FRANK LANSNER PART 2ReplyDelete
But let’s go a little further, simply to understand what’s going on. Why the missing “valley-warming”?
The Earth surface today is generally warmer than in the warm period 1930-50.
Coastal temperature stations and mountain stations facing ocean winds also show this warming, but in such stations affected by ocean air we see that the warm-period 1930-50 is not nearly as warm as seen for the valley stations.
So, the heat measured in valley stations 1930-50 resembles present day heat. But something is preventing this heat to show in data from water-affected stations.
Water – oceans or deeper lakes – will buffer rapid temperature changes resulting from a new heat balance of the Earth. Water will reduce the temperature change from a changing heat balance. Water will delay the temperature change due to a new heat balance over the Earth.
It seems that after the little ice age that ended around 1900-20, the rapid change in heat balance around 1930-50 could only be detected in the valleys best protected against “delay-noise” from oceans.
This is why Valleys do show us the new much warmer heat balance that began around 1930-40, but ocean affected stations don’t.
Since the temperature of the best sheltered valley stations show same temperature today as 1930-50, then this tell us that the actual heat balance over the Earth today is similar to the 1930-50 levels – before massive human CO2 outlets.
The warming seen in recent decades over oceans and from ocean affected stations thus appear to be a delayed adaption to the new heat balance that began around 1930-40.
So falsely it looked in recent decades as if the heat balance due to CO2 was still warmer. But it was just the oceans that were slow to adapt.
OK, dear Chris.
Before claiming that you can’t see this when you look up stations in BEST and GISS etc. please be aware that these sources of temperature information often adjusts temperature stations in valleys to look like station data from near by mountain tops, coast, larger cities. And in many cases the 1930-50 data from valley stations are simply just not used.
Notice that the Majority of for example original Alpine stations (around 90 of 150) are valley stations with little or no heat trend, so its quite a severe action to ignore the valleys at times, see:
ALPS:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-the-alps-273.php
HUNGARY:
Hungary is SURROUNDED by mountains, see original data – and how it is ignored by “BEST”:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-hungarian-valley-271.php
DENMARK
In Denmark, only a few coastal stations are really public available, and then the metropol Copenhagen, but, see what original inland data from old books show:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-denmark-and-south-sweden-270.php
And so on.
BEST:
In general, see how treats all data from valleys from all countries analysed:
http://hidethedecline.eu/pages/posts/original-temperatures-best-265.php
In general it seems that temperature stations in valleys for some reason are very unreliable? According to BEST?
So in short my proof 1:
If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also result in strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends.- wops, words missing:ReplyDelete
So in short my proof 1:
If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also result in strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends. But all over the world we see that the best the valleys best sheltered against ocean air show little or no heat trend. Sometimed even a cooling trend after around 1930-50.
Kind Regards Frank Lansner - Im very sorry, my child danced on the keyboard while im writing... ! one more time the final lines:
So in short my proof 1:
If CO2 had a dramatic effect since around 1950, this should also have resulted in a strong heat trend from temperature stations located in the valleys best sheltered from ocean air temperature trends.
But all over the world we see that the valleys best sheltered against ocean air show little or no heat trend. Sometimed even a cooling trend after around 1930-50 like in the US midwest.
Kind Regards Frank Lansner
Response:
You started out with a link to a post by Anthony Watts. Watts is one of the people that I automatically reject as a source of information - and for very good reason. First, he receives funds from The Heartland Institute. This is an organization whose very own internal documents show they fund people for the directed purpose of undermining climate science. That is enough for me to reject him and I use that standard on a routine basis. Anyone associated or affiliated with Heartland in any way is not a credible source.
But, there is more. My take of the evidence is he fabricates his results. That would be consistent with being affiliated with Heartland. Take a look at a review of some of his work here.
Finally, consider this: When Richard Muller questioned the global average temperature results from the international teams, he set up his own team to examine the question using completely different data. Watts said this:
"I'm prepared to accept whatever result they produce, even if it proves my premise wrong. The method isn't the madness that we’ve seen from NOAA, NCDC, GISS, and CRU. That lack of strings attached to funding, plus the broad mix of people involved especially those who have previous experience in handling large data sets gives me greater confidence in the result being closer to a bona fide ground truth than anything we’ve seen yet."
But, when the Berkeley Earth team confirmed the results of the international teams, Watts rejected those results and was quoted by the NY Times:
"Mr. Watts ... contended that the study's methodology was flawed because it examined data over a 60-year period instead of the 30-year-one that was the basis for his research and some other peer-reviewed studies. He also noted that the report had not yet been peer-reviewed and cited spelling errors as proof of sloppiness."
Really!!?? Global warming isn't real because there were some spelling errors???!!!!
There is a lot more on Watts, but I think I made the point. If you are going to base anything on Watts, then you have already failed in your proof.
As for 'getting our hands' on the data - it is freely available to anyone with Internet access at the National Climatic Data Center. In fact, several submissions have cited the NSDC as the source of their data.
On to the next issue. You say CO2 is only warming the climate in certain areas and not in others (simplifying your words). Take a look at this NASA GISS plot of temperature changes over the entire globe and I think you will immediately see how that is not a true statement:
As you can see, with the exception of a few areas, global warming has been happening just about everywhere. There are some regions that have been experiencing more (the polar regions) than others (the equatorial regions), but it is present in all regions of the planet. In particular, the oceans have experienced the least amount of warming. This is because it takes over 4 times as much energy to raise the temperature of a given mass of water as it does to raise the temperature an equal mass of air.Now, are there specific areas that have not experienced global warming? Certainly. And, this is very consistent with our understanding. The climate is very complicated and there are many factors besides man made greenhouse emissions. It is not at all surprising to find some local area that has experienced reduced warming, or even cooling.But, the thing to remember is that 'global warming' means the entire globe. A very localized area does not, in any way, mean global warming is not happening.As for the oceans making things more level - absolutely! Oceans absorb 93% of all energy coming into our environment. It takes a lot of energy to heat the oceans and it is very slow to give it up. It has been well known for thousands of years that the climate near the ocean is much less extreme than the climate far from the ocean.
My understanding is that you are claiming man made global warming is not real because some mountain valleys are not exhibiting as much warming as other regions. Well, you admitted the data for those areas are questionable. I don't know this and my experience tells me to reject your claim, but you made the claim the data is bad, but then used that same data to make your point. You can't have it both ways.
In short, your claim is that the majority of the planet has experienced global warming, but some isolated areas, in your opinion, have not exhibited the amount of global warming that you think is appropriate. The claim that a small area trumps what is happening in the rest of the world is not valid.
You have not shown man made global warming is not real.
Tuesday, July 22, 2014
Mountain Valleys
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dear Christopher,
I am: Frank Lansner, chemical civil engineer with focus on biochemistry from Danish Technical University. I have worked the last 16 with software development.
I have to follow my hunch, and it tells me that you are actually sincere about this challenge. My hunch also tell me that you might not accept a really good presentation of evidence against Human caused global warming, simply because “pro-IPCC” scientists normally don’t.
But still, your approach here is very personal and different, so who knows, perhaps you are actually going to be open fair and honest. So, I’m curious, and in the following I present to you severe problems for the AGW hypothesis.
I “know” I won’t see money, so from me this is not about money. I’m interested to see your responses, simply. Am I going to make any impression to you at all? Lets see.
PROOF 1
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/06/the-original-temperatures-project/
As explained in this article we have a surprising problem in data when finally it was possible to get hands on original temperature data from original meteorological year books.
The proof against global warming is NOT that we generally see more cold trended long temperature series from original sources than typical “adjusted” sources. We do, but this is no itself a proof about anything.
No the surprising proof is as follows:
For ALL countries analysed using original temperature data (not massively adjusted my “GISS” or “BEST” or similar) it turns out that temperature stations with a location in shelter of air coming from oceans show hardly any warming after the last warm period 1930-50.
The better the shelter (typically behind mountains, in valleys and similar) the less warming. In some very well sheltered areas it appears to be colder today than during the last warming period 1930-50.
These findings goes for the areas/continents tested so far in the “original temperatures” project and the RUTI project.
So, what does it tell us that areas that is located rather near mountains in shelter of ocean air?
First it raises the question:
How come “CO2” seems not to work after approx. 1940 without the presence of ocean air? Why cannot CO2 warm such areas? If it was indeed a strong climate driver?
Well IF CO2 had been a strong climate driver and human addition of CO2 was important we should have seen warming after around 1940 also in the valleys sheltered best from ocean air. But we don’t.
So here I could end my case, because dangerous CO2-effect already appear wrong at this point.
I want you to first consider this first evidence just as is. In a real “Earth laboratory” where changes in ocean air temperature “noise” is avoided best possible, there is little or no warming. Sometimes even cooling after the warm 1930-50 period.