Naked Science Forum
On the Lighter Side => New Theories => Topic started by: MoreCarbonOK on 18/05/2013 13:36:19
-
The dates of the ice breakup at Nenana in Alaska form one of the longest-term modern temperature proxies in the area,
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2013/05/ice-breakup-dates-at-nenana.jpg
it is part of a local betting tradition going back many years (1917).
it passed 2nd, already, on the all time record.
That all time record would be broken if the tripod is still standing on 20th May at 11:40am
here you can see the tripod, still standing, 18/05/2013 (?)
http://www.nenanaakiceclassic.com/
anyone here who thinks that earth is still warming?
He must be a strong believer.....
[MOD EDIT - PLEASE PHRASE YOUR POST TITLES AS QUESTIONS, IN LINE WITH FORUM POLICY; PLEASE NOT THAT TITLES SHOULD NOT INCLUDE PRECONCEPTIONS OR ASSUMED KNOWLEDGE. THANKS]
-
Nope there is no evidence that the Earth is cooling:
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fstatic.guim.co.uk%2Fsys-images%2FGuardian%2FPix%2Fpictures%2F2013%2F5%2F16%2F1368700916681%2Fsks_abstracts.jpg&hash=14741d7c369f7e10545e20fcc5a6781d)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/planet-oz/2013/may/17/zombie-climate-sceptic-theories-newspapers-tv
-
henry@wolfekeeper
unfortunately, in science, there is no "election"
about who is right and who is wrong,
you only need one scientist to be right
Right now in Nanana (3 PM EDT), it is 24F – and the tripod is still standing, a beacon shining in the darkness that is the CAGW lunacy…
-
There is consensus, which isn't an election, but is what happens when many scientists look at the overall evidence and make a balanced, unbiased agreement.
The consensus position, which with science is always subject to change if new evidence comes in, is that GW is definitely happening and nearly all of it is caused by humans increasing the levels of CO2.
That's what that graph shows.
If you dig into virtually any particular claim by climate scientists, they have good reasons to believe that particular thing.
-
Mr. Kinville on the Nenana blog issue just wrote:
Today’s high here in North Pole (just outside of Fairbanks) is 26.9 °F, last year on this day the high temperature was 68.8 °F. We have had 45 straight days of colder than average temperatures. Migratory birds have stacked up and are arriving out of their usual sequence, insects haven’t made their usual appearance, trees have failed to bud, moose are hungry…I’m using a lot (a lot) of firewood. For what it’s worth, I chose April 28th @ 2:28am for my ticket in the Ice Classic.
As I said,
what more proof do you want?
1000 scientists who are all wrong?
Anyway, it seems the ice will brake up soon,
but it is still a good second record
and it confirms everything I have been saying.
In maths and physics things usually work out the way you “calculate” things,
in chemistry you never know exactly which way things go…..you cannot “calculate” that which has never been measured before. So you have to measure first.
From my own results, blog address removed by mod
I figured that there must be a small window at the top of the atmosphere (TOA) that gets opened and closed a bit, every so often. Chemists know that a lot of incoming radiation is deflected to space by the ozone and the peroxides and nitrous oxides lying at the TOA. These chemicals are manufactured from the UV coming from the sun. Luckily we do have measurements on ozone, from stations in both hemispheres. I looked at these results. Incredibly, I found that ozone started going down around 1951 and started going up again in 1995, both on the NH and the SH. Percentage wise the increase in ozone in the SH since 1995 is much more spectacular.
Trenberth’s missing energy is probably in the peroxides and nitric oxides which he never even mentioned in his reports, probably because we could not measure them.
With the ozone results, I have now found three confirmations for the dates of the turning points of my A-C wave for energy-in. The mechanism? We know that there is not much variation in the total solar irradiation (TSI) measured at the TOA. However, there is some variation within TSI, mainly to do with the E-UV. Most likely there is some gravitational- and/or electromagnetic force that gets switched every 44 year, affecting the sun’s output of E-UV. It is part of creation. Otherwise there could be run away warming and probably no weather (rain!) at all, making life impossible…..
What earth does does with the incoming energy may lag a bit, creating different, but very predictable weather cycles.
Just remember: It really was very cold in 1940′s….The Dust Bowl drought 1932-1939 (due to a change in the direction of the winds) was one of the worst environmental disasters of the Twentieth Century anywhere in the world. Three million people left their farms on the Great Plains during the drought and half a million migrated to other states, almost all to the West. http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/res/div/ocp/drought/dust_storms.shtml
Danger from global cooling is documented and provable. It looks we have only ca. 7 “fat” years left (2013 – 88 = 1925), probably even less.
-
@wolfekeeper
btw
on the graph,
did you notice the increase no. of scientists taking no position on AGW
time to wake up man
or should we let bored and sleeping dogs lie?
-
You might want to learn the big difference between weather and climate, and the difference between opinion and fact.
Weather varies wildly in any one place, week to week, month to month, even year to year, but climate varies much more slowly. It's CLIMATE that's changing, not the weather (only the AVERAGE temperature of the weather is increasing).
But I agree that it's time for you to wake up; CO2 just went past 400 ppm, as climate scientists have been predicting, and GLOBAL temperatures are up, not down, as climate scientists have also been predicting.
The idea that raising CO2 doesn't increase global temperature is like arguing that temperatures wouldn't be higher in a greenhouse when you close all the windows. Sure it may be very hard to work out exactly how much the temperature is going up by, but it's surely going up.
Those papers are the ones saying 'beats me!' how much it's going up by, not the ones saying 'nope!'. There aren't any saying nope.
-
If I recall correctly, most models predict that some areas of the globe will actually find their average temperature decreases as the average temperature of the globe increases. The globe is not homogeneous for climate or weather.
-
Wolfekeeper says...
1) GLOBAL temperatures are up, not down, as climate scientists have also been predicting.
2) The idea that raising CO2 doesn't increase global temperature is like arguing that temperatures wouldn't be higher in a greenhouse
Henry says
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47181.0
you might want to study the first post here.
There has not been any "global warming" for at least 16 years and from 2002 it has been cooling. Not only my data set says this, but all data sets show this.
This is not a "new theory" or "presumed conception" ; it is reality.
2) you have not a clue what you are talking about, until you show me that balance sheet (in the right dimensions) that I have been asking about, here:
he greenhouse effect and the principle of re-radiation
Quote from Wikipedia (on the interpretation of the greenhouse effect);
“The Earth’s surface and the clouds absorb visible and invisible radiation from the sun and re-emit much of the energy as infrared back to the atmosphere. Certain substances in the atmosphere, chiefly cloud droplets and water vapor, but also carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, sulfur hexafluoride, and chlorofluorocarbons, absorb this infrared, and re-radiate it in all directions including back to Earth.”
I am watching with amusement all scholar discussions on the green house effect as I realised again that the people that I encounter on most scientific blogs don’t understand the chemistry principle of absorption and subsequent re-radiation. In fact very few people do understand it because if they did they would have raised the alarm bells ringing long time ago. But they all got stuck at Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. … They know that CO2 (carbon dioxide) “absorbs” in the 14-16 um region. Most people think that what it means is that the molecules absorbs photons here which then subsequently get transferred as heat to neighbouring molecules. Then it absorbs again, and so on, and so on…and all the absorbed light is continuously transferred to heat…Although this may happen up to a certain saturation point as soon as the light or radiation hits on the gas, that is in fact not what is causing the heat entrapment.
I happen to be familiar with spectrophotometry. You have to understand what actually happens when we put a beam of light of certain wavelength on a sample of liquid or gas. We have various spectrophotometers that can measure the various ranges of UV-visible -IR etc. Usually you have the option to vary the wavelength of the beam of light, either manually or automatically. If the gas or liquid is completely transparent, we will measure 100% of the light that we put through the sample coming through on the other side. If there is “absorption” of light at that specific wavelength that we put through the sample, we only measure a certain % on the other side. The term “extinction” was originally used but later “absorption” was used to describe this phenomenon, meaning the light that we put on was somehow “absorbed”. I think this was a rather unfortunate description as it has caused a lot of confusion since. Many people think that what it means is that the light of that wavelength is continually “absorbed” by the molecules in the sample and converted to heat. If that were true, you would not be able to stop the meter at a certain wavelength without over-heating the sample, and eventually it should explode, if the sample is contained in a sealed container. Of the many measurements that I performed, this has never ever happened. Note that in the case of CO2, when measuring concentrations, we leave the wavelength always at 4.26 um. Because the “absorption” is so strong here, we can use it to compare and evaluate concentrations of CO2.
The best way to experience re-radiation for yourself is to stand in a dark forest just before dawn on a cloudless night. Humidity must be high. Note that water vapour also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour you can see the light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapour. This is also the reason why you will quickly grab for your sun glasses when humidity is high, because even with the sun shining for you from your back and driving in your car, you can feel on your eyes that the light from the sun is re-radiated by the water vapor in the atmosphere.A third way to experience how re-radiation works is to measure the humidity in the air and the temperature on a certain exposed plate, again on a cloudless day, at a certain time of day for a certain amount of time. Note that as the humidity goes up, and all else is being kept equal, the temperature effected by the sun on the plate is lower. This is because, like carbon dioxide, water vapour has absorption in the infra red part of the spectrum.
We can conclude from all these experiments that what actually happens is this:
in the wavelength areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little spherical mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. We may assume that at least 50% of a certain amount of radiation is sent back in a radius of 180 degrees in the direction where it came from. (However, because the molecule is very small and therefore might behave more or less like a sphere, it could be up to ca. 62,5% ). This re-radiation in the sun’s spectrum and in the earth’s spectrum is the cooling effect, or warming effect, respectively, of a gas hit by radiation. An effect that is very similar to this, is also observed when car lights are put on bright in humid, moist and misty conditions: your light is returned to you!!
Unfortunately, in their time, Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see the whole picture of the spectrum of a gas which is why they got stuck on seeing only the warming properties of a gas (i.e. the closed box experiments). If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects. If you really want to understand what happens in the atmosphere, this rough graph / representation (on a cloudless day) is very important:
http://albums.24.com/DisplayImage.aspx?id=cb274da9-f8a1-44cf-bb0e-4ae906f3fd9d&t=o
- never mind the fact that the amounts of radiation heat from the sun’s 5525K and 210-310K from earth displayed, are completely out of proportion -
just see how the absorptions that are apparent in the spectra of the individual components of the atmosphere affect the outgoing radiation of earth and see how they affect the incoming radiation. For example, let us look at the absorption of ozone at between 9-10 um? It makes a dent in earth’s outgoing radiation at 9-10. In other words what happens: Radiation from earth of 9-10 goes up, hits on the ozone, most of which is high up in the sky and which is already absorbed to capacity, and therefore a great percentage (at least 50%, probably more) is sent back to earth, leading to entrapment of heat, leading to delay in cooling, leading to a warming effect. Also look at water vapor and CO2 around 2 um and see how that makes a dent in the incoming solar radiation. Notice that the ozone shields us from a lot of sunlight by absorbing and re-radiating in the UV region. In fact, if you really grasp what you are seeing in this graph/ representation (from a cloudless day), you would realize that without the ozone and CO2 and H2O and other GHG’s you will get a lot more radiation on your head. In fact, you would probably fry.
For comprehensive proof that CO2 is (also) cooling the atmosphere by re-radiating sunshine, see here:
http://www.iop.org/EJ/article/0004-637X/644/1/551/64090.web.pdf?request-id=76e1a830-4451-4c80-aa58-4728c1d646ec
They measured this re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth (day)-moon(unlit by sun) -earth (night). Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. You can see that it all comes back to us via the moon in fig. 6 top & fig. 7. Note that even methane cools the atmosphere by re-radiating in the 2.2 to 2.4 um range.
This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf
There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.
So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-16 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m3 / [0.03%- 0.06%]CO2/m2/24hours).
I am doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data. I have not seen any work that convinces me. In the case of CO2, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 could be underestimated, i.e. the radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 may be only 1% of its total energy output, but how many Watts per m2 does it cause on earth? Here in Africa you cannot stand in the sun for longer than 10 minutes, just because of the heat (infra-red) of the sun on your skin.
In all of this we are still looking at pure gases. The discussion on clouds and the deflection of incoming radiation by clouds is still a completely different subject.
CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle. Plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow – which is why you don’t see trees at high latitudes and – altitudes. It appears no one has any figures on how much this cooling effect might be. There is clear evidence that there has been a big increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades.
blog link removed
From all of this, you should have figured out by now that any study implying that the net effect of more CO2 in the atmosphere is that of warming, must exhibit a balance sheet in the right dimensions showing us exactly how much radiative warming and how much radiative cooling is caused by an increase of 0.01% of CO2 that occurred in the past 50 years in the atmosphere. It must also tell us the amount of cooling caused by the increase in photosynthesis that has occurred during the past 50 years.
There are no such results in any study, let alone in the right dimensions. FOR EXAMPLE, consider the fact that time must be in the dimensions.
For more on why it is considered highly unlikely that CO2 is a contributory cause to global warming, see here:
blog link removed
(the ratios show that it was maxima pushing up means and minima, not the minima pushing up means - due to a delay in cooling by increasing GHG's)
blog link removed
The above results suggest that a cooling cycle started around 1995 looking at energy-in (maxima) and 1998 for energy out (means)
-
dlorde says
If I recall correctly, most models predict that some areas of the globe will actually find their average temperature decreases
henry says
most models predicted that the arctic would get warmer,
in fact Time still shows pictures of melting ice in Alaska
......
yet the tripod in Nenana still stands does it not?
...let me check...
-
MoreCarbonOK
This is a clear warning - one more link to your blog will lead to your suspension.
imatfaal - moderator
-
I am doubtful of the analysis of the spectral data. I have not seen any work that convinces me. In the case of CO2, I think the actual heat caused by the sun’s IR at 4-5 could be underestimated, i.e. the radiation of the sun between 4 and 5 may be only 1% of its total energy output, but how many Watts per m2 does it cause on earth? Here in Africa you cannot stand in the sun for longer than 10 minutes, just because of the heat (infra-red) of the sun on your skin.
Nope, that's not why, and the number of watts is close to 10 watts, because it's 1% of the power and the sun's power density at the surface is a kilowatt per square metre. Note that the greenhouse effect is much more than that, because a lot of the visible light ends up as infrared, and gets blocked by the CO2, and that's most of the other 99%.
Ten watts is nothing, you would barely feel it.
Thanks for playing 'skeptical antiglobal warming' you have scored: 0 points
-
"Here in Africa you cannot stand in the sun for longer than 10 minutes, just because of the heat (infra-red) of the sun on your skin."
People have been standing in the sun in Africa for more than 10 minutes for a very long time.
I have done it myself.
Please be less obviously wrong in future.
-
henry@bored chemist & wolfekeeper
you are not addressing the issue
which was to tell me how much radiative cooling and radiative warming an increase in 0.01% CO2 causes
never mind the biological cooling
here you can see how CO2 causes cooling and not warming
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2012/22mar_saber/
anyway we are getting off thew subject which was the issue of the disappearing ice.
the nenana tripod is still standing
and ice is not disappearing!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/18/good-news-worlds-biggest-ice-sheets-likely-more-stable-than-previously-believed-upsets-previous-estimates-of-melting-and-sea-level/
I quote (just in case imatfaal removes my link):
Carbon dioxide and nitric oxide are natural thermostats,” explains James Russell of Hampton University, SABER’s principal investigator. “When the upper atmosphere (or ‘thermosphere’) heats up, these molecules try as hard as they can to shed that heat back into space.”
sleep well you all
all is ok with more carbon
-
Perhaps you'd like to tell the arctic towns, whose buildings and roads are sinking as the permafrost melts, that it's all just media hype...
-
henry@dlorde
example?
-
the atmosphere is pregnant
when is the water going to break?
the melting ice was CAGW’s last remnant.....
-
Perhaps you'd like to tell the arctic towns, whose buildings and roads are sinking as the permafrost melts, that it's all just media hype...
Do you mean towns and communities like Akiak, Alakanuk, Barrow, Chefornak, Chevak, Clark's Point, Cordova, Deering , Dillingham, Emmonak, Golovin, Huslia, Kivalina, Kotilk, kwigillingok, Lime Village, McGrath, Napakiak, Newtok, Nunapitchuk, Port Heiden, Saint Micheal, Selawik, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref & Unalakleet? (as identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers)
-
mazurka says
as identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers
henry says
quote?
-
Do you mean towns and communities like Akiak, Alakanuk, Barrow, Chefornak, Chevak, Clark's Point, Cordova, Deering , Dillingham, Emmonak, Golovin, Huslia, Kivalina, Kotilk, kwigillingok, Lime Village, McGrath, Napakiak, Newtok, Nunapitchuk, Port Heiden, Saint Micheal, Selawik, Shaktoolik, Shishmaref & Unalakleet? (as identified by the US Army Corps of Engineers)
Actually, I was thinking of various Siberian towns that were in a BBC (Horizon?) documentary I saw a few years ago ;-)
Also of concern is the release of methane from methane hydrate deposits in thawing permafrost, and CO2 from thawing peat permafrosts (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2007.01381.x/abstract).
The NOAA has a page on permafrost thawing (http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/essay_romanovsky.html).
-
Henry @dlorde, mazurka
remember the models said that the arctic would get warmer?
Clearly, we are on a 88 year cycle, of which I have identified (from studying the maximum temps.) where we are in this cycle.
What happened now in Nenana, also happened from 1926 to 1927, namely from 116 to 133.
It means we are only 6 or 7 years off from the droughts known in history as the Dust Bowl droughts of the Great Plains, 1932-1939. Mark my words.
To end my story I quote from the local news paper
http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/20130520/97-year-old-nenana-ice-classic-sets-record-latest-breakup-river-1
The May 20 breakup this year sets a record for the latest the ice has gone out in Nenana since local railroad workers began record keeping 97 years ago.
"It actually went out three hours to-the-minute past the previous record, set in 1964," said Cherie Forness, the executive director of the Ice Classic. To the north and west of Nenana, the Yukon River has already started to break up, causing major flooding in both Circle and Eagle.
The brutal winter Alaska experienced created more ice on the river this year. The last measurement, taken May 6, showed the river ice was 40 inches thick, and had actually grown 3 inches in just two days. By contrast, last year, the ice was only 28.7 inches thick on April 19. After that, it became too dangerous to check. But, this year’s cold may have taken most guessers by surprise.
"Over the past few years, we have seen more and more picks for early April and fewer picks later in May," Forness said.
-
The hockey stick graph is upwards, not downwards. This could not be a more basic lack of understanding on your part.
97% of scientists, including virtually all of the ones that have looked carefully at the data, including data you will not have not looked at, say that the climate is warming, not cooling.
-
Wolfekeeper says
This could not be a more basic lack of understanding on your part.
Henry says
Can I suggest you look at my last post here:
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=47800.0
perhaps that will make things clearer for you
.....especially to see that I am not alone.....
-
Frankly I trust the Royal Society and the IPCC far more than I trust a dodgy org site called CO2Science.org that's funded by Exxon.
On the one hand, 97% of the worlds scientists, on the other, a site paid for by a fossil fuel producer. Mmm, who would be more likely to tell the truth? Tricky.
-
bored chemist says
I have done it myself!
henry says
hence the saying here:
only mad dogs and englishmen go out in the midday sun.
-
henry@wolfekeeper you mean: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/05/22/the-collapsing-consensus/
-
There has been a significant drop in papers explicitly endorsing the consensus that plate tectonics drives continental drift, that helicobacter causes stomach ulcers, that ours is one of many galaxies, that quantum entanglement is a real phenomenon.
It doesn't mean they are no longer consensus, or that there is increasing doubt about them. It means they are well-established and research focus has turned to clarifying the details.
New evidence could change that, of course.
-
I hate the cold. It will be winter soon and I wanted to see how bad things are, here where I live. I looked at the change in the daily temperatures in every month of June in every year going back to 1974. Below is the graph that I ended up with. I found that from 2000-2012 we have been going down at an average rate of 0.06 degrees C per annum, in June. That is about 0.7 degrees C in total, since 2000.
With all the global warming going on, I had been hoping that things would be getting warmer, especially here in Pretoria, where we have inversion in winter, and, as a result of increased veld fires and burning of wood and coal, one expects to find elevated CO2 levels here in the winter months, trapped in between layers.
The graphs prove that adding more CO2 in the air is not going to help us one bit against the coming (common) cold……..
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblogs.24.com%2Fhenryp%2Ffiles%2F2013%2F05%2Feish1.png&hash=ce83f7f3f0a3c46970030aa382f02757)
-
Why are there only 4 points on the graph, and what reason do you have to think that taking a day in june is representative?
Also is the change in temperature, or the difference in temperature from (say) 1980? Because it looks like if you added up all the differences you get a positive temperature.
Also, error bars, where are the error bars?
This is all nonsense anyway, the consensus of many scientists doing different experiments is that global warming is happening. You won't necessarily get local warming, but you usually will.
-
It is impossible to judge global climate by looking at the weather in a single town.
Why do you only display one point every decade? Surely there is more data than that available. Then you seem to skip 2010 and go directly to 2012.
In fact, essentially your entire trend is based on a single point (2012), in a single town.
Oddly, when I downloaded the Pretoria chart (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=141682620000&dt=1&ds=14) from NASA/GISS, I see a somewhat different trend.
(https://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdata.giss.nasa.gov%2Ftmp%2Fgistemp%2FSTATIONS%2Ftmp_141682620000_14_0%2Fstation.gif&hash=593013762d49f2deacc8dd7d989147ba)
-
Ahhh,
You were not only Judging the global climate based on a few points for a single city, but also a single month.
I've plotted the month of June, based on the NASA/GISS data set above.
[ Invalid Attachment ]
I'm just not seeing the trends that you're finding.
-
henry@clifford
no I was not looking at global at all now, I wanted to know local.
<removed - see warning>
I am always looking at the average change from the average over time.
e.g. from 2012 - 1974 (which happened to be zero for June, Pretoria), from 2012- 1980, from from 2012 - 1990 and from 2012 -2000 (= one solar cycle)
I got my data from tutiempo.net
e.g.
http://www.tutiempo.net/clima/Pretoria/2012/682620.htm
Your data I donot trust, esp. from before 1974
e.g. how do you separate data where they introduced thermo couples and continuous recording from how it was done before?>
but can you give me a link?
-
henry@clifford
your data in 2006 and 2007 are completely out with mine.
It never got to 15 or 16 here ever, on average, in June, in Pretoria.
In 2006 it was 11.7
in 2007 it was 11.9
those are only the peaks that I compared.
You can keep your GISS data....
-
The link for the NASA/GISS data for Pretoria (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=141682620000&dt=1&ds=14) is above. See the link for downloadable text data at the bottom of that page.
The peak that is shown was in June 2004 (16.1°C) & June 2005 (15°C)
There are a few holes in the dataset, and no data is displayed for June 2007, and of course, not for June 2013.
The nearest other weather station being reported on the NASA/GISS system with data in 2004/2005 appears to be the Jan Smuts (http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/show_station.cgi?id=141683680000&dt=1&ds=14). For that weather station, 2004 (10.7°C) appears to be close to the average temperature for June (10.49°C), but 2005 is also high, 12.5°C, which would give further information to validate the Pretoria data.
At one time, I had read an article about the NASA/GISS data verification, but I no longer have a link to that article. I'm sure it can be found on the web. They are supposed to make an attempt to verify the validity of outlying data points by looking at other nearby weather stations, and other data sources. Certainly today there would be a number of redundant data sources which would not have been available in 1950.
Even if you just look at Pretoria, and the month of June in Pretoria, there does seem to be a slow drifting upwards of temperatures since about 1970 or 1980. Certainly it would be difficult to discern a cooling trend.