before we saw below average temperatures for this regional area during the same 8 days in (*,**)Mid-August. Again just weather being weather but also last year and the year before are in the books and will also contribute to the 30 year Climate for our little region of the Earth. 

*Dallas, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017)     +0.699 F

*Dallas, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2016)      -4.295 F

*Vernon, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017)     -2.250 F

*Vernon, TX (Aug. 12 - 19, 2016)     -1.813 F

**Stillwater, Ok (Aug. 12 - 19, 2017) -0.125 F  (unable to find 2016 August daily temps for Stillwater, OK)

Dallas broke records for heat 2 weeks ago. It's the hottest and driest it's EVER BEEN. You're exhausting, really.

[lost_shaman]

23 minutes ago, Calibeliever said:

Dallas broke records for heat 2 weeks ago. It's the hottest and driest it's EVER BEEN. You're exhausting, really.

Dallas is also a large Urban Heat Island. That said Dallas is still forcast to be 3.375 degrees F below average for the Mid-August period (Aug. 12 - 19) as per my post above. All of us were in this region were hot 2-3 weeks ago we were under a high pressure system. Here in Vernon, about 170 miles from Dallas, near the Panhandle we didn't break any records to my knowledge. What feels like has changed, but I've not had a chance to research this yet, is that the really hot heat we usually have in this region seems to be occuring a couple to few weeks earlier than I remember where when I was young it always seemed Mid-August was the time we were sweltering, and I mean sweltering! 

Edited August 13, 2018 by lost_shaman

[Calibeliever]

27 minutes ago, lost_shaman said:

Dallas is also a large Urban Heat Island. That said Dallas is still forcast to be 3.375 degrees F below average for the Mid-August period (Aug. 12 - 19) as per my post above. All of us were in this region were hot 2-3 weeks ago we were under a high pressure system. Here in Vernon, about 170 miles from Dallas, near the Panhandle we didn't break any records to my knowledge. What feels like has changed, but I've not had a chance to research this yet, is that the really hot heat we usually have in this region seems to be occuring a couple to few weeks earlier than I remember where when I was young it always seemed Mid-August was the time we were sweltering, and I mean sweltering! 

I live here (part time) and I know we broke records because it was on the news for 3 straight days. But you just keep moving lines on your pitch. You know individual local temperatures don't matter in climate study which was my actual point. One city being a little warmer or colder from year to year is statistically insignificant to climate. But you know that, because you're really really smart and you have a laptop with a lot of information on it.

Edited August 13, 2018 by Calibeliever
clarity