NASA: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010”

Must-read draft paper: “We conclude that global temperature continued to rise rapidly in the past decade” and “that there has been no reduction in the global warming trend of 0.15-0.20°C/decade that began in the late 1970s.”

NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) has released a draft paper “Current GISS Global Surface Temperature Analysis.”  It is a must read for warming junkies, but, as James Hansen notes in an e-mail, “it is too long for popular use.”  So Hansen offers “some of the main conclusions,” as well as a description of a rather shocking hack of the GISS website (all of which is reprinted below).  The first conclusion is:


1) Contrary to popular belief, global warming has not stopped nor has the rate of warming even slowed down in the past decade (Figure 21).

The paper predicts a new record 12-month global temperature record, and says the calendar year (2010) is likely to set the global surface temperature unless “El Nino conditions deteriorate rapidly by mid 2010 into La Nina conditions” [as happened in 2007].  NASA notes:

This new record temperature will be particularly meaningful because it occurs when the recent minimum of solar irradiance ( is having its maximum cooling effect.

Here are the rest of the summary conclusions of the paper, from Hansen’s email (I put in one relevant figure):

(2) 12-month running mean temperature is more revealing than the usual annual-mean graph, doing a better job of characterizing individual El Ninos, volcanoes, e.g., as well as providing an up-to-date assessment of annual mean temperature (Figures 9b and 10b).


(3) A new global temperature record (for the period of instrumental measurements) will be set within the next few months (Figure 10b and accompanying information).

(4) Urban effects on the analyzed global temperature are small (not a new conclusion) (Figure 3 and several more) – we account for it via satellite nightlight (Figure 1) identification of remote stations that are used to adjust the long-term trends of urban stations.

(5) Upside-down weather in the Northern Hemisphere this winter (Arctic warm, mid-latitudes cold) coincides with the most extreme Arctic Oscillation in the period 1950-2010.  The AO fluctuations from year to year are mostly weather noise, i.e., unpredictable chaotic fluctuations.  There seems no reason to anticipate frequent repeat performances – on the contrary, the slight long-term trend of the AO is toward more positive values and the (greenhouse gas driven) global warming trend has a larger effect than the AO trend on regional temperature, as well as on global temperature.  Of course winter weather will always be highly variable and those places cold enough to have snow can expect greater amounts from an atmosphere containing more water vapor.  The AO indices for the past three months are remarkable (Figure 15a), yet the cold temperature anomalies are relatively small compared to say the late 1970s (Figures 15b, 16, 17).

The paper will need a better summary/discussion section.  Not quite sure where I can send the final version.  The paper has relevance to current public discussions, but the usual scientific journals are not too accommodating for explicit discussion of that relevance.  Perhaps Atmospheric Chemistry and Physics is a possibility – which has a “Discussions” of papers pre-acceptance.  We used that journal for our paper “Dangerous human-made interference with climate: a GISS modelE study” – the referees there suggested that it was o.k. to include a brief section (Role of scientists in the climate debate), set off from the climate analysis, that included opinions about the public relevance.

Somehow we have to do a better job of communicating.  The tricks being used by people supporting denial and business-as-usual are recognizably dirty, yet effective.  We are continually burdened by sweeping FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) requests, which reduce our ability to do science and write it up (perhaps this is their main objective), a waste of tax-payer money.  Our analyses are freely available on the GISS web site as is the computer program used to carry out the analysis and the data sets that go into the program.

The material that we supplied to some recent FOIA requests was promptly posted on a website, and within minutes after that posting someone found that one of the e-mails included information about how to access Makiko Sato’s password-protected research directory on the GISS website (we had not noticed this due to the volume of material).  Within 90 minutes, and before anyone else who saw this password information thought it worth reporting to GISS staff, most if not all of the material in Makiko’s directory was purloined by someone using automated “web harvesting” software and re-posted elsewhere on the web. The primary material consisted of numerous drafts of webpage graphics and article figures made in recent years.

It seems that a primary objective of the FOIA requestors and the “harvesters” is discussions that they can snip and quote out of context.  On the long run, these distortions of the truth will not work and the public will realize that they have been bamboozled.  Unfortunately, the delay in public understanding of the situation, in combination with the way the climate system works (inertia, tipping points) could be very detrimental for our children and grandchildren. The public will need to put more pressure on policymakers, enough to overcome the pressure from special financial interests, if the actions needed to stabilize climate are to be achieved.

The paper itself is well worth reading, though not an easy slog.  Note that NASA says, “Criticism and comments are welcome and should be sent to” the email address here.

NASS GISS researchers deserve the strong support from all Americans who care about our children and grandchildren and future generations around the world.  They work tirelessly to provide the highest quality, peer-reviewed scientific research about the gravest preventable threat the human race faces — in the face of the most monstrous and effective disinformation campaign in human history.


41 Responses to NASA: “It is nearly certain that a new record 12-month global temperature will be set in 2010”

  1. Mapleleaf says:

    I would like to know who took it upon themselves to “harvest” the data, and where it was displayed on the web. I have a strong suspicion it was CA. They have done something similar before with CRU data.

    Skeptical Science has been hacked twice in recent weeks. The deniers are desperate and have no ethics, this they have demonstrated many times. Yet, the media continue to fawn over them.

    Joe, do you know if the police looking into who took the data from NASA GISS?

    So, as far as we know, thus far:

    CRU has been hacked, and had data ‘harvested’ in 2009 by CA without permission
    NASA GISS had confidential information stolen (the harvesters, had they been ethical, would have promptly informed NASA of the problem)
    Skeptical Science has been hacked

    When are the media going to wake up?!

  2. Michael T says:

    I just discovered this on the GISTEMP page a little while ago. I think this may be too technical for some people but I found it to be an interesting and informative read. Thanks for posting this.

  3. Rita Sanford says:

    Are these from raw numbers or the usual cooked Jones special numbers?

    Call Soroz aNd order more carbon credits. Keep the price up.

  4. Mapleleaf says:

    Rita @3, please actually read the document in question.

  5. Rabid Doomsayer says:
    “Sea surface temperatures across the central tropical Pacific have shown little change over the past fortnight, and hence remain at levels typical of an El Niño event. Trade winds in the tropical Pacific have remained weak, allowing the Pacific to remain warm and hence slowing the decay of the El Niño event, which peaked in late December.”

    So El Nino is still with us but weak and expected to continue for a bit.

    And solar cycle 24 records from

    SOLAR Flux – 96 (2/12/2010) SUNSPOT # – 71 (2/8/10)
    FLARE – M8.3 (2/12/2010) Geomagnetic A Indice – —
    DAYS IN A ROW WITH A SUNSPOT – 45 (3/5/2010)

    The sun is still half asleep but slowly waking up.

    So we are expecting a record global temperature when the non man caused effects would suggest a relatively cool year ahead.

    What happens with a significant solar maximum and a strong El Nino?
    Yes I know I am sounding like a broken record. The record’s stuck, the record’s stuck. (Doesn’t work with CD’s)

  6. Bob Wallace says:

    OT, but an important rebuttal for those who push the idea that increasing CO2 “is a good thing”….

    “In the first study ever done on the local health effects of the domes of carbon dioxide that develop above cities, researchers found that the domes increase the local death rate.”

  7. wanderers2 says:

    Joe, you have done some wonderful work here. Thank you. As a professional scientist (yes, 50 years-old and still kicking and actively publishing about ecology).

    You write well in a lively fashion that illustrates that complex scientific subjects are really not so hard to understand if students are presented with the basics. And if your audience is engaged enough to learn.

    Keep encouraging people to strain their brains by learning more. Bravo for your efforts — Andrew

  8. fj2 says:

    Urban Ecological Amplification Concept

    Life is intelligence and virtually the same. Nature provides everything.

    After all, human capital is a part of the vast store of natural capital.

    Just as cities serve as centers of intelligence amplification they can serve as centers of ecological amplification fully addressing the current engines of ecological repair. Rather than net drains on the environment cities can be reinvented to provide net-zero and ultimately net-positive ecological amplification including dense ecosystems to adequately address the current situation along with the requisite reinvention of the very nature of civilization itself. In the process of solving the extremely critical and difficult problem of accelerating ecological devastation the solution sets should be quite beautiful, elegant, and far-reaching.

    So far, nothing proposed or otherwise seems to come close to doing this.

    Human intelligence as a natural attribute is enhanced through greatly improved communication and interaction.

    Human mobility as another natural attribute is greatly enhanced by bringing people closer together serving as a replicable model for global human mobility which can be rapidly reinvented to incur less than one percent of its current environmental drain with the viral implementation of small vehicle transit.

  9. climateprogressive says:

    “On the long run, these distortions of the truth will not work and the public will realize that they have been bamboozled.”

    The public will be absolutely furious. One day. Not yet. But they will be.

    I wouldn’t want to be a well-known denialist once that time comes!

  10. Wit's End says:

    I think to be precise, Bob Wallace, it’s not the CO2 that directly impacts health in cities, it is the localized warming from CO2 which increases ozone levels:

    “Jacobson found that domes of increased carbon dioxide concentrations – discovered to form above cities more than a decade ago – cause local temperature increases that in turn increase the amounts of local air pollutants, raising concentrations of health-damaging ground-level ozone as well as particles in urban air.”

    Oh the other hand, my suggestion to people who claim CO2 is food for plants, is to ask them what excess calories in the American diet have done for weight gain and diabetes!

  11. Anonymous says:

    @Joe: thanks for a heads up on the paper.
    @Rita: does it ever embarrass you?

  12. Tim L. says:

    Thanks to Dr. Hansen and the brave scientists of NASA and NOAA for enduring 8 years of Bush/Cheney BS and continuing to give us timely and important warnings.

  13. Rajesh says:

    On the contrary ! The first 2 months of the current year 2010 show a fall in the Global temperature, compared to the previous years.
    Then how come this :highest Ever” et al ?

  14. Mark S says:

    By the way, for those that are interested this paper contains an excellent discussion of the differences between the GISS, NCDC and Hadley temperature datasets. It starts on page 15 and is the best analysis I have yet read.

  15. Rick Covert says:

    Rajesh, stop before you embarrass yourself. NOAA reported the hottest January temperature recorded based on satellite data and the 2nd warmest February on record. If you had just looked a few headlines down on the home page you would have found this:

  16. Jim Hansen and his team have 3 good papers here. One is how he is working to improve quality control of the incoming data while making it available to both paid skeptics and scientists for review. The second paper is on the exceptional winter weather this year. The third paper is the long-term global warming trends that you highlight in this blog post.

    Thanks, Joe, for making this draft available to us. You are doing a great job of fighting the massive disinformation campaign.

  17. Paul K2 says:

    I agree with the focus on 12-month moving average instead of calendar year data. There is nothing magic about Jan to Dec versus Mar to Feb, or Jul to Jun. Even better, could be a focus on 48 month moving average, so that the average would almost certainly have one complete ENSO (El Nino Southern Oscillation) cycle in the average. Really it would be nice to see reports with both moving averages.

    Interestingly, the UAH reports used a 13 month moving average historically, then in December, they tried to switch to a different moving average; they decided to switch to 25 months. Why? ….well, therein lies an interesting viewpoint based on the data trends.

    The UAH atmospheric temperature data from satellite measurements are more sensitive to the El Nino and La Nina conditions. In El Nino years, the satellite readings show the highest anomalies, and in La Nina years, the satellites show lower anomalies; although with a lag of 3-5 months. In July 2009 the UAH anomaly finally recovered from the 2008 La Nina and went to some of the highest temperatures in the UAH data set resulting in July 09 being the second hottest July in the record, second only to 1998. This was followed by hot September (2nd) and November (1st) monthly anomalies that ranked among the hottest anomalies for those months. By December, it was clear that the current El Nino was going to drive UAH anomalies through the roof in early 2010; which has happened with Jan 2010 (1st), Feb 2010 (2nd), and Mar 2010 almost certain to hit 1st. In December, Spencer and Christy knew the 13 month moving average was going to be setting records soon, so the decision to switch to 25 month moving average looks a little suspect.

    The 25 month average conveniently included the 2008 La Nina cool anomalies (with the delay factor), but not the 2007 El Nino warm anomalies. So by switching to the 25 month average, they would conveniently report a moving average that would obscure the trend to record high monthly global atmospheric temperature anomalies. It would work to obscure the rise through 2010, which coincidentally is the year that Congress is considering legislation to deal, in part, with AGW. Nice timely cherry picking…

    There was a moderate amount of criticism of the switch and the timing of the switch, so Spencer and Christy went back to reporting 13 month moving averages.

    Then with the release of the February report , they revised their reporting system to try and remove an annual cycle in the monthly UAH temperature anomalies, not confirmed and inconsistent with the other satellite data processor, and inconsistent with the GISS or HadCRUT annual cycle records. The UAH anomalies seem to show consistently high anomalies every January and February, and low anomalies in May and June. This strong seasonal cycle seems to be an artifact of the data processing methodology. So with the February report, they took steps to correct the problem (good thing, and about time… there were public reports about this seasonal cycle dating back to at least 2004). But until I pointed this problem to Anthony Watts rather bluntly when he incorrectly used UAH data to attack GISS data as “Way Out There” in July of 2009, and linked to a Deep Climate post describing the problem and referencing previous public reports, Spencer and Christy didn’t correct the problem. I was banned from WUWT with my posts censored by Mr. Watts for pointing out the seasonal cycle in UAH anomalies.

    But a few other brave souls suggested this needed investigation, and Mr. Watts was forced to look into it. Mr. Watts has considerable pull with these scientists, so they promised to look at the issue, and after the January 2010 anomaly showing a shockingly high number, they instituted a new anomaly reporting methodology with the February report, that reduced the reported anomaly considerably. In the end they can confidently claim that the anomaly declined from Jan 2010 to Feb 2010 (from the hottest Jan in the data set, to the second hottest Feb in the data set!).

    The switch in reporting methodology will reduce the Jan and Feb anomalies, but increase the May and June anomalies, so at this point, their new reporting system has some locked in upward adjustments that will be used for the May and June reports. As the current El Nino impacts hit these months (with the 3-5 month lag seen historically), the UAH 13 month moving average will likely exceed 1998’s all time high moving average sometime this summer.

    BOTTOM LINE: Both the GISS and UAH 12-month moving averages will hit all-time highs in 2010. These independent measures will both show 2010 as the hottest ‘year’ in the records.

  18. Wit's End says:

    JR, I don’t want to ruin your weekend, but the “balance” in this article is going to be hard to take – maybe wait until Monday to read it:

    It starts off just fine:

    “In a peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Oceanography, March 2010, Greene, Cornell professor of Earth and Atmospheric Science, has published a paper called “A Very Inconvenient Truth” along with colleagues D. James Baker, professor of the William J. Clinton Foundation and Daniel H. Miller of the Roda Group, Berkeley, California. They conclude that the United Nations Panel on Climate Change of 2007 underestimated the specific dangers that man-made climate change has created. The social problems now and in the future are considerable, according to these scientists.”

    But ruins everything at the end!

    “While Greene and others stress the risks of ignoring climate change and man’s contributions to it, 650 scientists are said to have signed on to a dissenting view, as noted in a blog by the U.S. Senate on Environmental Safety. Scientists are said to strongly disagree with the U.N. statement on climate change. The dissent is represented by a number of scientists including Ivar Giaver, Noberl Prize Winnerr for Physics, who writes:“I am a skeptic…Global warming has become a new religion.”

    found at who just published a great new book by the way: “Converging Emergencies 2010-2020” available at their website. You can even get it for free if you’re stingy and/or unemployed!

  19. Dave says:

    Stu Ostro of The Weather Channel had a nice article over at He takes a look at the “relentless winter” from a global climate perspective. If anyone is interested, the link is:

  20. Leif says:

    Dave, #19: Thank you for the link. A pony that I have been riding for a number of months is attempting to focus awareness on the energy component of global warming as opposed to the warming component which tends to sound much more benign. The added energy to earths systems equated to ~190,000 nuclear power plants dumping all their output into the environment every day with about 10 new plants coming on line per day as well. A good portion of that energy gets concentrated at the poles. With warmer poler air, (yes it it still cold, just not as cold), I would think that rather than gentle undulating of the jet streams of yore, that direction, intensity, undulation and resistance to change might all become more vigorous. This in turn would tend to set up systems resistant to change or promote intensification. Stronger polar systems might force southern jet streams to adapt a straighter equatorial course for instance. Also notice the number of major persistent LARGE systems that set up around the world. “Frankenstorm” a system of note here in the west but others as well of note. These systems were not necessarily vicious, tho some were, but notable in size or duration. Could this be the future?

  21. Richard Brenne says:

    I’m sorry I’ve had to take a break from reading and commenting about so much excellent stuff here at Climate Progress for a while to finish my book – I owe some of you e-mails as well. CP is the best single source for all the work, communication and science I most value, but in terms of my book it’s like I’m a kitten and it’s the most concentrated kitty-catnip-crack there is.

    I will say that I am working on everything we’ve discussed here – all the events are moving forward.

    This post is typical of how world-class Climate Progress, all Joe’s work, Jim Hansen and all the NASA-GISS folks are.

    This week I’m heading to meetings at NOAA and NCAR to discuss mechanisms to improve climate change communication; prevent, confront and combat the hacking of websites; and catalog threats and work with the proper authorities about them.

    Each of these things is intertwined with all the others, and Climate Progress is the central clearinghouse for the best information about how to do this. I might have to go into further hibernation to finish my book which works to synthesize the primary and growing concerns in the climate change, peak oil and other resource depletion, species loss and other most relevant scientific communities.

    Trying out various tones and styles of communication here at CP has been most helpful, as have most other commenters here, Rita and Rajesh excepted. Rabid Doomsayer (#5) and Leif (#19) make their usual great points. Rabid you’re right, when solar maximum and a strong El Nino coincide as they inevitably will, we’ll have the best possible “teachable moment” and we need to prepare for that, while doing everything we also can to communicate climate change in the meantime.

    And Leif, I love how you keep refining that excellent point about added energy in the atmosphere creating Frankenstorms, even if some, like a tiger instead of a housecat in your backyard (your great metaphor), might temporarily be mostly benign. I love the 190,000 nuclear power plants dumping all their energy into the environment with 10 coming on-line every day metaphor, but expect a few slightly less-educated folks will not see it as a metaphor, but think that’s how many nuclear power plants there are and will be, so what’s the problem?

    You’ll be hearing more from me at the conclusion of my book and in the meantime all you heroes keep up your heroic work (Rita and Rajesh, that could include you with a transformation to the side of science and morality).

  22. Leif says:

    Richard, #21: Nice to cross trails with you again if only for a fly by. The 190K+ nukes is off a post by Joe a month or so ago. I should have linked but I was in a rush. I presume that his numbers are more refined than my melted aircraft carriers so I have been using it. But like I said in the past, “it is not so much the exact numbers but understanding concepts that is important”, IMO.

    Anyway back to pleasantries. May the wind be on your back as you put that book project to sleep. Hope you are still buzzing around for a bit.

    Two Palms Up,


  23. sod says:

    Within 90 minutes, and before anyone else who saw this password information thought it worth reporting to GISS staff, most if not all of the material in Makiko’s directory was purloined by someone using automated “web harvesting” software and re-posted elsewhere on the web. The primary material consisted of numerous drafts of webpage graphics and article figures made in recent years.

    It seems that a primary objective of the FOIA requestors and the “harvesters” is discussions that they can snip and quote out of context.

    the denialists and the extreme political right are at war against science. they don t think that there should be any limit to what is used in this fight. (as the CRU hack and similar attempts demonstrate.)

    we really need to think about the right ways of countering these extreme tactics.

  24. Leif says:

    Link to 190k nuclear power plants mentioned above.

    Also all, lets get busy and “Digg” this article as Joe requested. It will not take that many to put it on top today.

  25. Mike says:

    sometimes the simpleist ideas can often be the solution.

  26. Mark S says:

    Paul 2k @17: That is a fascinating post. I check out Watts website occasionally (call it morbid curiosity) and noticed the post where Spencer was explaining the adjustment he was making to the satellite data to account for seasonality. Funny enough he partly credits Watts for helping him realize that adjustments were needed. It’s interesting to read your post and see how the whole thing actually shook out and what the implications of the changes are.

  27. Jay Dee Are says:

    Thanks for providing a condensed version of the paper. I read the whole thing and recommend that all of your readers read it.

    I have an engineering background in fluid mecahnics, heat transfer, and thermodynamics, all of which are important to climatology. As part of my job, I’ve been digesting the literature and following the news on climate change since late 2008. This paper succinctly answers a lot of questions that I have asked myself and tried to find answers to.

  28. Michael T says:

    This site has some great info/videos:

    Here is a video from laymans-guide called “The Temperature Record”:

  29. Cugel says:

    Paul K2 : Thank you so much for this summation of the UAH shenanigans. It was always clear that the Spencer and Christy method was tuned to provide the required result from existing data, and that this tactic would fall foul of new data as it accumulated. The increasingly frantic efforts to re-tune the method simply confirms this.

  30. AH1 says:

    I do not agree that the AO will trend to more positive. As the lower stratosphere continues to cool, the circumpolar circulation in the Northern Hemisphere will strengthen, dumping cold air over the Northern Hemisphere continents as it did this year. However, there will be greater warm intrusions from the south, producing even more ferocious storms than this year, and the Arctic ice cap will be left warm due to the effects of the Arctic Dipole, and reduced temperature gradient at subarctic latitudes allowing warm tropical air to flow northward over the oceans.

    The likely new record high in global temperatures to be set this year is near the solar maximum, meaning that around 2012-2015 it will be even warmer due to the high solar activity, excacerbated positive feedbacks (such as the methane clathrate and permafrost feedback), and possibly even increased CO2 emissions as the economy picks back up. What this means is that global warming will likely reach yet another “tipping point”, allowing it to accelerate, if significant action is not taken soon, beyond our control.

    By the way, Joe Bastardi is predicting global temperatures to cool down to around 2000 levels by 2011-2012, due to a La Nina. However, this blatantly assumes that global warming is not occurring, and ignores the fact that an El Nino may resume and that warming may well accelerate in that time period. The world has been debating global warming for far too long, and if we don’t do something soon, then every generation after ourselves will be made to suffer the consequences of our inaction for these few, short decades.

  31. Ebel says:

    The temperatures from satellite measurements are determined by the received intensity of microwave radiation at various frequencies of the oxygen on the radiation transfer equation (RTE). Taking as parameters of altitude the pressure, the RTE is in the infrared range:

    dI / dp = k * [-I + B (T)]
    In the microwave range, the RTE is different:
    dI / dp = – k (T) * I + Q
    For isothermal conditions, which do not exist naturally in the atmosphere, is dI / dp = 0 and I (T)
    I (T) = B (T) or I = Q / k (T) = B (T)

    The joke is now that the skeptics in the infrared range RTE refuse to recognize, however, the infrared remote sensing and skeptics the infrared form of the RTE together and not use the microwave form of the RTE. The result is that almost leveled temperture because the more microwave radiation from a warmer troposphere through the colder stratosphere is “almost leveled” – is the warmer temperature of troposphere is hardly measured.

    A second is that the temperature gradient in the troposphere is determined by vertical circulation (nearly adiabatic) and condensation and the radiation characteristics have almost no influence on the gradient. Change of gradient are hardly justified by more CO2, but would otherwise be justified. Long-term averages (eg Hohenpeissenberg) show rising temperatures, but an approximately constant gradient.

    The difference between the two forms of the RTE comes through the Boltzmann relationship of the occupation densities exp (-hv/kT). ) At low frequencies (microwave range hv / kT almost zero) at high frequencies (infrared hv / kT>> 1). Modified is the whole in both cases by the fact that the lower energy state is not always the ground state) (keyword: internal partition sum).

    See also:

  32. HR says:

    I accept that the year has got off to a hot start but doesn’t the inherent variability of the climate make this sort of prediction a little unscientific? Shouldn’t this sort of statement be left to pundits rather than top scientists?

    [JR: Do you realize what you just wrote? You want political pundits to project the future climate, not expert climatologists. Seriously! Try reading what Hansen wrote before making such silly comments.]

    Secondly, not to diminish the data loss, is a person mistakenly making their password freely available and somebody making use of it more a case of the insatiable nosiness of people rather than evil hacking.

  33. toby says:

    Ebel (#31),

    Thank you for your information, however I am afraid your post is beyond my modest understanding of physics.

    Can you define the terms in your equations (I, B, etc)? Better still, give us a reference to a website or text that has a fuller discussion of radiative transfer, sufficient to understand how the satellites measure temperature.

  34. PurpleOzone says:

    Password issue:
    I should think the hack of the GISS computer and subsequent posting of material would be taken very seriously. Government computer usually have very ugly warnings against violating the law in using them. I think this act has drawn FBI attention. Hacking government computers does.

    An excerpt from “The Computer Fraud and Abuse Act”:

    “(6) knowingly and with intent to defraud traffics (as defined in section 1029) in any password or similar information through which a computer may be accessed without authorization, if–

    (A) such trafficking affects interstate or foreign commerce; or

    (B) such computer is used by or for the Government of the United States;”

  35. Ebel says:

    toby (# 33),

    Sorry – my English is not good.

    I is the radiation intensity
    B is the Planck intensity
    k is the absorption factor
    Q is a source term with no temperature dependence.

    The RTE ( is the implementation of time-dependent Einstein equations ( and ) into a path-dependent equation.

    Erroneous theory of satellite measurements:

  36. toby says:

    Ebel (#35),



  37. paulm says:

    More climate chaos…
    “They’ve never seen it like this,” Kohaykewych said. “Everybody I talked to said they didn’t expect [road conditions] to turn so quickly.”

    Two men killed after third fatal avalanche in B.C.
    One Revelstoke Heli Skiing company shuts down for the season–two-men-killed-after-third-fatal-avalanche-in-b-c

  38. Gabriel B. Atega says:

    The problem with the science associated with climate change advocates is its being hinged with CO2. This simplistic association of climate change to CO2 is generating suspicion and skepticism, specially so since large sums of funding money are involved.

    The fact is the Earth has been warming since after the peak of the last ice age. The warming has been driven by something other than CO2. It is not CO2 that is bringing about the climate change but the transfer of water from ice to ocean and ultimately to the atmosphere. This water transfer process has been going on since immediately following the retreat of the ice sheets. Today’s warming acceleration is not due to CO2 but due to global deforestation which have taken place only during the last 100 years following the housing construction boom in developed countries (Japan, Europe and USA) that bought harvested trees from Southeast Asia, Africa and South America after they decimated their own forests.

    Deforestation is the main driver of human contribution to climate change as it accelerates the hydrologic cycle and transfer of water to the atmosphere as water vapor. There are other contributors: the Earth’s precession and the enlargement of heat generating cities.

    The increase of water vapor in the atmosphere has brought about the weather contrasts that we are seeing: heavy flooding and heavy snowfall and droughts in many places. It is the water that makes these weather contrasts that are used inappropriately to argue for the skeptical positions and denial in climate change.

    Water by the way has a capacity to absorb heat twice that of CO2, and it is more plentiful in the atmosphere than CO2. It is lighter than air so it rises up to the highest portions of the atmosphere. CO2 on the other hand is heavier than air, and it is bound to precipitate and be absorbed by plants, plankton, and bacteria that are on land and on sea. There is, therefore, a need to monitor water vapor volume in the atmosphere much more than we need to do with CO2. This is one area that scientists are not paying attention to as there is no funding available.

    There is definitely a need to subdue the forces that will bring people all over the world to unpredictable hardships arising from crop destruction, inability to time planting with the changes in seasons, and disruptions in transportation in air, land and sea.

    We cannot allow the warming process to continue until it reaches the point that we can no longer manage the weather situation. That is when it will be difficult and more expensive to grow trees because the soil have totally lost the moisture and its fertility. Now is the time to restore the forests and seek ways to achieve weather equilibrium. We should observe the correlation between the increased presence of water vapor with the behavior of the weather.

    We need to subdue the Earth as much as our destructive selves. We need to bring back the forests and possibly increase its area of Earth surface cover to compensate for the melting waters from the polar caps.

  39. Paul K2 says:

    Gabriel wrote:
    The increase of water vapor in the atmosphere has brought about the weather contrasts that we are seeing: heavy flooding and heavy snowfall and droughts in many places. It is the water that makes these weather contrasts that are used inappropriately to argue for the skeptical positions and denial in climate change.

    Water by the way has a capacity to absorb heat twice that of CO2, and it is more plentiful in the atmosphere than CO2. It is lighter than air so it rises up to the highest portions of the atmosphere. CO2 on the other hand is heavier than air, and it is bound to precipitate and be absorbed by plants, plankton, and bacteria that are on land and on sea. There is, therefore, a need to monitor water vapor volume in the atmosphere much more than we need to do with CO2. This is one area that scientists are not paying attention to as there is no funding available.

    Gabriel…. what a load of pseudo-scientific nonsense: Please, PLEASE talk to someone who knows something about chemistry before you embarrass yourself any further.

    The molecular weight of molecules is NOT the key factor in determining how high up into the troposphere and stratosphere the molecules will rise, relative to different molecular weight molecules. Water is a polar molecule that forms a liquid in a pure state at 0 deg C, whereas CO2 is a less polar molecule that forms a liquid only under pressure… even 100% CO2 doesn’t form a liquid at atmospheric pressurel, and needs about 5 bars (about 60 pisig) and a -57 deg C temperature to form liquid. At pressures common in the atmosphere, even 100% CO2 would remain a gas until at least -78 deg C. CO2 is present in the atmosphere at only 390 parts per million.

    The only way that CO2 would precipitate out, is by absorption into water droplets (rain). This is governed by Henry’s Law, where the CO2 absorbed is proportional to the CO2 partial pressure. But only a very small amount of CO2 will be removed by rain,because the partial pressure of the CO2 is so low. Nevertheless, the removal of CO2 by absorption by the water, especially the water present in soils and the ocean represent carbon sinks that are hugely important in removing over 50% of carbon emissions from fossil fuels each year. Without these carbon sinks, we would be seeing dramatically higher CO2 concentration buildup in the atmosphere, than what we are currently experiencing.

    Water will condense out of the atmosphere whenever the water concentration exceeds the saturation point of water in air, and as the temperature of the air drops with height up through the troposphere, the water concentration drops dramatically until the coldest part of the troposphere is reached (the tropopause). Above the tropopause, the stratosphere begins and the temperature begins increasing again. The tropopause represents a barrier that water vapor has a difficult time crossing. There have been a number of recent papers talking about changes in the very small water concentration in the stratosphere; usually the water vapor composition in the lower stratosphere is less than 10 ppm.

    CO2 doesn’t condense out at the tropopause, so CO2 concentrations in the upper troposphere and stratosphere are similar to the 390 ppm in the lower troposphere, contrary to what you state.

  40. kiwithicko says:

    Just a question – is it just a coincidence that WWII temporarily halted the rise in land/sea temperatures(see graph)?? Maybe another war will help us out in our time of need – Step forward Sarah Palin!

  41. Jaime Frontero says:

    Mike @ 25:

    Ummm… not so much, Mike.

    If one brings (‘bubbles’) the cooler water from the deep ocean, with the goal of cooling the surface, one winds up warming the deeper ocean. You’ve heard of conservation of energy?

    The cold part of the ocean – you know: where all the methane is frozen and prevented from being released? Methane – you know: 20 times worse as a global warming gas?

    There is no way to effectively mitigate climate change other than by stopping the release of CO2 into the atmosphere. *That* we’ve got a handle on. But all these other schemes have unintended and unknown consequences.

    We already did that…