hcubed's WunderBlog

New list out, expect AGW proponents getting hotter...

By: hcubed, 7:45 AM GMT on December 31, 2010

Since the AGW community loves lists so much, try this one:

"...Here is a list of 31 different international climate scientists, academics, meteorologists, climate researchers and engineers who have researched this topic and who disagree with AGW science and IPCC forecasts, and are projecting much cooler weather for the next 1-3 decades.

The List

1. Don Easterbrook, Professor Emeritus, Dept. of Geology, Western Washington University.

2. Syun Akasofu, Professor of Geophysics, Emeritus, University of Alaska, also founding director of ARC.

3. Prof. Mojib Latif, Professor, Kiel University, Germany.

4. Dr. Noel Keenlyside from the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences at Kiel University.

5. Professor Anastasios Tsonis, Head of Atmospheric Sciences Group University of Wisconsin, and Dr. Kyle Swanson of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.

6. William M Gray, Professor Emeritus, Dept of Atmospheric Sciences, Colorado State University.

7. Henrik Svensmark , Professor DTU, Copenhagen.

8. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, D.Sc., AboAkademi University, Finland.

9. Dr. Alexander Frolov, Head of Russia’s state meteorological service Rosgidromet.

10. Mike Lockwood, Professor of Space Environmental Physics, University of Reading, UK.

11. Dr. Oleg Pokrovsky, Voeikov Main Geophysical. Observatory.:

12. Girma Orssengo, b.Tech, MASc, PhD

13. Nicola Scafetta, PhD.

14. Dr William Livingston, astronomer & solar physicist.

15. Dr Matthew Penn, astronomer & solar physicist.

16. Joe d’Aleo – Executive Director of Certified Consultant Meteorologists.

17. Harry van Loon, Emeritus at NCAR and CORA.

18. Roland Madden, Senior scientist at NOAA, Deputy Head of Climate analysis.

19. Dave Melita, Head Meteorologist at Melita Weather Associates.

20. Dr. David Archibald, Australia, environmental scientist.

21. Dr Habibullo Abdussamatov, Head of Space Research, Lab of Pulkov Observatory.

22. Dr Fred Goldberg, Swedish climate expert.

23. Dr. George Kukla, a member of the Czechoslovakian Academy of Sciences and a pioneer in the field of astronomical forcing.

24. Peter Clark, Professor of Geosciences at OSU.

25. James Overland, NOAA.

26. Dr. Theodore Landscheidt.

27. Matt Vooro, P. Eng.

28. Thomas Globig, Meteorologist, Meteo Media weather service.

29. Piers Corbyn, Astrophysicist.

30. Dr. Karsten Brandt, Director of donnerwetter.de weather service.

31. Joe Bastardi – Accuweather meteorologist.

More details at:

http://notrickszone.com/2010/12/28/global-cooling-consensus-is-heating-up-cooling-over-the-next-1-t o-3-decades/

With this list, expect the usual "well, you can't believe this person because..." postings.

Like usual, anyone who has observed weather and studied climate; anyone who has used the same data the "climate scientists" has used and have come up with a different theory will be roasted alive.

And the tempers of the AGW crowd will rise, as predicted by the Catastrophic-Anthropogenic-Climate-Disruption theory.


Number of cooler Novembers increases...

By: hcubed, 9:14 AM GMT on December 25, 2010

As predicted, the latest "hotter than it's ever been" posts are out.

"...November 2010 was the globe's second warmest November on record, according to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) National Climatic Data Center (NCDC)..."

Since the "on record" period started in 1890, this means that there have been 120 Novembers, and there have been 118 cooler that the current one.

To continue:

"...NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies rated November 2010 the warmest November on record. Both NOAA and NASA rated the year-to-date period, January - November, as the warmest such period on record..."

Again, meaning that ALL of the previous Novembers have been cooler, making a warm/cool ratio of 1/119.

"...Global satellite-measured temperatures for the lowest 8 km of the atmosphere for November were the 5th or 3rd warmest on record, according to Remote Sensing Systems and the University of Alabama Huntsville (UAH), respectively. UAH rates the year-to-date period, January-November, as the 2nd warmest such period in the satellite data record, behind 1998..."

Here, it's a little better. The satellite data record only goes back to 1975 or so (about 35 years). If this November is the 3rd or 5th warmest, (it sure would be nice if the scientists could come to a consensus or something) then there have been either 32 or 30 Novembers cooler than this one.

And if UAH is right about it being the second warmest since 1975, how does that compare to GISS calling it the warmest in the past 120 years?

Also, in the same post, there was this gem:

"...Northern Hemisphere sea ice extent in November 2010 was the 2nd lowest in the 31-year satellite record behind 2006, according to the National Snow and Ice Data Center. As of December 24, ice extent was the lowest on record for this time of year. Ice volume in November was the lowest on record, according to University of Washington Polar Ice Center..."

So, to the source:


There, in their words:

"...Arctic sea ice extent averaged over November 2010 was 9.89 million square kilometers (3.82 million square miles). This is the second-lowest November ice extent recorded over the period of satellite observations from 1979 to 2010 (added: 31 years), 50,000 square kilometers (19,300 square miles) above the previous record low of 9.84 million square kilometers (3.80 million square miles) set in 2006..."

Second lowest for the past 31 years. May have been lower values before then. And, if the old low was 3.80 million square miles just 4 years ago, then there has been an INCREASE in extent of .02 million square miles (19,300 square miles).

Things are looking up!

Updated: 10:35 PM GMT on December 25, 2010


Sun may have more of an effect than proposed.

By: hcubed, 8:41 AM GMT on December 22, 2010


"...SORCE's Solar Spectral Surprise 12.17.10

Solar activity, 1996 to 2006 Solar activity – including sunspots and accompanying bright areas called faculae – vary over the course of a solar cycle and affect solar irradiance.

Two satellite instruments aboard NASA's Solar Radiation & Climate Experiment (SORCE) mission -- the Total Solar Irradiance Monitor (TIM) and the Solar Irradiance Monitor (SIM) -- have made daily measurements of the sun's brightness since 2003.

The two instruments are part of an ongoing effort to monitor variations in solar output that could affect Earth's climate. Both instruments measure aspects of the sun's irradiance, the intensity of the radiation striking the top of the atmosphere.

Instruments similar to TIM have made daily irradiance measurements of the entire solar spectrum for more than three decades, but the SIM instrument is the first to monitor the daily activity of certain parts of the spectrum, a measurement scientists call solar spectral irradiance.

In recent years, SIM has collected data that suggest the sun's brightness may vary in entirely unexpected ways. If the SIM's spectral irradiance measurements are validated and proven accurate over time, then certain parts of Earth’s atmosphere may receive surprisingly large doses of solar radiation even during lulls in solar activity.

"We have never had a reason until now to believe that parts of the spectrum may vary out of phase with the solar cycle, but now we have started to model that possibility because of the SIM results,” said Robert Cahalan, the project scientist for SORCE and the head of the climate and radiation branch at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md.

Cahalan, as well as groups of scientists from the University of Colorado at Boulder and Johns Hopkins University, presented research at the American Geophysical Union meeting in San Francisco in December that explored the climate implications of the recent SIM measurements.

Cahalan’s modeling, for example, suggests that the sun may underlie variations in stratospheric temperature more strongly than currently thought. Measurements have shown that stratospheric temperatures vary by about 1 °C (1.8 °F) over the course of a solar cycle, and Cahalan has demonstrated that inputting SIM’s measurements of spectral irradiance into a climate model produces variations of that same magnitude.

Without inclusion of SIM data, the model produces stratospheric temperature variations only about a fifth as strong as would be needed to explain observed stratospheric temperature variations. “We may have a lot more to learn about how solar variability works, and how the sun might influence our climate," Cahalan said.

As recently as the 1970s, scientists assumed that the sun's irradiance was unchanging; the amount of energy it expels was even called the "solar constant." However, instruments similar to TIM and SIM have made clear that the sun's output actually fluctuates in sync with changes in the sun's magnetic field.

Indeed, TIM and its predecessor instruments, whose records of irradiance began in 1978, show that the sun's output varies by about 0.1 percent as the sun cycles through periods of high and low electromagnetic activity every eleven years or so. In practice, this cycling means the sun's brightness, as measured by TIM, goes up a bit when large numbers of sunspots and accompanying bright spots called faculae are present on the sun, yet goes down slightly when sunspots and faculae are sparse, like they have been in the last few years as the sun has gone through an unusually quiet period.

However, there is a critical difference between the SIM and TIM, explains Jerry Harder, the lead SIM instrument scientist and a researcher at the Laboratory for Atmospheric and Space Physics (LASP) at the University of Colorado in Boulder. While the TIM lumps all wavelengths -- including infrared, visible, and ultraviolet light -- into one overall measurement, the SIM isolates and monitors specific portions of the spectrum.

Notably, this makes SIM the first space-based instrument capable of continuously monitoring the visible and near-infrared portion, parts of the spectrum that are particularly important for the climate. SIM also offers the most comprehensive view of the individual components that make up the sun's total solar irradiance to date.

Some of the variations that SIM has measured in the last few years do not mesh with what most scientists expected. Climatologists have generally thought that the various part of the spectrum would vary in lockstep with changes in total solar irradiance.

However, SIM suggests that ultraviolet irradiance fell far more than expected between 2004 and 2007 -- by ten times as much as the total irradiance did -- while irradiance in certain visible and infrared wavelengths surprisingly increased, even as solar activity wound down overall.

The steep decrease in the ultraviolet, coupled with the increase in the visible and infrared, does even out to about the same total irradiance change as measured by the TIM during that period, according to the SIM measurements.

The stratosphere absorbs most of the shorter wavelengths of ultraviolet light, but some of the longest ultraviolet rays (UV-A), as well as much of the visible and infrared portions of the spectrum, directly heat Earth's lower atmosphere and can have a significant impact on the climate

Some climatologists, including Judith Lean of the United States Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, remain skeptical of the SORCE SIM measurements. "I strongly suspect the SIM trends are instrumental, not solar," said Lean, noting that instrumental drift has been present in every instrument that has tracked ultraviolet wavelengths to date.

"If these SIM measurements indicate real solar variations, then it would mean you could expect a warmer surface during periods of low solar activity, the opposite of what climate models currently assume," said Gavin Schmidt, a climate modeling specialist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York City.

It would also imply that the sun's contribution to climate change over the last century or so might be even smaller than currently thought, suggesting that the human contribution to climate change may in turn be even larger than current estimates.

However, the surprising SIM measurements correspond with a period of unusually long and quiescent solar minimum that extended over 2007 to 2009. It may not be representative of past or future solar cycles, solar scientists caution.

Researchers will surely continue puzzling over the surprising SIM results for some time, but there is already considerable agreement on one point: that the need for continuous SIM and TIM measurements going forward has grown more urgent.

Modeling studies are showing that our climate depends critically on the true solar spectral variations. "If we don't have the instruments up there to watch this closely, we could be arguing about spectral irradiance and climate for decades," said Cahalan.

A new TIM instrument is slated to launch on the Glory satellite this February, but a replacement for the SORCE SIM instrument -- called the Total and Spectral Solar Irradiance Sensor (TSIS) -- likely won't fly until 2014 or 2015. This could create a gap between the current SIM and its replacement, a situation that would present a significant obstacle to identifying any possible longer-term trend in solar spectral irradiances, and thus to nailing down the sun’s role in long-term climate change.

"Both instruments -- TIM and SIM -- are absolutely critical for understanding how climate works. We neglect either of them at our peril," said Cahalan.

Related Links:

SORCE Website

So, the older satellites may have given us a misleading image of the sun's output.

These newer instruments give a closer view of the spectrum, including the UV - especially UV-A, which has a greater ability of heating the earth's surface.

We really need to see this instrument run for a complete solar cycle (about 11 years), to see any connections.



By: hcubed, 3:09 PM GMT on December 03, 2010

This is a continuation of the "things that the threat of CAGW will cause" posts.

I said there are several "choices" available to prepare for the loss of "standard" incandescent bulbs.

The first involves "adapdation".

Since “rough duty bulbs” are on the exemption list, replace all 28 60W bulbs with rough duty bulbs.

Still dimmable, no change in wattage, longer life (these are also known as “double life” bulbs). Replacement costs go to around $1.50 ea (total of $42 for full house replacement).

Costs more for replacement, but doesn’t save energy.

You could get medium base to candelabra base adapters for about $2 each (28x$2=$56). Since candelabra bulbs do come in 60W (at about $1 each), the initial cost goes up to about $84 ($56+$28). No savings in energy.

Another choice runs up the bucks a bit, because it involves changing out some fixtures.

For example, instead of a fixture in the hallway that currently uses a single 60W bulb, change it out for a multiple-bulb fixture. That way, you can use two 40W (or 3 25W) candelabra bulbs without adapters instead of the single 60W.

About $20 for the fixture, raises the wattage, raises the lumens, increases replacement cost (what uses to be 25 cents for a bulb goes up to 2 or 3 dollars). Possible increase in energy usage.

So you'll still be able to get and use incandescent bulbs, but the era of “cheap” lighting is gone.

All because of the “threat” of CAGW.


Things the "threat" of CAGW are causing (cont).

By: hcubed, 9:11 PM GMT on December 02, 2010

I know, the ultimate goal is reducing the amount of energy used. Less electricity, less fuel used, less CO2 in the air.

So any reasonable person has to want to use less power to save the planet, right?

There, I'll agree.

So lets look at the "choices".

1. Adaptation.

2. CFL's

3. Halogen.

4. LED's

5. Let industry catch up.

I'll explain what each one of these mean, but first, a baseline is needed.

If you're going to force people to make a choice, they've got to understand where they're already at.

We’ll use my house as a typical residence.

My house has 28 sixty-watt bulbs, 3 forty-watt bulbs, 2 twenty-five watt bulbs, and a couple T bulbs (the long thin ones at forty watts each). Not counting the appliance bulbs.

If they were all on, we’re looking at a total wattage of around 1930W. So for every hour the lights are on, you’d use 1.93kwh.

Formula for khw is Wattage x Hours / 1000. Average cost is 10 cents per kwh. Works out to 19.3 cents per hour (again if they are ALL on).

Since you can replace ”general purpose incandescent bulbs” for about 25 cents each (4/$1 at most dollar stores), a cost to replace them all would run around 8-10 dollars (we'll put that at $9 for total replacement).

Average life of an incandescent is about 2000 hrs.

Since the appliance lights and T bulbs are exempt, that leaves the 60’s and 40’s (31 bulbs).

Seven of the 60W bulbs are on dimmers, so any replacements have to be dimmable.

13 of the 60W bulbs are in fan fixtures, so vibration is a factor.

We now have a baseline.

Now, on to the choices.


Things the "threat" of CAGW are causing.

By: hcubed, 2:12 PM GMT on December 01, 2010

For those that don't know, a new countdown is working.

On the 1st of January, the countdown to the end of the "standard" incandescent bulb starts.

One of the most controversial provisions in the law (the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007) requires all general-purpose light bulbs that produce 310–2600 lumens of light be 30% more energy efficient (similar to current halogen lamps) than current incandescent bulbs by 2012 to 2014. The efficiency standards will start with 100-watt bulbs in January 2012 and end with 40-watt bulbs in January 2014.

Starting in 2012, “general service incandescent lamps” (according to the government this means a standard incandescent or halogen type lamp) will have to be at least 30% more energy efficient than today’s incandescent versions.

This phase out of existing technology incandescent bulbs will start with:

• the 100 watt bulb on 1/1/2012;
• the 75 watt bulb on 1/1/2013; and
• the 60 watt and 40 watt bulbs on 1/1/2014.

By 2020 all bulbs will have to be at least 70% more efficient than today’s incandescent bulbs.

Good idea?

Let's see...

You'd think that ALL incandescent bulbs will go away or be affected, right?

Well, like all laws, there will be "exemptions".

Here's a list of the bulbs that WON'T be affected:

EXCLUSIONS- The term `general service incandescent lamp' does not include the following incandescent lamps:

1. Appliance lamp (e.g. refrigerator or oven light)
2. Black light lamp.
3. Bug lamp.
4. Colored lamp.
5. Infrared lamp.
6. Left-hand thread lamp.
7. Marine lamp.
8. Marine signal service lamp.
9. Mine service lamp.
10. Plant light lamp.
11. Reflector lamp.
12. Rough service lamp.
13. Shatter-resistant lamp (including a shatter-proof lamp and a shatter-protected lamp).
14. Sign service lamp.
15. Silver bowl lamp.
16. Showcase lamp.
17. 3-way incandescent lamp.
18. Traffic signal lamp.
19. Vibration service lamp.
20. Globe shaped “G” lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002 with a diameter of 5 inches or more.
21. T shape lamp (as defined in ANSI C78.20-2003 and C79.1-2002) and that uses not more than 40 watts or has a length of more than 10 inches.
22. A B, BA, CA, F, G16-1/2, G-25, G30, S, or M-14 lamp (as defined in ANSI C79.1-2002 and ANSI C78.20-2003) of 40 watts or less.
23. Candelabra incandescent and other lights not having a medium Edison screw base.

Wow. Still be a lot of bulbs out there, won't there.

So what "choices" will a consumer have?

Not many.

We'll discuss the "choices" next post.


The views of the author are his/her own and do not necessarily represent the position of The Weather Company or its parent, IBM.

Ad Blocker Enabled

hcubed's WunderBlog

About hcubed

Living in Biloxi MS, have been here since '85 (first Hurricane was Elena).