"University of Washington climate scientist Mark Albright was dismissed from his position as associate state climatologist, just weeks after exposing false claims of shrinking glaciers in the Cascade Mountains.
"Seattle Mayor Greg Nickels had asserted in a February 7 Seattle Times editorial, "the average snow pack in the Cascades has declined 50 percent since 1950 and will be cut in half again in 30 years if we don't start addressing the problems of climate change now."
"Albright knew from his research that the Cascade Mountains snow pack had not declined anywhere near what Nickels asserted, and that the snow pack has actually been growing in recent years.
Read the complete article by James Taylor at the Heartland Institute website: http://www.heartland.org/Article.cfm?artId=21207
Luke the solar effect and its impact .....found this
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/SORCE/sorce_04.htmlis today
What have we learned? What I find amazing is the international discussion on raw data reconstruction still goes on a pace.
Luke had me thinking deeply again with his link to the Smith & Reynolds temp reconstruction paper 2005. Near the end is a classic but practical statement that was so familiar in terms of my own attitude to endless math routines for old data points. In the low frequency sampling error parra we find this “The magnitude of the trend needs to be about right “ That’s so significant.
For many years I watched recordings on man made environments for such things as dryness and wetness. All in all, regular max min temp indication was hardly worth the worry as energy is not directly related. If I was ever sidetracked wondering about trends from either peaks or bottoms then I could give that game away. Something our thermometers can’t do is record the energy involved with latent heat
I do frequent early rises. Our biggest chill is routinely just before dawn, why? Years ago I watched for “black ice” forming on the roads. That’s the point when dampness oozing across the surface turns the place into a battle field. The other argument is about evaporation. Luke may recall I chat a lot about the ice point, 0 C and liquid mass interchange.
Heat exchangers and signal transducers were my bread and butter. Arnost’s link brought it all back. It seems the US astrologers loved their max min records but I bet much of it was driven by their farmers, oh dear I must note we have one or two here. But the NOAA history discussion and QA type procedures, strengths weaknesses etc is quite revealing.
Early on I identified sloppy max min u tube devices. In practice I carried about ten NATA reg straight thermometers, three for each range. Readings with any less than three was immediately open to suspicion. My selection were better than most. Interestingly enough though any ten thermometers had accumulated errors in deg C at boiling point equal to about half their number.
How any one can swear on an old reading still amuses me. Reading the damn things was ever an art not a science. Finding trends without maths was another business.
Happy hunting.
Toby
No idea on the NASA / solar but this is a good read WRT solar and clouds.
http://www.sciencebits.com/CO2orSolar
Mike Alexander's posts at the end of the thread may have however stumped Nir - it's interesting that he has not answered...
cheers
Arnost
Luke I said it sounded plausible.....as for the solar effect.....
Embarrasingly I can not find the NASA site I was reading a few months ago, but if my memory serves me correctly they were suggesting approx 0.3c of warming in the last 100 or so years would be expected due to reduced sunspot activity causing increased radiation. They also noted that we were not really sure how this radiation would impact on cloud formation.
I will try and find it tomorrow evening, I have to go to bed, I have a big day ahead.
Must admit I thought it was agreed some of the increase in temp related to this factor ( note I said some, my reading made it clear it did not account for teh majority)? Is that not the case? I certainly mentioned it before and you havent questioned it.
Arnost I also wonder why they have needed to make more adjustments since the 1950's as measurements presumably are more accurate as you suggest....and fewer before when they were less so!
Regards T
Toby
The reason I began this digging is that there was a disconnect between solar / temp in the eighties or so, and I knew that there was a bit of temp adjustment happening.
Saying that, I accept that corrections may, and in fact should be made. However, I don't really like the fact that the corrections are made such that the result is that temperatures are incrementally increased timewise. It would be more logical to apply the correction as a step (or a series of steps). This would not mask the underlying trends in observed data.
Also - why aren't there any corrections to the pre 50's data where logically you would expect much higher instrumentation and reading errors / biases?
Apparently the data for version 2 (more current) will be available in July this year. But then it will be only for the US network. As Luke says, will probably have to ask NOAA directly for the GHCN network effects.
cheers
Arnost
Toby - don't get too excited and count your chickens here. You think the IPCC science panel is that dumb? Maybe Arnost is right but are you that quick to jump on any idea that washes past.
Australia on high quality BoM data is still warming as are many other independent indicators.
I'm stunned by your penchant to say "oh that must be it then". Jump !!
P.S. WHAT solar effect?? How does it work?
Very interesting Arnost, and that explanation of at least half the warming (if its a valid explanation...and it seems plausible), when coupled with the solar effect that is considered to represent 30-50 % of the increase, kinda makes you question co2 doesnt it?
Recommend you email them and engage directly. Worth knowing.