Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.
True, all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced together. However, in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET etc by NOAA prior to being distributed for use by organizations like GISS. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias.
In the recent data replication fiasco, GISS blames NOAA for providing flawed data rather than their failure to catch the repeated data from September to October. In that case they are correct that the issue arose with NOAA, but in business when you are the supplier of a product, most savvy businessmen take a “the buck stops here” approach when it comes to correcting a product flaw, rather than blaming the supplier. GISS provides a product for public consumption worldwide, so it seems to me that they should pony up to taking responsibility for errors that appear in their own product.
In the case above, what could be the explanation for the product changing?
It certainly changes the “best-fit” curve line for temperature trend, upwards naturally of course!
I note that in the latter graph, temp red line is omitted at 1880, bringing temp down not appear to extend passed 2005, so why it is labelled US temps to 2008 I cannot think!
These adjustments add mostly a positive bias – what you mean is, these adjustments mostly remove a negative bias.
As for why the numbers might change years after the event – one thing that happened after 1999 was improvements in how to correct for urbanisation effects. Correcting urban stations in a different and hopefully better way obviously changes the data. Would you rather they didn’t seek to improve the data, and instead never re-examined it and just left it frozen in a potentially flawed state?
RW,
So UHI provided a negative temperature bias? I would think it would have provided a positive bias to past urban stations.
You will notice that the change moves the 1990’s peak annual temperature from well below the 1930’s peak, to either equal with, or just above the 1930’s peak. Fascinating.
One explanation I have heard is that many stations lack a value for one or more months. These values are filled by using an average over time. This average is recalculated every month. So the temperature of a station (or nearby stations) reported this month can change the average value that is used to “fill” missing values in the past.
My bifocals need recalibration. The fact that it is not known why the numbers have been changed is the primary concern. The rant who what when why and where is all about standards with version control. Without standards on data and programs archive this flippant disregard for science will continue. The cost is immense.
“Would you rather they didn’t seek to improve(sic) the data”
Yes.
“Correct for urbanisation effects”
How have recent temps in the graph got hotter, and ones from 1900 got colder if that’s the case?
Look at the data!!
[snip] no ad homs please – Anthony
From what little my little pea sized brain can understand it that most of the adjustments for UHI seem to more often than not to not change the urban stations to any useful extent down but to adjust the rural stations upward to match the urban set. I don’t know how you can adjust in any way temps from 50+ years ago with any accuracy or dependability for correctness in an unbiased way. especially since a considerable amount of the old rural stations have now been affected by urbanization. There are to many problems with the surface stations to give them a pass at this time. If the stations in the U.S. are supposed to be the best in the world It makes me wonder about the rest of the world.
Bottom line is that I don’t trust the method that GISS uses nor NOAA used to adjust for urbanization. There fore I shall wait for better science before I complete my mind set. It would be a shame to destroy the economy of the world to cure a non problem.
Bill Derryberry
Anthony,
I have just written a summary of what you call the fiasco here.
It ends with 6 questions regarding GISS, to which I have just added yours.
1. How many other errors, less obvious to the casual observer, are there in the GISS data?
2. Why does GISS not carry out any checks on the data before publishing it?
3. Where and how did these errors arise? As you rightly say, blaming NOAA is no excuse.
4. Why are there gaps in the GISS data, when the “missing” data is readily available?
5. Why has GISS’s number of stations used dropped so dramatically in recent years?
6. Why are so many of the remaining stations at airports? (Three quarters of the GISS stations in Australia are at airports.)
7. Why does GISS keep adjusting past temperatures, as shown here?
The GISS temperature record is a conflict of interest.
How could a global warming advocate be in charge of a temperature record that is used by various organizations to set policy?? This is a equivalent of hiring Donald Trump to be in charge of the gambling addiction center. What’s really needed is an independent body to keep an expanded minimally adjusted surface temperature record using only quality stations that meet vigorous standards which is thoroughly gone over with a fine tooth comb to find any inconsistancies, such as those that have been occuring over at the GISS, not just recently, but in the past as well and must be transparent to the public.
The GISS simply does not meet these standards and should be discarded, overhauled, or have new folks put in charge.
Let’s go over why such an organization is needed.
1. Independent body.
There needs to be a surface temperature record kept by an organization that publishes the data without little caveats such as “2007 would have been the warmest year on record is not for (that damned) La Nina.” or “We expect 2007 to be the warmest year on record due to the ongoing el nino event” (remember that one from the HadCru guy at the beginning of January last year?)
2. Minimally adjusted stations
This one should be easy. What the temperature says is what the temperature is. With all the hoopla continuing about the latest GISS October 2008 Siberia gaffe, one can compare the temperatures entered into the GISS analysis and those from weather wunderground and notice that the GISS repeatedly adds 1-2°C to the monthly averages for many stations used in their analysis. Of course, this also ties into #3 which is using data from quality stations that meet vigorous standards. In fact, one can eliminate #2 is using data from these quality controlled stations instead of contaminated ones either by UHI effects or being placed by buildings, A/C units, parking lots, or by a groove of young trees that will eventually grow to shade out the temperature sensor.
4. Gone over to find any inconsistancies.
Obviously this is a problem for the folks over there at GISS
Excerpt from Gavin Schmidt on RC in response to a comment
“Current staffing from the GISTEMP analysis is about 0.25 FTE on an annualised basis (i’d estimate – it is not a specifically funded GISS activity). To be able to check every station individually (rather than using an automated system), compare data to the weather underground site for every month, redo the averaging from the daily numbers to the monthly to double check NOAA’s work etc., to rewrite the code to make it more accessible, we would need maybe a half a dozen people working on this. With overhead, salary+fringe, that’s over $500,000 a year extra”
It would appear to me that not only are they under budget, but they’re also understaffed. Apparently, the GISS isn’t equipped to handle the job properly. So why is it that an under budgeted, understaffed organization is put in charge of publishing one of those most important record keeping endeavours in western society today. With all that hangs on global warming – taxes, policy, future of the economy – wouldn’t we want to have one of the more pestigeous (in the eyes of policymakers, environmentalists, governing bodies, etc.) record keepers of global temperatures be an efficient and well-organized group of independent scientists rather than a mistake prone, non-transparent, metric run by an advocate?
5. Expanded network of stations.
Quoting Gavin Schmidt once again
“There were 90 stations for which October numbers equalled September numbers in the corrupted GHCN file for 2008 (out of 908). ‘
Only 908 stations used for the October 2008 GISS analysis whereas some 40 yerars ago there were double the number of stations used to derive an average global temperature. The stations used are becoming more and more spare and mysteriously, certain stations are being left out of the analysis. Why is there a different number of stations used from month to month and why do certain stations report one month but not another. This would qualify the GISS dataset as non-homogonous and therefore worthless. But it will continue to be trumpted as the most often cited dataset of the global temperature record by alarmists, despite all the past errors found, all of which artificially inflated temperatures.
crosspatch (09:15:04) :
One explanation I have heard is that many stations lack a value for one or more months. These values are filled by using an average over time. This average is recalculated every month. So the temperature of a station (or nearby stations) reported this month can change the average value that is used to “fill” missing values in the past.
Therefore, if we are alledgedly warming, and those warmer values are used to skew the past missing data, then the previous data would be rounded up by this “adjustment”.
Better take a second gander at the graphs.
Does anyone know if the original, unadjusted, uncorrupted temperatures for all stations over the years are still available? I believe it is very likely that all the garbage that Hansen tosses into the soup will be shown (eventually ) to be seriously flawed. Is there a record anywhere of the temperatures actually recorded at each site.
I wrote a piece on this topic a few months ago for The Register. It appears that the period from 1930 onwards was transformed by a counter-clockwise rotation, as can be seen in the video below. That creates the effect of older temperatures becoming colder, and younger temperatures becoming warmer.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/02/a_tale_of_two_thermometers/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oNI_devHg7w
A few moths ago someone on Climate Audit suggested Hansen’s law of temperature conservation. “If the present refuses to get warmer, than the past must become colder.”
It’s man-made climate change, I tell yer!
Except that it is changing retroactively :-)
I think it oerfectly obvious why the old data changed:
We know that the earth is in thermal equilibrium,
and since Hansen’s old temperatures keep going down,
so his newer temperatures HAVE to keep going up.
It’s the same reason that North Canadian and Alaskan temperatures show cooler temperatures: all of Hansen’s (unavailable, unaudited, un-maintained, un-standardized, and inconsistent) Siberian thermometers keep going up.
Alan the Brit,
True, on the 1999 example the red line shows that the 1880 anomaly was zero or very near to zero. The 2008 simply does not show it. Of course the many adjustments have changed the trend, but still the 2005 graphic shows a mere .1 or .2 difference from high in the ’30s. Also as you mentioned, the 2008 is not current, which would put us within a whisker af 1880. Can someone please explain to me again why this warming is so catastrophic?
“Oh what a tangled web we weave, When first we practice to deceive”. Sir Walter Scott
Is it a deception, or a carefully prepared scientific reconstruction of temperatures for the edification and benefit of mankind?
“All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best.” Occam’s Razor
Anthony
This ‘anomaly of anomalies’ has been known for some time. It is part of the continuous uppdating of historic temperature data which is the hallmark of James Hansens strivings.
(Another quicker blinking version already appeared some years ago, in 2005)
But it gets even better. Look here:
An even earlier version of that graph was published by Hansen in his 1999 paper on GISS- temperatures, see Fig 6 p37.
I suspect that the reason for publishing this was that 1998 was so warm (due to the major El niño event, although they state the opposite.
1998 is when US-temperatures reached the highest level since 1934 (but still trailing by ~0.6°C)
In the 1999-version of your graphs, this distance had shrinked to about 0.25°.
However this wasn’t quite good enough for Hansen et al. Shortly after a new (recalculated) version appeared in 2001, where 1998 essentially had caught up with 1934 (at least in the US). This is the second version of the same US-temperature data, shown in the blinking figures. In this paper Hansen et al also purport to present a rationale for adjusting up later temperatures, and adjusting down earlier ones.
There, essentially, you can find the official answer to your questions.
1998 hade essentially caught up the entire 0.6° it had been trailing behind 1934 earlier, and solely by Hansens ‘updating’ of the temperature record!
In comparison, the entire observed global warming trend over last centurey was about 0.6°, regardless of how much of this might be attributed to AGW
Steven Goddard (09:49:06) :
You know, sometimes it all snaps into clear focus.
The imaginary number “i” is a rotation operator!
Temperature data, meet imaginary numbers!
Or as Gavin Schmidt puts it in his answer (to comment 174):
The GISTEMP analysis is not … the ‘historical record’
(my emphasis)
Interesting gif presentation. Does the gerrymandering of the GISS data get Hansen the “smoking gun” he was looking for in Hansen et al, 1999 (section 11.1.3)?
See pdf file. http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/1999/Hansen_etal.html
Anthony: Does the GISS change reflect the differences between the USHCN versions 1 and 2? I believe the switch was made in 2007.
It appears to me, based on the dates of the references, that the USHCN (Version 1) was “corrected” per the following prior to 1999.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/ushcn.html
It also appears that the USHCN (Version 2) was introduced after 1999, but again, there’s no clear date listed on the following webpage.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
This one helps clarify when the change took place.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/hcntmptrends.php
But are these the changes reflected by your graph?
The purpose of GISS in my opinion is propaganda. It’s quasi scientific and so complicated that it’s hard for the mainstream media to assess the quality of the claims being made. It gets the job done though for the alarmist cause…
A quite simple explanation, I suspect. “The end justifies the means”.
I’ve characterized this phenomena, and it is surely a natural phenomena unrelated to any human intervention, but one not realized until recently, as Temporal Teleconnection with The Past. It’s a quantum-effect kind of thingy.
I’m working on a Properly Peer-Reviewed Paper for an Approved Climatologists-Type Journal having an extremely high Impact Factor. That’s how Science Works and that’s what Scientists do.
I’m also hoping that a bunch of Not-Certified Climatologists don’t find a problem with the concept before I get it published. I didn’t have time to check my results.
The Owner may snip at will, of course.
Bill Marsh – if, before 1999, urbanisation effects were over-corrected, an improved algorithm would reduce the correction. Your problem seems to be that you are so blinkered and prejudiced that you can’t possibly think about the issue in a scientific, objective way.
Bill in Vigo – “From what little my little pea sized brain can understand it that most of the adjustments for UHI seem to more often than not to not change the urban stations to any useful extent down but to adjust the rural stations upward to match the urban set” – your candour about the size of your brain is admirable. Urban adjustments work in precisely the opposite way to what you described.
ANTHONY, BETTER CHECK THIS ONE, ESP LAST PARA. ~ EVAN
We all know it has cooled and has done for quite a while.
For the scientific community in more normal times it would be just a matter of noting changes up or down and what if anything it was telling us lomg term..if at all.
However these grapths are nothing to do with the fate of the world.
By closing the argument on the theory of AGW from the start and going as far as calling sceptics “Holocaust deniers” the “Warmers” have raised the stakes against themselves.
Every bit of data is in fact about the long term future of all leading AGW scientists, their lifestyle and importance…and of course the excuse for politicians to use AGW as a means for taxation and for the various stock exchanges to trade in carbon offsets.
How on earth have we got to this stage?
Well…..using climate models that put in the positives of the argument and ignoring the negatives is a good start but so much more.
Do not expect the Hansens and Gore’s of this world to admit they are wrong…early retirement or a low profile will be the order of the day.
PS
[snip] not relevant to this discussion – please don’t post on this topic contained in the [snip] again – Anthony
Why does this look like a page from George Orwells “1984″? Revisionist…… rewriting history to support the present policy. This makes me ill.
Braden, I think the quote that may be most relevant here is:
He who controls the present controls the past. He who controls the past controls the future.
What troubles me is not that errors occur, it’s the possibility that erroneous data may be used to determine future economic and public policy.
Mongo,
Welcome to the New America.
Hang on for a lot more in the months ahead.
What I find amazing is that the chart is based around +/- 1 degree C. How many mercury thermometers are accurate, or at least readable, to less than 1 degree C?
Climate change ‘to halt ice age’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm
A future post perhaps.
“if, before 1999, urbanisation effects were over-corrected, an improved algorithm would reduce the correction.”
They certainly were overcorrected if you need to keep the alarmism going. Since every adjustment seems to result in more warming, we are correctly skeptical. Do you have any evidence that urbanization effects were overcorrected before 1999, or are you simply making it up to let Hansen off the hook?
Ahh yes, but can they change the sun?
Two thumbs up Phil … You nailed it.
RW
Take a look at the data. Your hypoothesis that UHI was overcorrected before 1999 simply doesn’t hold water. What you need to postulate is that in 1999 it was discovered that UHI was:
Undercorrected for 1880-1900
Overcorrected for 1900-1968
Increasingly undercorrected after 1968
Sounds pretty plausible, yes?
Looks like they are gradually phasing out the infamous ‘hockey stick’?
Sneeeeeky. ;-)
Record high temperatures by continent:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Continent.jpg
Interestingly, none of these were in the ’30s, and none of them were more recent than 1974.
As I suspected. Watching the blink comparator there was an obvious “kink” in the adjusted data circa 1964. Then Jonas N. provides a link to an early Hansen paper where, sure enough, there is a “kink” in the adjustment in 1964. See Fig 3. p35. Indefensible.
RW: “Your problem seems to be that you are so blinkered and prejudiced that you can’t possibly think about the issue in a scientific, objective way.”
Then please explain to us in a scientific, objective way how it happened that they apparently over-corrected for UHI from 1970 onwards as well as before 1900, but apparently under-corrected between 1900 and 1970?
“Change” for the Worse
By Alan Caruba Friday, November 14, 2008
Previously I have written that the global warming hoax was essentially dead and that the many Green organizations advocating all kinds of programs to wreck the nation’s economy were “desperate.”
I was wrong.
The Sierra Club, the Friends of the Environment, and the countless other Green organizations are euphoric and they have reason to be.
The election of Barack Obama and a Democrat controlled Congress has put the Greens in the driver’s seat and we face at least four and possibly eight years of executive orders, legislation, and regulation based on a scientifically baseless lie that will introduce Americans to what life is like in Third World nations where electricity is both costly and unpredictable.
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/6277
People can say whatever they want, but in my opinion the keyword in all this is “fabrication”. I have been critizised for my position on this but I maintain that with all these “brilliant” and “professional” scientist it has to be next to impossible to screw things as they do. Considering a declared goal to prove global warming and AGW, one can only become hugely skeptic about what´s going on when temperature readings of earlier times are consequently being corrected downwards and at the same time the temperatures of the last few decades are consequently being corrected upwards. It just doesn´t match up.
If you watch it, you can see that the updated graph tends to flatten out the older data while the newer data gets a more steeper slope.
Frigging bogus is you ask me. Maybe they are trying to help Mann’s hockey stick II.
janama (11:48:30) :
“What I find amazing is that the chart is based around +/- 1 degree C. How many mercury thermometers are accurate, or at least readable, to less than 1 degree C?”
As an ancient weatherman, I can truthfully state that every official mercury thermometer I used was quite easily read to the nearest tenth of a degree with no more error induced than plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.
For me, the message is somewhat diluted by having the two graphs show different data: The 2008 version drops the 5-year trend for the leftmost section of the graph (around 1805), and adds-in the extra data post 2000.
This effectively creates a strawman for people trying to distract the discussion from the changes in the data. Any chance that someone could repeat the graph using the same data periods (only)???
REPLY: Unfortunately the 1999 data in raw form is not available to redo this. But if anyone knows of it, please advise. – Anthony
GISS is corrupt.
Apparently by design.
M White (11:51:40) :Climate change ‘to halt ice age’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm
A future post perhaps.
I have to say, the second paragraph stands out for me.
“Based on geological history, the Earth would be expected to enter a new ice age in 10,000 to 100,000 years. ”
Lets assume that the 10,000 years is correct, I think it’s a little far fetched to even assume mans influence on the planet then. I feel this is another nonense report on behalf of the BBC.
So according to RW since a whole string of unsubstantiated, undocumented and darn unlikely conjectures explaining the historic changes might be true, we should just accept these changes. We should not question them or ask how they came about, we should just BELIEVE!
Heck they might be true and I might win powerball tomorrrow. The second of the two is a higher probability, though I haven’t bought a ticket.
Why is all of this so important? The Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision in April 2007 apparently held that CO2 was an “air pollutant.” Using that decision, the Sierra Club succesfully appealed a permit granted by EPA on the basis that the EPA failed to apply “BACT” or best available control technology to limit CO2 emissions from a second waste-coal-fired electric generating unit at Deseret Power Electric Cooperative’s existing Bonanza Power Plant near Bonanza, Utah. Permits for over 100 new coal-fired plants and expansion of refineries now appear to be in legal limbo, pending a decision by the new administration over what the BACT would be. The EPA appeals board, in a historical understatement, said: “In remanding this permit to the Region for reconsideration of its conclusions regarding application of BACT to limit CO2 emissions, the Board recognizes that this is an issue of national scope that has implications far beyond this individual permitting proceeding.” http://yosemite.epa.gov/oa/EAB_Web_Docket.nsf/Recent~Additions/C8C5985967D8096E85257500006811A7/$File/Remand…39.pdf
IIRC, coal supplies about 50% of our electricity and no new refineries have been built in decades – only existing ones have been expanded. Since CO2 is now apparently classified as an actual “air pollutant” AND this decision may now serve as a precedent requiring control of CO2 emissions, ANY future emissions of CO2 will probably now be required to be regulated. No mention is made of how this will affect future political campaigns or oratory in Congress.
What means TOBS, SHAP, FILNET ?
Thanks
It is not necessarily a nefarious scheme to increase the warming trend:
Giss does make retroactive changes to in filled data based on monthly averages that are, of course, always changing as more data is collected and averaged.
Plus, doesn’t Giss retroactively remove stations in the past if they find a problem with, or lose one today? I think I read that somewhere. Now, I dont like their method, but:
These retroactive data revisions would cause chaotic changes to the historical temp graphs over time.
I think it’s time to put a lawyer on this case.
Find a professional GISS data user in Europe too and start the lawsuit on two fronts.
It could put a legal bomb under the whole AGW scam that will cost as all deerly because Government policies are based on the data.
Let us all put some dollars on the table, find a good lawyer few interested parties and let’s sew them.
I also believe there is a certain congressman who has spoken out against the AGW hysteria?
@M White (11:51:40) :
“Climate change ‘to halt ice age’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm
”
Well spotted. It’s looking like the mighty BBC AGW lobby is getting nervous!
They’ve seen their bolthole- and it has two faces :
(1) CO2 may be less of a factor in ‘Climate Chaos’ than originally thought – But that doesn’t mean we should use more fossil-fuels!
or
(2) Thanks to recent advances in Climatology – spurred on by NASA funded ground-breaking research – Negative aspects of decreasing Global temperatures can be painlessly mitigated by swift, unified action!
Ach weel- whatever
Why would 1964 be the pivot point?
From Hansens CV:
NASA Graduate Traineeship, 1963-1966
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/files/cv/cv_hansen_200702.pdf
radar (14:46:43) :
Think of it this way. You conduct an experiment. After you conduct the experiment, you find out that (a) some of your instruments were either miscalibrated, defective or improperly located, (b) external factors that you did not take into consideration or measure at the time the experiment was running have affected your measurements, (c) some of the measurements during the experiment were not recorded, (d) you used different instruments to record measurements over different time periods at different locations during the experiment. You find all of this out AFTER you have been running the experiment for many years. Then, instead of throwing out the data as hopelessly compromised and starting the experiment over with these factors corrected, you (a) do a study estimating how miscalibrated, how defective and how improperly located your instruments were and apply adjustments to all past data to “correct” the improper reading, (b) you do a study to estimate the effect of the external factors at the time you discover the problem and apply adjustments to all past data to “correct” the effects of the external factors even though you have no idea what the effect of the external factor actually was for a given instrument at the time the data was recorded, because you only measured the effect years later and then at only some locations, (c) you “fill in” any missing data using data from other instruments and/or from other measurements by the same instrument, (d) you do another study to determine how best to deal with measurements from different instruments over different time periods and at different locations and apply adjustments to all past data to “correct” for differences between readings from different instruments over different time periods at different locations. Then you continue running the experiment, while you continue applying all of your adjustments on an ongoing basis to all past data as new measurements are recorded. Finally, you believe that all of your data has been meticulously recorded with great accuracy and any uncertainties are minimal. Then you proceed to use the results of your experiment to justify changing policies for the entire world at a cost of many trillions of dollars, with the unerring belief that your experimental data is completely reliable.
Why are so many of the remaining stations at airports? (Three quarters of the GISS stations in Australia are at airports.)
PaulM, one interesting factor concerning Australian airports is that a number have had irrigation installed. Geraldton, Western Australia is a good example used by GISS. On Google Earth you can clearly see the green grass around the terminal and runway, while surrounding areas are brown scrub. From memory the weather station is directly in front of the terminal right in the middle of that nice green irrigated grass.
While UHI gets all the attention, I believe irrigation heat islands are much more widespread and have a greater impact on the temperature record. Due to the potent local greenhouse effect of water vapour.
Why are the honest but gullible scientist not “jump ship” ?
Sure risking carrier and live style is relevant, but honour and conciseness should overwrite fear! The politicians are very sensitive of the wind direction!!
If a scientist aware of the political manipulation of any data, and not raise their voices they are guilty as charged for collaboration of this treason.
What they are not releasing, is that, after the free World destroyed, the gravy-train is go with it!! Like cutting the tree branch one sitting on….
And of rant :(
Thanks Antony for your work.
Jonas N!
Your HANSEN article from 1999 also have another interesting content:
Take at good look at fig 3, (The figures comes after the reference list way down)
See something?
UHI. Hansen is in 1999 actually counting UHI for 2 – 3 whole degrees Celcius in big towns. In general GISS reduces with 0,05 degrees today.
Fact is, that there are many more urban temperature stations than rural.
Hmmm?
Heres the link http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/docs/1999/1999_Hansen_etal.pdf
This is typically what the models predict/hindcast (GISS Model E):
http://i36.tinypic.com/14e15sl.jpg
There is no temperature hump in the mid 20th century – so that, like the MWP, is a problem for the modelers.
The hump in the US temperature record still exists – but it has progressively disappeared from the temperature record elsewhere.
The 1975 National Academy of Science publication “Understanding Climatic Change” included a graph of Northern hemisphere surface temperature from 1880 to 1968 which showed a big hump in the northern hemisphere:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DSCN4904-nas-a.6_crop.jpg
This Northern hemisphere temperature hump and the 1940 peak, which appears to be some 0.3C higher than today’s GISS, is no longer there.
See also:
http://solarcycle24com.proboards106.com/index.cgi?board=globalwarming&action=display&thread=214&page=1#4567
cheers
Arnost
And to get on my other schtick. We know that UHI and other anthropogenic effects are influencing temperature records. What we don’t know is which stations are influenced by which effects and by how much. The UHI is little more than finger in air guesswork and we know so little about the other effects like irrigation that no one has even attempted to adjust for them.
The solution is simple. We only use stations remote from known and unknown anthropogenic effects. What I call pristine sites. This is the only possible way to measure any global (average) temperature change.
Statistically we need less than a 100 sites to get an acurate measure of global temperature and a 100 pristine sites certainly exist.
That should have read,
The UHI adjustment is little more than finger in air guesswork ..
Mr. Watts,
I wasn’t sure the best place to leave this question, but hope you find it here and can comment.
With all the interest in the current sunspot cycle, I haven’t seen anything about the next cycle, #25. You, and/or your readers, may have seen this article on NASA’s website: http://science.nasa.gov/headlines/y2006/10may_longrange.htm
This article says that, not cycle 24, but cycle 25 is supposed to be the real downer. I have seen nothing on it recently, and am wondering if this is still believed to be likely.
Thanks,
Bruce
Looks like about 20% of the recent “warming anomaly” is introduced by the “corrections” . I think it speaks to how noisy our surface data set is really. Someone needs to quantify the “noise levels” of surface data with some statistical error bars. We know from Anthony’s work how many stations have issues & are collecting less than pristene data. I am sure surface data from around the world have similar problems. Anyway, if noise levels could be quantified, temp records could be displayed with error bars instead of just a single line. I would bet that the error bar would be at least half as big as the anomaly. I am sure there would be those who would complain that “it is too confusing” or “it is a distraction to those who don’t understand” (read : it makes it harder to support the AGW agenda with that display) . Well, this is science. Uncertainty needs to be quantified & understood. Not everyone is trained in math & science & they should not expect to understand (unless this is just about politics, then you can display whatever you want). This analysis sounds like something that might be right up Steve McIntyre’s / CA’s alley. I would be very interested to see that analysis. Does it already exist somewhere out on the web?
It looks to me like they want to increase the R2 value of the overall relationship, by straightening it out. They achieved this by lowering the values from 1930-1950, including the anomalously warm values around the turn of the millenium, and then ending the plot before the recent cool-down… and yet they claim that you ‘can’t spin nature.’
“Mike Bryant (12:49:39) :
Record high temperatures by continent:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/Continent.jpg
Interestingly, none of these were in the ’30s, and none of them were more recent than 1974.”
That link has an all-time high of 59F for Antarctica. But apparently it was 72F there only last month in spring-time!
http://www.wunderground.com/history/station/88963/2008/10/28/WeeklyHistory.html
Note GISS has the same monthly mean for the station for last month as Wunderground :)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=301889630008&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
[ btw several stations on the Antarctic Peninsula do appear to have genuinely had a record-breaking mild month in Sep though.
http://www.antarctica.ac.uk/climate/surfacetemps/ ]
Thanks Chris I guess I can delete that file.
Speaking of the head of GISS, where is Hansen in all of this? [snip]
REPLY: Dr. Hansen typically stays above the fray, and Dr. Schmidt deals with the PR. – Anthony
RE:
Any chance that someone could repeat the graph using the same data periods (only)???
REPLY: Unfortunately the 1999 data in raw form is not available to redo this. But if anyone knows of it, please advise. – Anthony
For the purposes of this display, it would easy to digitize the data & create a new display with the same dates. If you are interested, send me the graph, I’ll digitize & send the data back to you. Obviously, this isn’t perfectly accurate, but for a visualization, there would be no visual difference.
More on Base Esperanza:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Esperanza_Base
“……The temperature trend since 1948 is……..”
“……Built in 1975, the base houses 55 inhabitants in winter, including 10 families and 2 school teachers. Provincial school #38 “Julio Argentino Roca” was founded in 1978 and acquired independent status in 1997. The LRA 36 Radio Nacional Arcángel San Gabriel radio station started transmitting in 1979…..”
“……The 43 buildings of the station have a combined space of 374,400 square metres (4,030,000 sq ft) covered; 18,000 litres (4,800 US gal) of fuel are used annually by the 4 generators to produce electricity for the station…..”
“…….The Base has tourist facilities that are visited by approximately 1,100 tourists each year…….”
Not urban heat effects again surely?
c.f. http://www.geography.uc.edu/~kenhinke/uhi/HinkelEA-IJOC-03.pdf
re: Barrow, Alaska
e.g.
“…On a daily basis, the UHI is best developed under calm, cold conditions and can reach hourly magnitudes exceeding 9 °C; this reflects the increased (anthropogenic) heat input at this high-latitude site…”
Population of Barrow? 3,982.
UHI applies whatever the population, whether it’s a large city, Alaskan village, or Siberian base.
Nice illustration, Arnost.
But remember, this is not fraud. I would never intimate such a thing. This is a rigorous scientific effort to refine the data.
[snip] – ad hom – please refrain, Anthony
In my line of work, this is known as cooking the books, and can result in a perp walk if discovered and prosecuted.
Philip_B – if you go to weatherzone
http://www.weatherzone.com.au/wa/central-west/geraldton
and click on Full Climateology – top right in the bottom section, on the next page at the bottom is the coordinates for the weather station, copy and paste it into google and there you are. The Geraldton unit is not near the terminal and is not in irrigated land according to the google image taken april 18 2006.
You can see all the sites in the system following this method.
Note to readers.
I often make sarky posts, such as the previous one. But I do take this all very seriously. I follow the science and study. It’s amazing how much I have learnt and how many preconceptions I have had to drop.
However, I am that little boy who points out the nakedness of the emperor.
Derision is necessary for these 6-figure salary high priests and their 9-figure cult leader, Al Gore. And their billion dollar multinational churches of Greenpeace, Sierra Club, World Wildlife Foundation, etc.
Mike – you shouldn’t have had it in the first place.
Perhaps you will enjoy this if you haven’t already seen it?
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/badwater.htm
( link courtesy of http://wattsupwiththat.com/2007/11/18/ushcn-in-the-ass-end-of-nowhere/ )
try this one for Sydney for very nice UHI effect :)
33.8607°S 151.2050°E
oh no!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg
I appear to have had posts rejected for the first time at RC. Does that mean I’m a “skeptic”? It sounds kind of nasty. I’d always thought of myself as, well, myself. Now it appears I may belong to a category! I blame a certain dhogaza for provoking me too much.
Still, it seems the “dark side” has both a better sense of humour, and even the chance of free brownies (which blog was that at again, “where climate talk gets baked”?! lol – Lucia you have style!) so it could be worse.
Kate (09:33:16) said
“The GISS temperature record is a conflict of interest.”
How about the UAH temperature record? UAH is a product of Spencer and Christy, who are well-known AGW skeptics.
What’s good for the goose….
IMO, the fact that GISSTemp and UAH agree so closely over the long run
http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg
shows that even if either group has an “agenda”, the underlying temperature signal is still coming through, loud and clear.
Chris, thanks again that was very interesting reading.
“UHI applies whatever the population, whether it’s a large city, Alaskan village, or Siberian base.”
Oops, I meant to say “…..or Antarctic base.” But of course it applies to a Siberian base just as to the others. Perhaps I had Siberia on my mind….. Not to be confused with Iberia of course. Where at the closest operational rural GISS met station to Madrid (up on the sierra at Navacerrada) the mean temp was 6.7C in October. I mean such a figure in northern Siberia would be inconceivable in October right :)
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=643082150000&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
(1) no codes released
(2) no QA at NOAA
(3) no QA at GISS
(4) insufficient funding for QA
(5) irregular records
(6) crackers records
(7) stations disappearing
(8) stations badly sited
(9) suspect inadequate compensation for UHI
(10) weird retroactive temperature adjustments
(11) lousy level of credits to WU & CA for ongoing audit work
(12) antediluvian programming
For the most hugely costly global project… standards that wouldn’t wash at high school level? Time for Woodward and Bernstein to testify methinks?
Chris, nice link to John Daly’s pages.
In honour of him, GRHS, his familly keeps these pages alive on the web.
This was the first place I met someone who was as sceptical as I. Now people like Anthony, Loehe, Mceh, etc. are continuing the struggle for reason, and slowly gaining ground.
“Vincent Guerrini Jr (16:35:47) :
oh no!
http://arctic.atmos.uiuc.edu/cryosphere/IMAGES/current.365.jpg”
An appropriate moment to remember the following:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2918/anomalykm3.gif
(thanks Mike Bryant, and others)
And perhaps I might also be forgiven here for recycling this recent post of mine from CA in the context of the poles:
Chris:
November 8th, 2008 at 4:36 pm
It’s also interesting to note that according to RSS TLT, Oct 08 in the Arctic/highest latitudes (60.0/82.5N) at +0.452C was cooler/less warm than Oct 1980 (+0.883C), Oct 1981 (+0.680C) and Oct 1987 (+0.620C). Even given the Arctic is now post-tipping point and 5C above “normal”. (Apparently).
While around Antarctica (-70.0/-60.0S) Oct 08 at -0.696C appears to have been the coldest October in the satellite record (i.e. since 1979). No wonder the ice has been slow to melt there with the approach of SH summer.
ftp://ftp.ssmi.com/msu/monthly_time_series/rss_monthly_msu_amsu_channel_tlt_anomalies_land_and_ocean_v03_2.txt
Phil:
“Why is all of this so important? The Massachusetts v. EPA Supreme Court decision in April 2007 apparently held that CO2 was an “air pollutant.”
My understanding ( I read the decision many months ago) is that the Supreme Court simply said that the EPA’s decision that it was not an air pollutant, based on the EPA’s then-existent reasoning, was erroneous, and remanded back to the agency. The Supreme Court did not decide that it was a pollutant – it doesn’t have that authority. It just said that the agency decision wasn’t legally supported. The EPA could still find that it is not an air pollutant simply by concurring that either there is insufficient evidence that CO2 significantly affects temperatures, or that there is no data that any climate change will be detrimental.
I did a couple of posts on this phenomenon last year – http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1139 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=1142 . The principal reason for the change are USHCN adjustments developed by Dr Karl – primarily the TOBS adjustments – the introduction of which to the GISS record is reported in Hansen et al 2001 and have been discussed from time to time at CA.
Paul M:
I’d add one more question:
If the raw temperature data arranged over a time interval does not accurately reflect temperature trends over that interval, how is it possible to verify that the adjustments you make to that raw data DO accurately reflect temperature trends over that interval? In other words, what measurments are used to objectively verify that your adjusted data is in fact an improvement over the raw data?
Robert – yes, I came across John Daly’s site some time ago when I was (innocently) looking into issues to do with global temperature records.
I don’t share your optimism though. The “debate” was lost long ago. IMO ground could only be gained either through a prolonged period of flat temperatures/cooling forcing a revision of consensus assumptions, or through a genius taking climate science to another level. On the first point, at least the work of people like Anthony Watts means that such an outcome would be noted more widely for what it was. On the second point, well, John Daly was “still waiting for greenhouse”, but I’m afraid we’re all still waiting for a truly consensus-busting scientist. (Yes I know Spencer has written interesting stuff on clouds…..And if his logic was that overwhelming he would be a household name by now…….Not saying he’s totally wrong though, please note.)
There is another point which is the whole philosophy of “alarmism”. I instinctively find it quite an unhealthy approach to life, but it’s hard to counter because it plays on not-quite-fully-defined fears – i.e. the fears that unsettle people the most, while being hard to rein in once they spread.
Again I can’t see who might be able to shift the paradigm.
Most likely the world will just “get on with it”, as it always has done, and people will muddle through the greenhouse issue like any other. There is something attention-seeking about “alarmism”, and as such perhaps the best approach is passive resistance or just simplying ignoring such people unless they present a balanced view. It’s bad enough if they get morbidly obsessed with the issue themselves, without more of us becoming forced to get obsessed with countering their obsession. Get out and enjoy life people! That’s what it’s about. There’s no point preserving it otherwise whether at 0C, 3C or 6C warmer….
Chris V. (17:05:00) :
How do you square your scary looking chart with this chart, posted on this site?
Or with this chart? We can observe a more accurate metric by looking at the y-axis zero baseline from 1979 through mid-2008. Note that global temperatures fluctuate both above and below the zero baseline.
Or with this chart, which decimates the claim that satellite temps are inaccurate; they closely track daily radiosonde balloons. It is the surface stations that have skewed temps due to the UHI, among other factors. Note that the entire 0.6 degC warming comes from surface station measurements, not from satellite or radiosonde measurements.
I noticed the source for your chart. It’s an alarmist blog. Even so, it states:
GISS diddles with the base period [among other 'adjustments'] in order to convey the message they want. Despite your graph showing fictitious global warming, the fact is that global temperatures continue to decline. There is no “warming signal.” The Earth’s temperature has been flat to trending down.
janama, I suspect either the location given for the Geraldton airport weather station is wrong or for some reason the Google satellite image doesn’show the green grass.
Anyway, at the link below there is a picture of the Geraldton airport Bureau of Meteorology office. Note the nice green grass surrounding the building and the where the weather recording station is located (in the foreground).
Forgot the link
http://www.bom.gov.au/weather/wa/geraldton/
As a follow-up to Arnost’s comment, the 1940s hump in US temperature is due in part to the significant multiyear El Nino at that time. When smoothed with a 25-month filter that El Nino stands out above all others during the 20th Century.
http://i38.tinypic.com/10nxs84.jpg
Unfortunately, as you’re aware, most GCMs, even coupled GCMs, do not account for ENSO, and those that do do a poor job of it.
Globally, the Indian Ocean response to that El Nino is responsible for much of the hump.
http://i37.tinypic.com/6gy13m.jpg
Arnost’s link to the Model E hindcast also illustrates how GCMs rely on volcanic aerosols to create inter-annual variability. Without it, the Model E simply creates an exponential curve.
http://i33.tinypic.com/ednad.jpg
Here’s the same curve compared to global temperature anomaly.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2a68ggp.jpg
And here’s a graph of the Model E output with all forcings including volcanic aerosols compared to global temperature anomaly.
http://i37.tinypic.com/2h4aza1.jpg
I discussed the Model E in two posts here:
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/giss-model-e-climate-simulations.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/09/giss-model-e-climate-simulations-part-2.html
Regards
Chris: apparently I too, am now banned from Real Climate. ah, well, it will save me time to do things like…..well…..work, I guess. If I have too.
Good catch on the Siberian numbers. I hope you have collected all the exchanges, to show to your grand kids.
“…then, just before the great cooling, there was the time I found errors in NASA’s GISSTEMP, AND done by the father of global warming…now, what the heck was his name?”
Bruce Pettingell (15:42:57) :
This article says that, not cycle 24, but cycle 25 is supposed to be the real downer.
Hathaway has revised his prediction many times as it so far refuses to fit the “great conveyor belt” model…but altho i doubt his and Dikpatis’ predictions the fat lady hasnt sung yet.
Lots of others are predicting a far weaker SC24
http://landscheidt.auditblogs.com/
crosspatch (09:15:04) :
This is covered in
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/04/08/rewriting-history-time-and-time-again/
Surely the world should have access to the raw data archive, together with an archive of supporting information relating to quality, calibration, validation?
Then anyone can produce their own analyses and cross-check for sanity and bias?
smokey:
“How do you square your scary looking chart with this chart, posted on this site? Or with this chart?”
I, for one, would love to see someone elaborate on this. A while back, I compared the monthly trend charts at NASA with the annual trend charts, and invariably I noticed the same seeming discrepancy. The monthly charts show little, if any trend, but somehow, when NASA averages the anomolies over the course of the year, you have this right-hand tail that shoots up.
At first, I assumed it was just a random statistical artifact of where the annual cutoff points are. But when this distinction between the two charts continues, year after year, I can’t make any sense out of it. I don’t think it can be explained merely by scrunching the horizontal data points on the graph in th eyarly chart, nor does it make sense to say that the annual averages keep going up because all the monthlies are above average with respect to a baseline. The latter could occur for one year, but how does year number 2 beat the previous one when the monthly trend over the two years stays the same, or even drops?
Smokey (18:25:13) :
Where did I say that satellite temps were inaccurate? I said UAH and GISSTemp match very closely over the long run. My graph (and yours) both show that.
So what’s your beef?
My guess is that you object to my graph because it shows surface temps back to 1880, so it doesn’t emphasize the recent, short-term fluctuations.
But looking at the big picture shown in the graph I posted, I see quite few time periods where there were five or ten years of flat or declining temperatures (including several during the satellite era) very much like what we’re seeing today.
Yet after those time periods, the long term rise resumed.
I have seen nothing anywhere to suggest that the most recent flattening is any different than (most of) those.
Are these last few years the start of a new trend? Maybe. But right now they’re not much different than the short-term weather noise we’ve seen previously.
Chris: That’s part of the problem. Both Hansen and the IPCC have said that CO2 forcing is now greater than natural variability.
Obviously its not.
Which raises the question: If the current negative trend is natural variability, how much of the previous warming was also natural variability?
Chris V., you didn’t say satellite temps are inaccurate in your post, but the site you linked to did.
In fact, surface station measurements show a significant warming, while MSU measurements do not. Despite the proven UHI effect, James Hansen relies on surface station measurements. Why do you think that is?
And since you want a graph that goes back to the 1800’s: click
We can see that the planet’s temperature fluctuates naturally, both above and below the zero baseline. There is nothing unusual happening to the climate. Nothing. The climate naturally fluctuates, and it is currently within its normal parameters.
There is no cause for alarm.
“Brother, can you paradigm? “
Could anybody teach me the present numbers of temperature data that are used to construct the trend graphs, for GISS and NCDC separately ?
Any information on the historical change (certainly decrease) in the data numbers is very much appreciated. Thanks.
Smokey (19:55:15) :
The site that graph came from didn’t say the satellite temps are inaccurate; it does say that the satellite temps have their own problems (just like the surface temperature measurements).
I’d be happy to discuss some of the problems with the satellite temps, if you like.
As for the temperature trends for the satellite and surface station data (1999-2007):
UAH: 0.14 degrees/decade
RSS: 0.18 degrees/decade
GISSTemp and Hadcru: 0.17degrees/decade
All warming.
Which one is correct? No idea, but I would say that the best evidence we have shows the 1999-2007 warming trend to be somewhere between 0.14-018 degrees/decade.
Of course that doesn’t mean that trend will continue, but you can’t deny that the trend is there!
Regarding the graph you linked to- are your sure thats a GLOBAL temperature? It looks to me like US temperatures (about 2% of the globe). The fact that it’s in Farenheit is suspicious…. ;)
Les Johnson (19:49:05) :
I assume you’re addressing me (I’m Chris V.- there’s a “Chris” who posts here too).
I think they say that CO2 forcing is more powerful than natural variability over the long run. They do not dispute that natural variability can cause big short-term changes (like the super strong 1998 El Nino).
Yes Philip_B – But that’s not the terminal – it’s another building on the same site. You can see the unit on google and it’s dry grass – I suppose it depends on the time of the year it’s taken.
Still waiting for Brother Hansen to explain this:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GISSvs_Hansen.JPG
or this
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/RSSvs_Hansen.JPG
Chris V.,
Check out Bill Marsh’s links above, then get back to us.
I understand that you’re a sincere believer in AGW, but you really should look at what Hansen is trying to sell.
Smokey (20:57:08) :
Are the 1999-2007 trends I posted wrong?
Whether Hansen is “trying to sell something” is irrelevant. The question is: do other researchers, using their own methods, get the same results as Hansen?
We have four different temp anomaly sets, by four different groups, using two completely different data sources (surface stations and satellites), and they all get very similar results.
If Hansen is fudging the data, he’s not doing a very good job!
Also, if you think Hansen is trying to sell something, do you feel the same way about Spenser and Christy (who produce the UAH temps)? Spenser and Christy (well known AGW skeptics) are certainly as publicly vocal as Hansen. One of the two, I think, is even Rush Limbaugh’s “official climatologist”.
And the temp graph you posted IS for the US only- ushcn is the US Historical Climate Network.
Bill Marsh (20:44:40) :
I dunno, Hansen’s projections look pretty good to me, all things considered.
I would be interesting to compare Hansen’s projections from back then to some from the skeptical side (Gray, Lindzen, Spenser…?) and see who got closer to the mark.
Remember, back then many on the skeptical side were saying there was no warming trend at all.
Does anyone know if the original, unadjusted, uncorrupted temperatures for all stations over the years are still available? I believe it is very likely that all the garbage that Hansen tosses into the soup will be shown (eventually ) to be seriously flawed. Is there a record anywhere of the temperatures actually recorded at each site.
Well, it’s sort of a complicated story.
My understanding is as follows:
NOAA/GHCN collects raw data and applies its own adjustments. The adjusted data is sent to GISS. GISS applies an algorithm that “unadjusts” the NOAA data (why they do not simply start out with GHCN raw data is unknown to me). Then GISS applies its own adjustments.
So you would need the NOAA raw data. (But you would probably want the TOBS adjustment, making it semi-raw. That’s a very legit correction assuming it’s properly made.)
But I have heard a nasty story that the raw historical data was deleted. If if anyone wants to comment on this, I’d appreciate the info. So I can’t say if what you need is available.
(Even if it has been deleted, there’s the off-chance someone has copies.)
What means TOBS, SHAP, FILNET ?
Heads up! These are not in the Glossary and they definitely should be.
TOBS = Time of Observation bias. Depending on what 24-hour periods you use, you can get some very interesting distortions of the data. The TOBS correction fixes this.
SHAP = Station History Adjustment Program. This adjusts for station moves or urban creep. (Or else it doesn’t!) Bad/Incomplete SHAP is at the heart of the surface station problems.
FILNET = A program that fills in a station’s missing data by means of an interpolation algorithm. A subject of great controversy. One of the great advanatages of automated collection of data is that it cuts out the “human element” and (in theory) leaves no gaps in the data record.
Chris V,
Your claims that gistemp and uah are tracking closely are not accurate. Over the last 10 years, giss is rising dramatically and uah is doing the opposite.
gistemp trend vs. uah trend since 1998
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1998/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1998/trend
I dunno, Hansen’s projections look pretty good to me, all things considered.
Remember, back then many on the skeptical side were saying there was no warming trend at all.
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html
One of the two, I think, is even Rush Limbaugh’s “official climatologist”.
That would be Spencer. However, the “official title” is entirely unofficial – and jocular.
The tongue in Rush’s cheek is nearly always lost on his detractors, including those who pride themselves on their fine-honed sense of irony. But such is the way of the wicked world. (Sigh.)
They both hail from the same bolt bin as Hansen. Spencer and Christy share a 1991 NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal.
UAH: 0.14 degrees/decade
RSS: 0.18 degrees/decade
GISSTemp and Hadcru: 0.17degrees/decade
All warming.
Which one is correct? No idea, but I would say that the best evidence we have shows the 1999-2007 warming trend to be somewhere between 0.14-018 degrees/decade.
Whoah, Nellie!
I have no doubt that the trend from 1999-2007 is positive.
But 1999 – 2000 was the big la Nina immediately following the 1998 el Nino.
Either you have to include both the 1998 AND the shallower, but longer 1999-2000 low (which cancel each other out near the left side of the graph) or else you have to plot from 2001.
It should also be noted that there was a triple El Nino 5/02-3/03, 7/04-2/05, and 8/06-1/07. So to be “fair”, you have to include the La Nina that followed and carry forward through 2008 (and on after la Nina ended).
And one should show all this and carefully explain what bumps are included IN and which bumps are included OUT. Otherwise one runs the risk of cherrypicking.
I would also point out that to be even clearer, the trend from 1978-1998 (max gain) should be one graph, the 1998 – 2008 (max loss) graph be another.
In order to consider a cycle, one MUST study it from low point to high point, and then from high point to low point or else you have a far less meaningful measure.
oops, my bad- those trends I gave are for 1979-2007, not 1999-2007.
As I was saying, long-term.
kurt (17:53:19)
I think it will probably take a few more years for this to play out, but, at this point, it appears as if this decision by the Supreme Court will end up having the effect of declaring CO2 to be an “air pollutant.”
James Hansen at GISS, a life long demigog pontificating on political matters which will impact on all of our lives from the safety of a tenured position, is the reason why California voters approved term limits for politicians.
We need term limits for civil service workers also.
oops, my bad- those trends I gave are for 1979-2007, not 1999-2007.
Oh. Alright, then.
I agree that the trend is up. But also consider that we still don’t have a full cycle. We have a full “up” part (1979-98) and we have a stable part with all the main cycles in or about to be in warm phase (1998-2007). And Now we have the beginning of a cool phase starting sometime in 2007 as the PDO reversed and other cycles seem about to follow suit.
When the cycle completes, we can judge underlying trend and (if it is higher) argue if it’s continuing recovery from the LIA or if it’s AGW. If it’s lower, we can argue whether AGW is wrong or else AGW is right but the dead sun is to blame.
The GISS divergence is more apparent after 1998.
Rod Smith (13:49:12) :
As an ancient weatherman, I can truthfully state that every official mercury thermometer I used was quite easily read to the nearest tenth of a degree with no more error induced than plus or minus one-tenth of a degree.
I have been working in nuclear power for 20 years and have never seen an analog thermometer with that kind of precision. We were always trained that one can read half the interval of the scale accurately. In other words, if the instrument is in 1 degree increments, it can be read accurately to 0.5 degree. We used to make fun of guys with a “calibrated” eye who claimed to be more accurate.
That being said, there is a difference between precision, accuracy, and repeatability. Precision has to do with the size of the increments on an instrument. Accuracy has to do with the ability of the instrument to sense the parameter measured and display it correctly. Repeatability has to do with how closely the instrument displays a given temperature, for example, compared to every other time it has displayed that same temperature. I can have great repeatability and precision and still have an instrument that is not accurate (for example, the zero point is shifted 5 degrees). One other item an accuracy, all instruments drift over time and must be calibrated on a regular basis. If the stations that Anthony is surveying are not calibrated, the data is not defendable. Period.
Something else that bothers me on the temperature measurements. The best resistance temperature detector (RTD) we can buy for a nuclear reactor has an accuracy of about 1% of the calibrated range. Most places in the U.S. would need a range of at least 100 degrees F to cover the temperatures experienced over the course of a year. That gives an accuracy of 1 degree for an RTD, probably less for a mercury thermometer. In my world, 0.4 degrees or less of variability is just noise in the data and we spend a lot of time and money to ensure accuracy.
It seems visually clear that the climate temperature record consists of separate time segments each with completely different slopes.
Any model that fails to explain and reproduce those segments is simply inadequate to predict the future.
The first problem is our data coverage, span and quality is inadequate to qualify any model.
The second problem is that we don’t understand the systems well enough to produce good models.
The third problem is that even if we did understand them they would be too complex for the computing power available.
The fourth problem is that even if we had enough computing power we don’t have enough information to initialise the models adequately.
The fifth problem is that the systems are chaotic and we don’t know if the initial conditions determine long term outcomes.
That’s not so different from traditional chemistry where the physical theory might all be known but the test-tube rather than mathematics is both the first resource and the ultimate arbiter.
However, the sixth problem is that in climate science we can’t do experiments – at least at present. We can only observe those nature does for us.
Humility would be a good start.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/earthnews/3458927/Himalayan-glaciers-could-disappear-completely-by-2035.html
Daily Telegraph Uk has a story with pictures from 1968 an 2007 showing Rongbuk glacier from similar viewpoint. One showing snow covered mountains with glacier, other showing almost bare mountains with no glacier.
Does anyone know if this happens seasonlly? Am sure glaciers don’t come and go like that.
Are there other factors that affect this area? Like the humidity does for Kilimanjaro….?
The web page does not seem to have the dramatic half page picture spread that is in the actual paper today.
A couple of points. Data from Urban areas should not be adjusted to account for ubanization. The temperature in urban area does increase because of the urbanization and that is the temperature. Plain and simple. I know you think I am an idiot at this point.
The problem is that we shouldn’t be using point data to make temperature predictions for the entire earth. If we need to correct temps then that shows that the original data isn’t good for the application it is being used far. Just a sucky way to measure earth temperature. Opens the door to bias.
From the Daly link above, notice this:
NASA 1998: Global temperatures during last century was 0,5 degrees C
See: http://www.klimadebat.dk/forum/attachments/nasa1998.jpg
In a period later they talked about 0,6 degrees, and today you often se 0,7 degrees.. So its not just the US temps that are creeping up, its also the global temps.
Chris…on “Antarctic” Base Esperanza 72F or 22C … Grouchomarxing it…
If you don’t like that number I have others…:Tu Tiempo +4.6C That was on
Oct 26 2008…They have Sept at -0.1C as opposed to your? link 0.0C! Second
warmest September was 1984!!! Fate’s irony…-1.3C [TT 5 days missing]…
So Weather Underground got their numbers from??? Captain Stormfield??
A question about “the anomaly” the quantity on the Y-axis.
I guess the anomaly is calculated by subtracting te long-year average temperature from the measured average of any given year.
Between 1999 and 2008, the long year average apparantly hasn’t changed !!
When you calculate a “new” long year average, including the warmer years after 1975, you will see more of the graph below the X-axis. When the average becomes higher, the anomalies become smaller and more negative.
We all know why GISS doesn’t calculate a new long-year-average and new smaller anomalies.
The graphs would turn out much less dramatic and alarming.
It’s all politics.
GISS’ extra UHI/adjustment/etc. temperature was compared to UAH between 1979 and 2007 only 0.068 degrees C, which is at most 0.25 degrees in 100 years.
Isn’t that about as much economic affection on the GISS temperature record in the 20th century as Patrick Michaels and Ross McKitrick found in this research?
http://www.spectator.org/dsp_article.asp?art_id=12492
http://www.uoguelph.ca/~rmckitri/research/jgr07/M&M.JGRDec07.pdf
This, and bad weather stations and UHI, were a fraction of them is very bad, is of course not acceptable and shall be targeted, but an important question may be if the small (maybe) 0.25 degrees C offset error per century will increase (like a dragon who raise his neck…?) so that it can be used to “prove” say 1.0 degrees C temperature change the coming decades where there is no such temperature increase?
I don’t think that. Certainly not if the NASA folks doesn’t get extremely creative and have extremely good intuition about how to set the scientific society under some deep hypnosis. They must probably be more vital than Beatles. I don’t think James Hansen has even a small fraction of Beatles creativity…
But, anyway, maybe they can get a political decision from UN about +2.0 degrees C?
No, I don’t like to speculate in conspiracy theories. We got to curb down the 0.2 or 0.3 degrees C per century, because it may be a problem in one or two hundred years, where alarmist environmentalists refer to this low quality biased science.
That’s what I think. I doubt NASA can prove AGW in decades with a +0.05 degrees C bias…
Steve McIntyre wrote:
The principal reason for the change are USHCN adjustments developed by Dr Karl – primarily the TOBS adjustments – the introduction of which to the GISS record is reported in Hansen et al 2001 and have been discussed from time to time at CA.
Is this the same “Dr. Karl” of the NCDC who never an academic Ph.D.?
Chris V.:
Despite your correction above [and thanks for that], I should point out that using 1999 as a baseline year will produce a radically different conclusion than using a 1998 baseline.
We all tend to cherry-pick to some degree to support our conclusions, but one factor that seems to be routinely ignored is the fact that the planet has been steadily emerging from an Ice Age for the past 11,000+/- years.
This results in a continued natural warming trend. No one has provided any proof — only computer model prognostications — that this natural, mild warming trend has anything significant [or even measurable] to do with increases in carbon dioxide.
Unless some reasonable, empirical evidence emerges proving that CO2 is the villain that alarmists claim it is [instead of what we already know: that more atmospheric CO2 is beneficial to plant and animal life], then the correct position to hold is one of rational skepticism regarding the AGW/CO2 hypothesis.
What kind of empirical evidence do you need? I mean ,there are a lot of measurements of the CO2-induced greenhouse efect…
“Humans may have prevented super ice age”
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn16026
And for everyones ammusement “Ten predictions about climate change that have come true”
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/books/article1984755.ece
Chris V. wrote:
I dunno, Hansen’s projections look pretty good to me, all things considered.
I think what you fail to consider in the graphs is that the Hansen projection that should be compared with GISS and RSS is Hansen A, which matches real-world CO2 levels. The Hansen B and Hansen C are based on the assumption of massive CO2 limits.
Hansen A comparison
Consider the red line.
Sometimes it seems that the argument regarding continuous temperature adjustments on historical data sets are like arguing about how many angels fit on the head of a pin.
On Oct 27, 1969, there was one temperature. Obviously, that temperature cannot change. So any model that produces continously changing “adjusted” data can’t be accurate. This isn’t to say that an adjustment to the data can’t be made, such as adjusting for UHI or other factors. But that’s not the same as saying “It’s 62degs today, so Oct 27th, 1969 must have been warmer than it was yesterday.”
What am I missing? How can a model like that even exist? I know I’m not a scientist…but it just seems to be common sense, which I know isn’t always that common.
Jim
Did anyone catch the latest IPCC spin on soot? They’re conceding it’s worse than thought, but they’re still claiming brown clouds mask heating from CO2.
This, even though over the Indian Ocean basin Ramanathan’s team found that sooty brown clouds enhance heating by half of CO2’s claimed effect, not masking it by half as had previously been thought. Ramanathan will let fly an amazing revelation & then has stood by to let the IPCC steer.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iiDlfwqOC5I71KgFjzSBuany-hrAD94EBGJ80
Alan Wilkinson,
I think that is the best summary I’ve read of the problems with climate models.
Thanks,
Mike
Flanagan (06:01:32) And one quite indirect measurement of the CO2 effect on climate is the temperature record of the last seven years, and that measurement is strongly suggesting that the IPCC’s conception of climate sensitivity to CO2 is exaggerated.
====================================
Flanagan. Mention one then…
@M White (11:51:40) :
“Climate change ‘to halt ice age’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/7722300.stm
”
Slightly OT, perhaps, but the bit which stands out for me is: “In the last 100,000 years, global CO2 levels increased by around 1.5 parts per million”
Where do they get such unmitigated nonsense from?
@leebert
Looking at this paper Atmospheric Brown Cloads by Ramanathan et al published in 2008 http://www.unep.org/pdf/ABCSummaryFinal.pdf it states on page 11
5. The combined GHG and ABC forcing is 1.8 W m-2 with a 90 per cent confidence, confidence interval of 0.6 – 2.4 W m-2. By comparing this with only the GHG forcing of 3 W m-2 (90 per cent interval of 2.6-3.6 W m-2), it is seen that aerosols in ABCs have masked 20 – 80 per cent of GHG forcing in the past century.
This compares with the summary from nature http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html which states in part
We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers
Why do I get the impression of confusion
Anthony,
Will you comment regarding the “right turn” in the graph? I seems to be quite “unnatural”…….
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Maybe unnatural isn’t the correct term…….Abrupt? Queer? Abnormal?
http://nsidc.org/data/seaice_index/images/daily_images/N_timeseries.png
Katherine (06:13:00) :
I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.
Smokey (05:52:28) :
I’m sorry Smokey, but I will have to disagree with you about the baseline. Changing the baseline only changes the absolute value of the anomalies- it shifts the ENTIRE graph up or down, but the trend (in degrees/decade) of the increase or decrease in the anomaly remains the same. And the trend is what matters.
In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen…).
Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
JimB,
Bingo. Very well stated.
Thanks,
evanjones (00:55:15) :
WRT the “GISS divergence”:
http://cce.890m.com/giss-vs-all.jpg
Looking at the inset (showing the 5-year averages), it looks to me like UAH is doing the “diverging”, from HadCru, RSS, and GISSTEMP.
Chris V. (08:56:33) :
Interesting slight-of-hand. I note that almost the entire UAH graph is below the others because of the dependence on a single point baseline (Jan 1979).
What if you chose Jan 2000 as your starting point? Who are the outliers?
And wrt Scenario B, that’s not looking too healthy right now either.
Katherine (06:13:00) :
On this, Chris V has a point. Scenario A had a lot of forcings from CFCs. That didn’t happen, although the HCFC replacements have picked up some of the slack. Scenario C was the cold-turkey slashing of CO2 emissions in ~2000. Interestingly, as I alluded to Chris V, 2008 will be well below B and may well fall below Scenario C too.
Chris V´
Looking at your graph I see a difference of less than 0.1°C. Hardly within the limits of statistical uncertainty.
Brute,
There is nothing “unnatural” about the ice graph. The interior portions of the Arctic are now completely frozen over, and further freeze can occur only in different geographical basins at lower latitudes.
Come on Flanagan. What are these “there are a lot of measurements of the CO2-induced greenhouse efect”?
John M (09:24:49) and Pierre Gosselin (09:36:52) :
So you guys don’t see any significant divergence? I would tend to agree; whatever divergence there is, it ain’t much (at least over that time scale).
But Smokey is the one who brought up the divergence issue, claiming that GISSTemp was doing the diverging. You should be addressing your comments to him, not me.
Chris V: “In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming,”
In much the same way, the fact is that a burning candle produces heat, therefore burning a candle will warm a room (even if you leave a window open on a windy day)
“Chris V. (08:29:23) :
Katherine (06:13:00) :
I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.”
Are you talking about emissions or Mauna Loa ppm? I suspect you mean the latter, in which case Hansen was incorrect insofar as he underestimated oceanic sinks etc?
Chris V. wrote:
I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.
The problem with AGW is that CO2 increase doesn’t actually track historical temperatures. Here’s a comparison of CO2 levels to temperature from the Medieval period to the current century.
CO2 vs Temperature Change: 800 to 2006
Chris V,
Your claim that UAH and RSS are diverging is not correct.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:1978/plot/rss/from:1978
Why do your graphs end several years ago? Satellite measurements show 2008 temperatures no warmer than 1988.
In other words, have we had A scenario emissions but resulting in B scenario measured CO2? I’m just passing through in a rush on this occasion so I’m asking the question genuinely, not rhetorically – normally I would research properly before questioning another poster.
This is the best i can find in a 5-sec google search:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/30073
Chris V.
“In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen…). ”
Sorry…but broad brushes are almost always patently false, and this is within that group.
Every scientist does not accept this, and I believe you know that, so I’m unsure or your purpose in stating it.
Bait?
Jim
Chris V,
If you use charts stopping in 2007, of course you miss noting the big drop which has created all the hubbub this past year.
In 2007 Hansen was predicting a super-El Nino, apparently thinking another spike would appear on the charts, rivaling the 1998 spike. Instead a La Nina developed, and 2008 is turning out about as different from what Hansen predicted as you can possibly get. Arguing about .1 degree can’t get around this fact.
2007 was when mighty Casey tapped his spikes and confidently stepped up to the plate. However now it is 2008 and mighty Casey has struck out.
There is no joy in Mudville.
There seems to be a pair of “anchor points” in the GISS blink comparator data, one about 1895 and another at 1965. The years in between adjust down, while those on the ends adjust up, especially post-1965. It gives the impression that, in adjusting the middle values down, the analysis forces end values to adjust in the opposite direction.
Is there an explanation for that “anchor-point” effect, i.e, does the analysis hold those points steady on purpose?
**Also, if you think Hansen is trying to sell something, do you feel the same way about Spenser and Christy (who produce the UAH temps)? Spenser and Christy (well known AGW skeptics) are certainly as publicly vocal as Hansen.**
Although to be fair, only one has suggested that certain individuals should be charged with crimes against humanity.
Katherine (10:12:30) :
Your response is unclear to me- do you agree that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual GHG concentrations?
JimB (10:17:57) :
I said “virtually every scientist”, not “every scientist”.
Do you dispute that the leading AGW-skeptical scientists (Spenser, Christy, Lindzen…) all accept the basic idea that: 1) CO2 is a greenhouse gas; and 2) that the reason the temperature of the earth is greater than the moon is in large part because of the presence of GHGs (water vapour, CO2, methane…) in the atmosphere?
Caleb (10:30:07) :
Short term noise (i.e., weather) vs long-term trend.
Catherine says:
The graph is interesting, but I wonder if it is truly correct?
We have reasonable evidence that the MWP existed, and indeed the graph shows elevated temperatures, but not elevated CO2 levels … Oh, I see. A little matter of the 800 year lag time.
Chris V::
Again, let me quote from the alarmist blog that you cited as your authority:
NASA’s graph is deliberately skewed — “adjusted” — to make it look scarier. It’s just their version of the Hockey Stick.
Chris (10:09:28) :
Hansen gave three different temperature projections, for three possible future GHG scenarios.
The GHG projections for his scenario B are closest to what actually happened GHG-wise, so we must compare his scenario B temperature prediction to the real temperatures.
It wasn’t an exercise in prediction of future GHG levels.
Chris V,
Your claim that the last two years are “weather” rather than “climate” are absurd. Weather forecasts are good for maybe three days to a week, tops. The climate models did not predict the sharp temperature drop over the last two years, indicating that they don’t model the climate accurately.
However, the several month long 1998 spike was seized on by alarmists as proof the climate was warming out of control.
Smokey (11:18:04) :
The reason GISS uses the baseline it does (1950-1980) is because Hansen started doing his temperature anomalies in the early 1980’s- he just used the most recent 30 period when he started.
Should GISSTemp keep changing their baseline every few years, to include more recent data? That would just lead to confusion, especially with all the scientific literature that has referenced GISSTemp.
The fact that some people can’t understand a simple graph, or understand that the choice of ANY baseline is essentially arbitrary, or understand that changing the baseline of a graph doesn’t affect the magnitude of the CHANGES that graph shows represents of failure of the US educational system, not GISS.
Hansen’s B scenario assumed a constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere per annum (based on the values at the time the paper was written) which is fairly close to what occurred.
Greg (10:43:10) :
I agree- Hansen was a bit over the top with that one.
However, if Hansen turns out to be right, we all might feel a little different about that.
Chris V. (11:31:48) With ‘all the scientific literature that has referenced GISSTemp’ lately, wouldn’t it behoove Hansen and NASA to see that the integrity of their numbers would be a little more defensible? We have it on Gavin Schmidt’s word that only 0.25FTE’s are spent on the task. I won’t even mention the trillions of dollars of policy decisions that also hang on those numbers. Oops, I already did.
========================================
Andy Beasley: Consider that the NOAA procedure is to round daily temperatures to the nearest degree. The claimed 0.1 accuracy is achieved only by way of oversampling.
Chris V
Still not willing to look at what’s happened since 2000?
And no comment on what Scenario B will look like after this year?
That’s after 20 years, not “short term weather”.
Chris V: “…that the reason the temperature of the earth is greater than the moon is in large part because of the presence of GHGs ”
The reason the temperature of the earth is greater than the moon is probably mainly because of the atmosphere, full stop.
It could be argued that the presence of GHGs may have a moderating effect on surface temperatures, by allowing some heat energy to be elevated above the insulating effect of the air.
Hmmm…. Correcting data which was labelled as provisional before it was published… Yeah, conspiracy. Yeah.
oldjim: Confusion? About aerosols net effect? yeah, a bit. (thanks for the Nature link, BTW)
Jacobson et al suggest that aerosols are a positive forcing agent.
Jacobson, M., 2001: Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols, Nature, 409:695-697; Sato, M. et al., 2003: Global atmospheric black carbon inferred from AERONET, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 11: 6319-6324.
Crozier at al says there is a large uncertainity in aerosol forcing, as it relates to GCMs.
“Because of the large uncertainty we have in the radiative forcing of aerosols, there is a corresponding large uncertainty in the degree of radiative forcing overall”, Crozier said. “This introduces a large uncertainty in the degree of warming predicted by climate change models.”
http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/tw.top/2/wed/dg/Uus-climatemodels.RjIW_IaB.html
These authors suggest that aerosol levels were much HIGHER at the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th, than at present. This would indicate that aerosols levels were highest during the warming leading up to 1940.
McConnell et al. Coal burning leaves toxic heavy metal legacy in the Arctic. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, August 2008 DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803564105
And, oddly, the same author of the UNEP paper, only a year earlier, suggested that aerosols were a net POSITIVE forcing, and contributes to the glacier retreat.
We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html
Chris V
OK i’ve looked into this a bit more just now.
Your original statement said:
“Chris V. (08:29:23) :
Katherine (06:13:00) :
I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.”
I’m not sure this is correct. See e.g.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/cfc_ha45.gif
from
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2621
which suggests that there was “no material difference between Scenario A and Scenario B concentrations” [of CO2]
[Note, as I said before, emissions appear to have grown at BAU, if not higher (in the last decade), while I understand the magnitude of ocean sinks has been progressively revised upwards, though I accept this is a somewhat different point of course]
The main difference between projections A and B appears to have been the projected volcanic forcings in ~1995 and ~2015. If you consider the following:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen11.gif
you will see that temperatures in the B scenario should have come very close to those of A from ~2007 onwards, i.e. 12 years after the projected volcano.
The projection of a volcano (of ~Chichon magnitude) was correct, though of course the actual year was 1991 (Pinatubo). Therefore by the same logic, B scenario temperatures should have come close to those of A from ~2003 onwards, and until the next volcanic forcing.
Chris V: your
However, if Hansen turns out to be right, we all might feel a little different about that.
Highly unlikely, based on his 1988 predictions. Right now, only his “C” scenario temperature is within 95% confidence level, and even that is hanging on by it’s fingernails.
And that scenario assumed that massive CO2 cuts would start in 1990.
@Chris V.
measured date is even below scenario C (”drastically reduce… emissions between 1990-2000″)
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html
Those who do will demonstrate that they are scoundrels.
Hansen was employing despicable argument tactics to try to shut down opponents to his views and prevent people from investigating his claims and arguments.
Given that spending trillions of dollars to prevent something that we have no influence over is just as wrong as failing to do something that we could have done, vigorous debate is required.
Dr Watts, fyi,
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/11/james-hansen-cooking-the-nasa-books-for-climate-change/
I think this is important for all US citizens:
Nov 15, 2008 (Published at ICECAP.US
EPA and ANPR Deadline for Comments is November 28, 2008
By Joseph D’Aleo
The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.
The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency�s legal obligations in a timely manner.
Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR: Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions; How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants; Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and, scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.
EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR until November 28, 2008. See EPA ANPR for details and directions.
Earlier responses to the CCSP are supposed to be considered but it is a good idea to resubmit them to ANPR to play it safe. I have done so in two parts: Part I summarizing the 9 responses to the CCSP and a new one in Part II responding to these specific scientific questions the EPA is seeking input on:
(1). EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
(2). EPA also invites comment on the extent to which it would be appropriate to use the most recent IPCC reports, including the chapters focusing on North America, and the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program synthesis reports as scientific assessments that could serve as an important source or as the primary basis for the Agency�s issuance of �air quality criteria.�
(3). EPA requests comments as well as the adequacy of the available scientific literature [synthesis reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and various reports of the US Climate Change Science Program]
(4). The Endangerment Technical Support Document provides evidence that the U.S. and the rest of the world are experiencing effects from climate change now.
The window will close on comments November 28, 2008 and decisions will be made that we may have to live with for a long time. We can only do our best to ensure we have a say and maybe some influence on those decisions. Though the responses I sent were relatively long, they need not be. Short pithy comments that address one or more of the questions with relevant documentation to papers and peer review or just data can be just as if not more effective. Thank you for whatever you do.
Nov 15, 2008
Gore Says No to ‘Climate Czar’ Role
By Tom LoBianco and S.A. Miller, Washington Post
President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job. The Obama team declined to comment on such a post, even as environmentalists and power industry executives say it’s being widely discussed inside the transition offices as a way to spur a clean energy industry, which Mr. Obama has promised will ween the U.S. from foreign oil and create millions of “green jobs.”
Obama transition chief John Podesta promoted a similar idea earlier in his role as president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Mr. Podesta authored a white paper calling for an Energy Security Council within the White House to oversee climate change and clean energy initiatives. The czar and the council would coordinate agencies, including the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The obvious choice to lead the council is Mr. Gore, whose campaign to address climate change earned him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. But the former vice president is taking a pass. “Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government,” Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. “He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis.” Mr. Obama foreshadowed the new post on the campaign trail in April when he told a voter that Mr. Gore would be offered a special Cabinet post overseeing climate change. “Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem,” Mr. Obama said.
Al Gore appears on behalf of Barack Obama early Friday afternoon, Oct. 31, 2008, at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla.. Gore, former vice president and democratic presidential candidate in 2000, and his wife Tipper, returned to Palm Beach County, ground zero of the year 2000 election debacle. It was Gore’s first campaign event for the Obama/Biden ticket.
With Mr. Gore out of the running for an administration job, leading candidates for the post likely include former EPA chief Carol M. Browner, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names mentioned for czar or membership in the energy council include World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash, former Pennsylvania Environment Secretary Kathleen McGinty and California Air Resources Board chief Mary D. Nichols. Read more here
Patrick Henry (11:29:41) :
“Chris V,
Your claim that the last two years are “weather” rather than “climate” are absurd. Weather forecasts are good for maybe three days to a week, tops. The climate models did not predict the sharp temperature drop over the last two years, indicating that they don’t model the climate accurately.”
Just as a side note, there’s actually been some fairly accurate forecasted by these guys:
http://theweatherwiz.com/about.htm
They claim they have an %83 accuracy rate since 1978, and higher over the past decade.
Good story, too.
Jim
Chris (12:27:14) :
RealClimate has a discussion of the scenario issue:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
They maintain that the actual forcings (which includes things other than just CO2) are closest to Hansen’s scenario B. Remember this wasn’t an exercise in predicting future CO2, methane, solar, volcanic, etc. forcings, but a prediction of what could happen under some hypothetical “high”, “medium” and “low” forcing scenarios.
We can argue all day about whether Hansen got it “right” or not (I think he did reasonably well).
But I would be much more interested in comparing Hansen’s predictions with the predictions made by some AGW skeptics from around the same time. That way, we could see which theory got closer to the mark.
Unfortunately, I am unaware of any long-term predictions made by the skeptical side at the time (but I do know that there were some who were still claiming that the earth was not warming at all).
John M (12:01:12) :
WRT to post-2000 trends, they are different between the various data anomaly sets.
But looking back over the last 30 or so years, I see other periods of time that had similar “lulls”, but afterward the long-term upward trend always resumed.
This latest lull MIGHT be the start of a new long-term cooling or stable trend, but I have seen nothing to make me think that it is.
I might be wrong. Time will tell.
**Also, if you think Hansen is trying to sell something, do you feel the same way about Spenser and Christy (who produce the UAH temps)? Spenser and Christy (well known AGW skeptics) are certainly as publicly vocal as Hansen.**
*Although to be fair, only one has suggested that certain individuals should be charged with crimes against humanity.*
Nor have S & C flown halfway across the world to provide a character reference for vandals…..
Chris V. (08:47:33) :
In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen…).
Substantiating a scientific theory requires empirical evidence, not opinion polls.
There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is even applicable to the earth’s atmosphere.
Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.
In May 2007, when that RC post was made, Hansen was pretty well on for scenario C (not so much B).
But at that point the bottom dropped out. If you show the graph a year later, you see it at well below “C level”. We are simply going to have to wait it out and at the same time get a true handle on the positive feedback loop question.
As for Climate Nuremberg, I presume the trials will be held in the courtroom right next to DDT Nuremberg? #B^1
FWIW, I think that CO2 warming is real but far past diminishing returns and without positive feedback at work, the effects of increase are minimal (and probably beneficial). Positive feedback is what the whole AGW position depends on.
Chris V: “Unfortunately, I am unaware of any long-term predictions made by the skeptical side at the time”
Skeptics do not make long-term predictions, precisely because they are skeptical of anyone’s ability to make meaningful long-term predictions.
Nov 15, 2008
EPA and ANPR Deadline for Comments is November 28, 2008
By Joseph D’Aleo
The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.
The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency�s legal obligations in a timely manner.
Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR: Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions; How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants; Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and, scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.
EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR until November 28, 2008. See EPA ANPR for details and directions.
Earlier responses to the CCSP are supposed to be considered but it is a good idea to resubmit them to ANPR to play it safe. I have done so in two parts: Part I summarizing the 9 responses to the CCSP and a new one in Part II responding to these specific scientific questions the EPA is seeking input on:
(1). EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
(2). EPA also invites comment on the extent to which it would be appropriate to use the most recent IPCC reports, including the chapters focusing on North America, and the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program synthesis reports as scientific assessments that could serve as an important source or as the primary basis for the Agency�s issuance of �air quality criteria.�
(3). EPA requests comments as well as the adequacy of the available scientific literature [synthesis reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and various reports of the US Climate Change Science Program]
(4). The Endangerment Technical Support Document provides evidence that the U.S. and the rest of the world are experiencing effects from climate change now.
The window will close on comments November 28, 2008 and decisions will be made that we may have to live with for a long time. We can only do our best to ensure we have a say and maybe some influence on those decisions. Though the responses I sent were relatively long, they need not be. Short pithy comments that address one or more of the questions with relevant documentation to papers and peer review or just data can be just as if not more effective. Thank you for whatever you do.
Nov 15, 2008
Gore Says No to ‘Climate Czar’ Role
By Tom LoBianco and S.A. Miller, Washington Post
President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job. The Obama team declined to comment on such a post, even as environmentalists and power industry executives say it’s being widely discussed inside the transition offices as a way to spur a clean energy industry, which Mr. Obama has promised will ween the U.S. from foreign oil and create millions of “green jobs.”
Obama transition chief John Podesta promoted a similar idea earlier in his role as president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Mr. Podesta authored a white paper calling for an Energy Security Council within the White House to oversee climate change and clean energy initiatives. The czar and the council would coordinate agencies, including the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The obvious choice to lead the council is Mr. Gore, whose campaign to address climate change earned him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. But the former vice president is taking a pass. “Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government,” Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. “He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis.” Mr. Obama foreshadowed the new post on the campaign trail in April when he told a voter that Mr. Gore would be offered a special Cabinet post overseeing climate change. “Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem,” Mr. Obama said.
Al Gore appears on behalf of Barack Obama early Friday afternoon, Oct. 31, 2008, at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla.. Gore, former vice president and democratic presidential candidate in 2000, and his wife Tipper, returned to Palm Beach County, ground zero of the year 2000 election debacle. It was Gore’s first campaign event for the Obama/Biden ticket.
With Mr. Gore out of the running for an administration job, leading candidates for the post likely include former EPA chief Carol M. Browner, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names mentioned for czar or membership in the energy council include World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash, former Pennsylvania Environment Secretary Kathleen McGinty and California Air Resources Board chief Mary D. Nichols. Read more here
Chris V
I had read the RealClimate discussion, and it doesn’t change what I say (it was one of the sources I considered when putting my previous post together.) Scenarios B and C included volcanic forcings; Scenario A did not. The straight line for Scenario B in RC’s image is misleading because it presumably averages out the volcanic forcings of over the time period. Thus now, at the end of 2008, it assumes a volcanic forcing that does not exist, therefore we should be warmer under Scenario B now than implied by RC’s diagram.
In terms of predictions from “skeptics”, I imagine that those who disagreed with Hansen predicted that warming would be less. Now it increasingly is less.
Also, many “skeptics” have tended to be interested in the surface record. Well, stations from the US to Greenland and Iceland, from Western Europe to Siberia, and in other parts of the world as far as I can tell, were significantly cooler in the 80s than in the 1930s/40s. So I imagine many “skeptics” in the late 1980s were aware that a cyclical upswing was on the cards (in particular, we now know of course that the AMO turned strongly +ve into the 90s)
Gilbert (15:03:02) :
“Substantiating a scientific theory requires empirical evidence, not opinion polls.
There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is even applicable to the earth’s atmosphere.”
What type of empirical evidence are you looking for?
“Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.”
I dunno- a lot of AGW skeptics (Christy, Schwartz, Monckton) have written papers where they proposed much lower CO2 sensitivities than what many others believe. Lower, but not zero.
Re:Geraldton Airport
I suppose it depends on the time of the year it’s taken.
No it doesn’t. Grass only grows in Geraldton (and everywhere within 1,000 kilometers) when it is irrigated year round.
What has happen over the last 3 or 4 years in Western Australia is that watering grass has become un-PC. And as a result many government offices have stopped their irrigation systems,which is probably what we see on the Google satellite image. Although, extensive irrigation still continues at Perth Airport. I can’t say for Geraldton as its about 5 years since I was last there.
Annoyingly, the BoM does provide trend graphs of temperatures (or anything else) so we can’t see what effect stopping irrigation has on the temperature record.
Peter (15:24:27) :
Some skeptics claim that cosmic rays or solar activity are the big drivers of climate. Why not make some predictions? They could pick a few hypothetical scenarios for, say, various levels of solar activity (a high, a low and a middle), and predict the future temps. Then we wait and see what happens.
Ultimately, the ability to make accurate predictions is the best test of a theory, right? At least that’s what you guys all seem to be saying.
Chris (15:35:57) :
I agree that Hansen’s prediction does not perfectly match the reality. But it’s in the ballpark.
You “imagine” that the skeptics predicted less warming? I was hoping for something a little more “real”. ;)
“Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.”
Where I disagree most is the catastrophic part. That is the part that makes governments think it is AOK to take liberties with my liberties.
This really is all academic. You can’t just pick a point in time and declare “this is the zero anomaly line”. It’s just silly. And it’s even sillier to say that anything outside that anomaly line is, well, anomalous.
Chris V: “Why not make some predictions?”
Why should we? The onus of proof is on those who propose a theory – particularly when said theory diverts huge amounts of funding away from worthwhile pursuits such as fighting disease and poverty.
I can’t seem to get anything right today.
That should have read,
Annoyingly, the BoM doesn’t provide trend graphs of temperatures.
Is this the same “Dr. Karl” of the NCDC who never an academic Ph.D.?
Yes it is.
Dr Karl’s work on TOBS is interesting, not least in that it was an exercise in saving money. Rather than going through the records and determining when Time of Observation changed at each individual site. Karl came up with a statistical estimate for all sites, which is of unknown accuracy.
Another example of climate data handling done on the cheap with unknown effects on the accuracy of the climate record. BTW, Karl is on record as saying the error in his method is about 25%, which would mean about a 15% error in the 20th century temperature change (trend).
Peter (16:05:36) said:
“Why should we? The onus of proof is on those who propose a theory – particularly when said theory diverts huge amounts of funding away from worthwhile pursuits such as fighting disease and poverty.”
Don’t mix up the theory with the political/economic/social response. Whether AGW is occurring, and how much, is one question. What (if anything) to do about it is another.
In any event, the skeptics are all proposing theories – “it’s the sun, cosmic rays, PDO, natural variability…” are all theories.
But if you feel that way, I would think that you would think it was even MORE important to prove the skeptical theories right. Providing more accurate predictions than Hansen would certainly help with that.
Chris V
“You “imagine” that the skeptics predicted less warming? I was hoping for something a little more “real”. ;)”
The “imagine” was ironic. Anyone who, at the time, to a lesser or greater extent, may have thought Hansen was exaggerating, by definition was “predicting” less warming. (I think the “s” word is less helpful than ever here.)
Chris V. (15:39:05) :
There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is even applicable to the earth’s atmosphere.”
What type of empirical evidence are you looking for?
Atmospheric greenhouse effect would seem to be dependent on the assumption that CO2 re-radiates energy, part of which returns to the surface. Is there any empirical evidence that this is true? Why not conduction to adjacent and cooler gases?
“Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.”
I dunno- a lot of AGW skeptics (Christy, Schwartz, Monckton) have written papers where they proposed much lower CO2 sensitivities than what many others believe. Lower, but not zero.
Which doesn’t matter, unless one believes that increases in CO2 are manmade and is driving the climate. I’m inclined to think that the current increases in CO2 are the result of the warming period eight hundred years ago.
Note: this a bit offtopic and is a bit cumbersome. My commenting skills are primitive. Would appreciate any advice regarding methods of communication.
Chris V: My prediction:
Measured warming will be less than either the IPCC or Hansen’s predictions.
Predicting surface temperatures beyond a week is a fool’s game.
However, I do have a few predictions.
People will continue to vacation in climates that are warmer than their own.
People will continue to live in places that are much warmer or much colder than their imagined “ideal” temperature.
If the thermostat at your house becomes off by one degree, you will not notice it.
If the Earth warms 2F or 2C in the next 100 years, no one will notice the difference.
It will become more obvious every year that CO2 will NOT cause any catastrophies.
No matter what happens, governments will create huge bureaucracies to protect us.
Governments will sell companies the “right to pollute”.
These companies will eventually become government protected monopolies.
The recent low levels of world stock markets will be remembered as a boom.
The poor of the world will die in large numbers.
America will return to capitalism.
The high levels of CO2 will create a garden Earth.
And then everyone will forget what happened and the whole thing will start over again.
Chris V.:
Why ‘must’ we compare that specific prediction of Hansen’s?
The glaring error in this debate is the fact that Hansen made three very different climate predictions. By saying: “I agree that Hansen’s prediction does not perfectly match the reality. But it’s in the ballpark,” what you are doing is selecting the Hansen prediction that comes closest to matching the current climate.
Give anyone the opportunity to make three entirely different climate predictions, and it’s very likely that they could predict one that is, in your words, ‘in the ballpark.’
But you unequivocally state that “…we must compare [Hansen's] scenario B temperature prediction to the real temperatures.” Really? We must? And why only scenario B? Why not A, or C?
Had the climate come closer to those grossly erroneous predictions, no doubt you would be singing Hansen’s praises for his astute prediction with either Scenario A, or Scenario C. But since Scenario B comes closer to the current climate, we ‘must’ compare only that prediction with today’s climate?
Let’s see Hansen gamble his rapidly deteriorating reputation on just one specific prediction. Since he’s so smart and all.
I just had a beautiful thought: The higher GISS puts its global anomaly value today, the more dramatic it will be when we descend from that value for decades.
That’s my prediction, Chris V.
You can fool some of the people….
Chris V: “But if you feel that way, I would think that you would think it was even MORE important to prove the skeptical theories right. Providing more accurate predictions than Hansen would certainly help with that.”
Sorry to be blunt, but if someone proposes a theory that Santa Claus exists then THEY have to prove it – nobody else has to propose an alternative theory to explain his nonexistence.
But, just to keep you happy, I predict that temperatures will continue to rise and fall in a cyclical fashion – much as they have always done.
Harold – nice thought.
But, unfortunately, insofar as GISS (and HadCRUT) may have exaggerated the true surface trend between the mid 20th century and the present, any future downward trend would seem proportionally less dramatic.
I predict that we’re all going to die. In precisely one lifetime each.
I predict that global temperature trends for each coming decade will be similar to the trend of a decade in the past 100 years.
Everyone knows about Hansen’s Scenario A, B and C. However he also had Scenario A2, which, strangely enough, looks exactly like the GISS graph, except that it heads North from here. Unfortunately, he forgot to release it in ‘88. But, trust me, that is the one we should be comparing to.
Why all the need for debate and speculation? Why don’t GISS simply tell everyone what they have done and why?
Chris V. wrote:
Your response is unclear to me- do you agree that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual GHG concentrations?
No, I don’t agree that the Hansen B scenario is what applies, because from my understanding, Hansen was talking about CO2 levels specifically, not GHG (including water vapor) concentrations, and there was no CO2 limitation or reduction in the period covered.
Chris wrote:
In other words, have we had A scenario emissions but resulting in B scenario measured CO2? I’m just passing through in a rush on this occasion so I’m asking the question genuinely, not rhetorically – normally I would research properly before questioning another poster.
This is the best i can find in a 5-sec google search:
http://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/article/research/30073
That should be “we had A scenario CO2 emissions but resulting (close to) B scenario measured temperatures.”
Oldjim wrote:
Hansen’s B scenario assumed a constant increase of CO2 in the atmosphere per annum (based on the values at the time the paper was written) which is fairly close to what occurred.
Check out the link Chris provided.
“According to a recent study, between 1990 and 1999 emissions rose by 1.1% a year, while from 2000 to 2004 they increased by more than 3% a year. The post-2000 growth rate exceeds the most fossil-fuel-dependent A1F1 emissions scenario developed by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) in the late 1990s. . . . At present, CSIRO and other measurements show that atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations are rising progressively faster each year”
You guys would score a lot more points if before posting you’d simply read your posts over to correct for really, really stupid and obvious grammatical errors. I think I’m reading a comment by someone intelligent and who I can maybe trust, but I can’t be confident of that because he can’t spell or write a coherent sentence. Take a minute, take a deep breath, and read what you are about to post.
Or have someone proofread it for you. If your opinion is worth expressing, it is worth expressing well.
I know you guys are scientists, but geesh. This is actually important.
I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of the ways that “alarmists” attempt to discredit “skeptics” is by characterizing us all as not even “believing” the basic science.
However, to me the main points are these:
1. CO2 does not drive climate to anything approaching the amount required to cause catastrophe, or a tipping point, or any of the fantastic scenarios we’re constantly bombarded with daily. Atmospheric CO2 content has been significantly higher in the past than it is now, with no apparent ill effects.
2. CO2 is not some rare non-biodegradable chemical that never existed naturally on the planet until the advent of humans. CO2 is created and absorbed (sourced and sinked, if you prefer) on a massive scale every day. Increases in CO2 are AUTOMATICALLY countered by increases in CO2 uptake, whether that is via land plants or oceanic life, or the oceans themselves. CO2 is an automatically regulated trace gas. Volcanic CO2 creation alone dwarfs anything we create, and that is randomly variable.
3. There is no one factor driving climate. Cosmic rays, greenhouse gases, Solar input, planetary and galactic orbits all probably have some input. The concept of a stable climate in the past that we have upset is beyond ludicrous. The sheer hubris is, I don’t know, stunning? We humans simply have not even remotely approached the point where we are making significant changes to climate, only microclimate.
4. I predict that ALL long term climate predictions are absolute trash. The planet is a self-regulating machine. Increase temperature here, and something over there changes to counter it. Decrease this gas and some other mechanism increases it. Just because we don’t understand all of the mechanisms involved does not in any remote way suggest that they don’t exist. This planet has been uncontrolled and unmonitored for billions of years, and the worst that has happened is a few ice ages.
Yeah, that’s why I’m a skeptic, and why I have descended to outright mocking alarmists. The entire concept is so ridiculous that the only logical conclusion is that alarmists are in it for something. I have little question that the prominent names in the alarmist camp are rubbing their hands with glee, profiting like mad, and laughing at all the idiots out there who believe what they must surely KNOW to be a lie.
Bruce (22:44:14) :
I agree – up to a point. A sizable percentage of posters here are not
native English (or American) speakers and I give them a fair amount of
slack.
Firefox has a decent spell checker, that helps but doesn’t prevent the
egregious errors of there/their/they’re or affect/effect or just plain
typos that correctly spell the wrong word. Nothing replaces a final
proofreading but submitting.
Chris V:
“I dunno- a lot of AGW skeptics (Christy, Schwartz, Monckton) have written papers where they proposed much lower CO2 sensitivities than what many others believe. Lower, but not zero.”
“A lot of” isn’t all, or virtually all. And as was posted previously, it’s the “A” part of AGW that bothers most of us.
And btw?…I’m not a “skeptic”…I’m a realist, as I believe most people here are.
Jim
Bruce,
Have you considered that English is not everyone’s first language?
Dr Watts, you may be pleased to know that my column today in the London Sunday Telegraph, covering the GISTemp story and your admirable part in it, has attracted a record number of comments, almost all supportive.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2008/11/16/do1610.xml#comments
Well done with your outstanding work as a beacon of truth in this darkling world!
REPLY: Dear Mr. Booker. Thank you for your comment, and also very much for the article, but some clarifications are in order.
1- I am not a Dr. or PhD. I have no doctoral degree as such nor should anyone refer to me that way, lest I be accused of misuse of the term as the director of the National Climatic Data Center has been See here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/more-flubs-at-the-top-of-the-climate-food-chain-this-time-ncdcs-karl/
2- As I mentioned previously in comments and in this post, my role was small. At the time this happened, I was driving on US Highway 50 in the lonliest place in the USA, central Nevada, on my way to a station survey. Commenter “Chris” and regular contributor John Goetz were the ones who discovered the issue first. At the same time Steve McIntyre, on his Climate Audit blog was coming to the same conclusion. The most that could be said is that this blog was a facilitator to discovery and that my role as proprietor was by association only.
Thank you for bringing the issue onto the world stage. – Anthony Watts
Is that “are”, or “aren’t”????
“I know you guys are scientists, but geesh. This is actually important.”
There are a few scientists here, which comment/comments were you referring to? Oh, by the way, is it “someone who I can trust” or should it be “someone WHOM I can trust”? I really don’t know, but perhaps, since you are the grammatical guru here, you can help me out. It is important that I get the answer to this question.
Thanks in advance,
Mike Bryant
Katherine and Smokey:
http://www.realclimate.org/images/Hansen88_forc.jpg
This graph shows the forcings (CO2, and other stuff) used by Hansen in the model runs for each of his three future scenarios, plotted alongside the actual climate forcings that were observed. You tell me which scenario (A,B, or C) was closest to what actually happened.
@Katherine
i used this link for the data on CO2 annual increase http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ which give these values for annualised mean growth rate from Mauna Loa – I don’t see a progressively faster rise in CO2 levels
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
CodeTech (04:15:22) said:
“I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
Looking at the posts in this thread, It looks to me like Gilbert (and maybe JimB?) don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nobody’s ganging up on them. ;)
But now I’m curious. Maybe we can do an informal poll here-
Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e., absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation)?
Chris V. (09:09:52) :
Can you provide a link to the actual analysis at RC?
I’m interested to know if they included the CFC replacements in their forcing calculations.
Thanks.
Hey, CodeTech, that is pretty much the way I feel.
Once you gain considerable experience with complex computer systems you start to get a feel for how robust a system must be that has operated for hundreds of millions of years if not billions of years.
We humans are no where near the level required to have the effect that the AGW supporters claim and the people pushing this shit are very clearly exploiting the standard human concern that any highly social species has that others are doing something to create problems for them.
Chris V
I’ve already commented on that graph. Scenarios B and C include volcanic eruptions in ~1995 and ~2015, and this is the main reason why RC’s B line diverges so much from the A line. We had a volcanic eruption in 1991, but not since. Since there is very little difference between Scenarios A and B in terms of projected CO2 levels for 2008 (perhaps you would like to quote a figure for what Scenario A projected for 2008 for CO2 in ppm? I doubt you’ll be able to show it was any more than the current level) then current forcings should be higher than RC’s straight line (which is skewed downwards by the ~2015 volcanic eruption) for Scenario B implies. And it goes without saying that recent temperatures have been way short of what Hansen predicted for such a forcing.
Note I’m not particularly having a go at Hansen. He predicted that the world would get warmer, and he was correct. I think a better line of argument for you would be that Hansen’s model used a climate sensitivity of 4C for a doubling of CO2, as I understand it. So using the lower sensitivity of the current model of 2.7C as I understand it (at least for “fast feedbacks”) his predictions match observed temperatures more closely. Of course this would involve admitting that Hansen was at least somewhat wrong.
CodeTech (04:15:22) said:
“I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of the ways that “alarmists” attempt to discredit “skeptics” is by characterizing us all as not even “believing” the basic science.”
Some certainly do not believe it; maybe some readers will respond as to whether they believe it or not.
“CO2 is not some rare non-biodegradable chemical that never existed naturally on the planet until the advent of humans. CO2 is created and absorbed (sourced and sinked, if you prefer) on a massive scale every day. Increases in CO2 are AUTOMATICALLY countered by increases in CO2 uptake, whether that is via land plants or oceanic life, or the oceans themselves. CO2 is an automatically regulated trace gas. Volcanic CO2 creation alone dwarfs anything we create, and that is randomly variable.”
The “automatic countering” takes place over geologic timescales, not human lifetimes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing at much faster rates than any time in the last 600,000 years.
“There is no one factor driving climate. Cosmic rays, greenhouse gases, Solar input, planetary and galactic orbits all probably have some input. The concept of a stable climate in the past that we have upset is beyond ludicrous. The sheer hubris is, I don’t know, stunning? We humans simply have not even remotely approached the point where we are making significant changes to climate, only microclimate.”
These are strawmen. No scientist says that one factor drives climate. But at different times, some are more important than others.
No scientist has ever said that climate was stable in the past (I know you’ve heard of ice ages).
“I predict that ALL long term climate predictions are absolute trash. The planet is a self-regulating machine. Increase temperature here, and something over there changes to counter it. Decrease this gas and some other mechanism increases it. Just because we don’t understand all of the mechanisms involved does not in any remote way suggest that they don’t exist. This planet has been uncontrolled and unmonitored for billions of years, and the worst that has happened is a few ice ages.”
Which is it? Is the planet a self-regulating machine, or is “the concept of a stable climate in the past” ludicrous?
“Yeah, that’s why I’m a skeptic, and why I have descended to outright mocking alarmists. The entire concept is so ridiculous that the only logical conclusion is that alarmists are in it for something. I have little question that the prominent names in the alarmist camp are rubbing their hands with glee, profiting like mad, and laughing at all the idiots out there who believe what they must surely KNOW to be a lie.”
I don’t go in for these “world-wide conspiracy theories” myself. To be honest, I find them to be a bit nutty.
Measurementsover the last 50 years:
1- sea ice increased, which was related to thermal dilatation
2- surface and tropospheric temps increased
3- stratospheric temps decreased
4- the average surface pH of oceans decreased
5- air concentrations of CO2 increased
so what?
Chris V: If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.
You know, where there were massive CO2 cuts starting in 2000.
So, temperature is tracking the best case mitigation scenario, when no mitigation has actually been applied.
How accurate is that?
I have just replied to Anthony as follows:
Thanks for response. The only reason why I addressed you as ‘Doctor’ was that one of my emailers had just described you as such and I thought I must have missed something! I have always called you Mr in my many laudatory references to your wonderful blog in my Sunday Telegraph column, as I did again today. I did refer to the expert readers of WUWT and CA as playing a key part in exposing that crucial error in the GISS data, but the point is that you and Steve Mcintyre make that kind of thing possible by providiing a nexus, not only thrrough your own admirable postings but by enabling others to chip in with their own expert comments, thus building up an ever wider and deeper understandng of this all-important issue….
Thanks again for the fantastic job you are doing and for putting me straight on that ‘doctorate’. When global sanity finally prevails, you’ll eventually be showered with them!.
best wishes
PS My article today has attracted a record heap of comments from readers, almost all supportive.
“Oldjim (09:23:38) :
@Katherine
i used this link for the data on CO2 annual increase http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ which give these values for annualised mean growth rate from Mauna Loa – I don’t see a progressively faster rise in CO2 levels……”
Do the math. E.g.
1988-1995: 1.3 ppm/yr
1995-2002: 1.8 ppm/yr
2002-2007: 2.1 ppm/yr
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
John M (09:49:44) said:
Can you provide a link to the actual analysis at RC?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
Bruce (22:44:14) :
Nevermind, I googled it. The correct word to use in your sentence is “whom”.
Perhaps you also should have someone proofread your comments before you push the submit button. I thought I could trust you.
Thanks,
Mike Bryant
Chris V
“Looking at the posts in this thread, It looks to me like Gilbert (and maybe JimB?) don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nobody’s ganging up on them. ;)
But now I’m curious. Maybe we can do an informal poll here-
Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e., absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation)?”
A more appropriate question would be, how big is the greenhouse effect of doubling CO2, and no one in the world has a clear answer. Note the words I’ve changed to capitals in the following wiki extract:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
In the absence of the greenhouse effect AND AN ATMOSPHERE, the Earth’s average surface temperature[7] of 14°C (57°F) COULD be as low as -18°C (–0.4°F), the black body temperature of the Earth[8][9][10].
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend [11], is BELIEVED to be the result of an “enhanced greenhouse effect” mainly due to human-produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere[12] and changes in the use of land[13].
Chris (09:54:08) :
Hansen gave three very simple hypothetical scenarios- basically had the forcings varying linearly with time. Obviously (from the graph I posted) the forcings didn’t actually increase in a linear fashion (they varied up and down) or finish exactly on any of his scenarios. So just from that, it would be surprising to see Hansen get it exactly right. Then throw in the odd volcano (completely unpredictable), a relatively primitive climate model…
Based on all that, I still think his results were in the ballpark. But my local ballpark (Yankee Stadium) might be bigger than yours (Fenway, or a little-league field?). ;)
Les Johnson (10:25:57) said:
“Chris V: If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.”
??? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Chris V.:
You are trying to frame the argument your way. The point I made was that Hansen made multiple predictions. Picking the least inaccurate prediction means nothing.
You can have the last word on the subject of Hansen’s predictions. There’s no convincing anyone who accepts this.
I mentioned some time back on another thread on this blog that the Government in New Zealand was going to pass a Carbon Trading Scheme based on the global warming scam.
They did in their last dying days and rushed the scam through the house under urgency but we have a new Government since last week and they look set to “review” the nonsense:
http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/11/emissions-trading-review-first-step.html
It is good news for New Zealand-I want it chucked out completely because clearly it is based on a fraud. Perhaps now we can lead the world back to sanity.
Cheers from New Zealand, leader in the anti climate change movement !
“Oldjim (09:23:38)”
To be fair, I’ve just realised:
1981-1988: 1.6 ppm/yr
OK let’s take 1968-1988, and 1988-2007
1968-1988: 1.4 ppm/yr
1988-2007: 1.7 ppm/yr
Not such an acceleration looked at this way, but an acceleration nonetheless.
Actually, scrub all the previous discussion. I’ve just found the actual projected figures for CO2 for 2007, courtesy of a link at CA. They were 390.5 ppm under Scenario A, and 389.4 ppm under Scenario B. (And 369.5 for Scenario C)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2611
So I accept I was wrong re: CO2 levels – both Scenario A and B have them slightly higher, contrary to what I thought (Also it seems methane levels have undershot projections by ~10% in the last few years)
However, this does illustrate even more the importance of the volcanic forcings, given GHG projections were so similar for the two Scenarios.
Chris V. (09:28:32) :
“I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
Looking at the posts in this thread, It looks to me like Gilbert (and maybe JimB?) don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nobody’s ganging up on them. ;)
Please don’t put words in my mouth. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It does absorb reflected radiation. I am curious about the mechanism involved when the CO2 cools. I’m simply trying to figure out whether or not the claimed mechanism involved is based on assumption or empirical evidence. If you know the answer, then point me in the right direction.
But now I’m curious. Maybe we can do an informal poll here-
Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e., absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation)?
It probably doesn’t matter since the CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. That point has likely been exceeded as evidenced by the lack of predicted warming in the tropical troposphere.
Chris V; your
I don’t understand what you’re saying.
The Hanson chart you gave for forcing, had the y-axis in watts/m2. This can be converted to temperature.
The temperature record (UAH, RSS, Hadley or even GISS) all more closely match the “C” scenario, than any other scenario.
And the “C” scenario assumed massive cuts starting in 2000. There has been no significant GHG cuts, but the forcing matches best with the best case scenario?
Chris,
Regarding your question about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I think it is just about universally accepted that it is a minor greenhouse gas. But its effect is so small that for all practical purposes it can be ignored.
The real question should be: how much of an effect does increasing CO2 by X amount have on the planet’s temperature?
CO2 has a negligible effect, smaller than almost any other climate forcing, all of which overwhelm the tiny effect from CO2. Otherwise, the steady increase in carbon dioxide would produce a steady increase in the planet’s temperature. That has not happened. In fact, the planet is cooling.
Furthermore, the effect of CO2 is too small to be measured; it’s down into in the background noise.
Conclusion: since carbon dioxide has such a minuscule effect, there is no credible rationale for truly stupid, and extremely expensive ideas like “carbon” sequestration. The money would be better spent almost anywhere else. Ideally, the money would be left in the pockets of taxpayers. But that would defeat the whole purpose of climate alarmism.
Those promoting their ever-morphing catastrophic AGW/CO2/runaway global warming hypothesis continue to produce new, and always changing, un-falsifiable “reasons” that the planet is cooling as CO2 rises. That is not science; that is malarkey.
Chris
But graphing the figures doesn’t show a progressively faster rise for the last 10 years – at least not to my eyes http://www.holtlane.plus.com/images/co2levels.jpg
However the original point I was making was that scenario B assumed a constant increase in CO2 levels compared to 1986 – 1988 (assumed)
The average annual increase 1986-1988 was 1.97ppm and from 1989-2007 was 1.70ppm. Even taking from 2002-2007 2.1 ppm per year isn’t significantly higher than that for 1986-88.
Chris V
“Based on all that, I still think his results were in the ballpark. But my local ballpark (Yankee Stadium) might be bigger than yours (Fenway, or a little-league field?). ;)
OK put it another way, even by his “own” graph, the warming from 1988 to the present (20 years) was no more than ~0.25C
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
[note 5-year mean won't get above +0.55C once 2008 is included]
Well, on that graph, the warming from 1976 to 1988 (12 years) had been 0.25C. So was it really so inspired in 1988 to project that the recent trend might continue for the next 2 decades, and is it really so impressive to find that in fact the trend did continue, but at a slower pace (despite no more volcanic forcing in 20 years than 1976 to 1988 had in 12 years?)
Gilbert
“It probably doesn’t matter since the CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. That point has likely been exceeded as evidenced by the lack of predicted warming in the tropical troposphere.”
To keep Chris V happy, I’m going to pick you up on this and point out that if consensus AGW theory had such an obvious flaw, we wouldn’t all be sitting around here having this argument, as it would have been spotted a very long time ago. I can’t see any logic in your quoted argument?
Personally I think AGW theory/analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside/downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up/multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be “alarmed”). The devil is in the detail, and suggesting there are big obvious flaws tends to play into the hands of defenders of the consensus (IMO) [the recent lack of warming being a partial exception here]
For those of you who think that Hansen got it completely wrong, rather than “in the ballpark” (like me), look at it this way:
If you were standing back there in 1988 (not knowing what was driving climate, and with no reason to assume that the most recent trend would continue) and were asked to predict what the earths temperature might look like in 20 years, how would you do it?
I would look back at the historical temperature record, and see how climate had changed over previous 20-year periods. Looking at the temp records, there are 20-year periods were temps declined by half a degree or so, and 20-year periods where temps rose half a degree or so. So I would say “temps in 20 years will probably be somewhere between half a degree higher and half a degree lower than today”.
Now, compare that possible range of future temps with what Hansen projected, and what actually happened. Hansen was very much “in the ballpark”.
Les Johnson (12:32:53) :
How do you convert W/m2 to temperature? Temperature of what? (Remember, GISSTemp, UAH, etc. plot air temp ANOMALIES for a slice of the atmosphere). Are you taking into account heating of the oceans, density changes with altitude in the atmosphere…?
The conversion sounds pretty complicated; maybe I’m missing something…?
Chris V: Ballpark? Perhaps the ballpark off ramp. Or maybe the ballpark parking lot. He is only close to the best case, high GHG cuts, temperature scenario. And no real cuts have been made.
You want to spend 40 trillion dollars on such a poor estimation?
I don’t. And if Hanson ever actually gets inside the ball park, he had better be pointing to which field he is hitting to, and actually hits it, before I would be willing to spend 40 trillion dollars.
Chris (13:08:17) said:
“To keep Chris V happy…”
Thank you. ;)
One thing I find funny about the AGW debate is that it always falls down to the warmers vs the skeptics, like there are just 2 sides, with 2 opposing theories.
In reality there is a huge diversity of opinion within the skeptic side, like: it’s cooling; it’s warming (but not as much as GISSTemp says); whatever the temperature is doing, it’s caused by cosmic rays, or PDO, or sunspots, or recovery from the LIA…; CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but the feedbacks are negative); CO2 is not a greenhouse gas…..
Some of the skeptics I’ve seen even hold multiple, contradictory views (although they don’t seem to understand it).
A lot of the disagreements between the skeptics are as big, or bigger than, their disagreement with the warmers!
Chris V: Temperature and watts/m2 are both measures of energy.
Hanson himself has used the analogy of ‘X’ number of 1 watt lights per m2, over the earth’s surface.
Chris (13:08:17) :
To keep Chris V happy, I’m going to pick you up on this and point out that if consensus AGW theory had such an obvious flaw, we wouldn’t all be sitting around here having this argument, as it would have been spotted a very long time ago. I can’t see any logic in your quoted argument?
My mind is open. If CO2 can absorb more than 100% of the available radiation, then tell me where to find the evidence.
Consensus is a political affliction.
Personally I think AGW theory/analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside/downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up/multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be “alarmed”). The devil is in the detail, and suggesting there are big obvious flaws tends to play into the hands of defenders of the consensus (IMO) [the recent lack of warming being a partial exception here]
There are many flaws, both small and large. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is but one of them. It’s also the one I’m presently curious about and if I can’t get answers on a skeptic blog, then where else?
Chris-
I think much of the disagreement about the accuracy of Hansen’s projections (modellers don’t like to call them predictions) comes from what we expect of the models.
All computer models are a simplified approximation of reality. Add to that the fact many of the inputs of future conditions (CO2, methane, volcanoes, aerosols…) are rough estimates (that may or may not pan out exactly as estimated).
Based on that, I don’t expect any model to get things exactly right. But they can significantly narrow down the range of possibilities.
There’s an old say among modellers (of climate and other things): “All models are wrong, but some are useful”.
Chris V: your There’s an old say among modellers (of climate and other things): “All models are wrong, but some are useful”.
“Models should be used, but not believed.”
That’s what we say in our business.
Now, we seem to agree on the accuracy of models in general.
Would you spend 40 trillion dollars, based on a model that is shown to be inaccurate?
Chris V.,
I also find it interesting that there is such a diversity of views on the skeptic side. However, it seems to me that it is perfectly natural.
People who prefer to think for themselves do not automatically subscribe to any one view. Because of this drive to better understand everything around them, they take nothing for granted, they see very little as settled. Hence, as you said, they have a wide diversity of views. I have a feeling that many past scientists held that mindset.
On the other hand, there are those who prefer to hold one rigid, uncompromising view. They would rather have others lay everything out for them. These people enjoy the comfort of relying on authority without question. There is something to be said for this propensity since they live their lives with no disturbances or feelings of doubt.
Both groups are necessary for the advancement of science and the human race. When either group becomes powerful enough to silence the other, we all lose. I think that is why our limited system of government has been so successful.
I hope we never become locked into a world of conformism.
I pray that the dreamers are never locked out.
Mike Bryant
Chris V.
I read your “rebuttal” to my post with some amusement.
You claim that automatic adjustment takes place over long time periods, but offer no proof to back this claim. I say CO2 is regulated rapidly, by increased vegetation for one.
Then you ask “which is it?”, apparently confident in your belief that regulation is long term. There is no contradiction in my position.
The temperature in my house oscillates around 20C as the furnace and/or AC kick in and switch off. The temperature is rarely stable at 20C, and yet I can say with confidence that my house is 20C. The oscillations may be larger and of a different period when the outside temperature is extremely high or low, but the average is still around the same.
I’m not sure which planet you are on, but on THIS planet we are being told that CO2 ALONE is causing temperature increases. Nice try on the “strawman” claim, though. Thanks for playing.
Your belief that CO2 is rising faster than, whenever, is not supported if you stop excluding major volcanic effects. Again, thanks for playing. Be sure to pick up your parting gift on the way out.
Your belief that “skeptics” hold contradictory views [snip]. Most of us (yes, a generalization) are frustrated with a dogma that states all climate variability is recent, our fault, and bad. My personal position is that climate has always been variable, tends to oscillate around relatively beneficial values, and is not affected by “us” to any significant degree.
Here is an interesting summation of the inherent problems with computer modelling:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/computer_modelling.htm
Gilbert (14:06:13) :
CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. I would think that be obvious.
Regarding the properties of CO2, you could start with the experiments of Tyndale and Arhenius (in the 1800’s), then look at the research done by the US Air Force in the 1950’s.
The fact that CO2 absorbs and re-emits long-wave radiation has been pretty well established for well over a century now. If you’re attempting to disprove that, you’ve got a tough row to hoe!
Les Johnson (15:06:32) said:
“Would you spend 40 trillion dollars, based on a model that is shown to be inaccurate?”
Of course not. But that’s not the only evidence for AGW.
And I’d still like you to explain the W/m2 to temp conversion.
Chris,
Thanks for posting Hansen’s own graph — which actually shows only normal warming due to natural climate variability [but the red line on the exaggerated x-axis does make it scary, huh?]
Let’s compare that Hansen graph with GISS’ solar forcing graph: click
Seems the temp rise tracks solar irradiance pretty closely.
Finally, here’s the temp record that Hansen hasn’t had a chance to skew toward his putative approaching climate catastrophe: click
So who are we supposed to believe? Hansen? Or our lyin’ eyes?
Chris V: your
Of course not. But that’s not the only evidence for AGW.
Models are the only evidence for long term, harmful effects of AGW. If you have any other evidence, I would love to see it.
And I’d still like you to explain the W/m2 to temp conversion.
???
watts/m2 is equivalent energy retained, and is converted into heat, with the units being temperature anomaly.
Again, even Hanson uses the analogy of 1 watt lights per m2, being the extra retained energy.
What part of that don’t you understand?
evanjones
I understand that by using statistics one can get a number that has more precision than the original data. The problem is that when the original data is not correct, no amount of oversampling will make it correct. The reading error is plus or minus 0.5 degrees if the thermometer is in 1 degree increments. That has to be added to the instrument error. If 1 degree is assumed for instrument error (as in my original post), you can only know the temperature for any given reading within 1.5 degrees. Is this taken into account in the oversample to determine the error bands?
My questions on the calibration would be:
What is the accuracy of the instrument?
What is the acceptable range and what is the desired range when the instrument is calibrated?
How is an out of cal instrument documented (both that it is out of cal and when it was replaced or corrected)?
Do the selected instruments show a trend when they go out of cal (i.e. do they always go out of cal high, low, or at random)?
How often do the instruments need to be adjusted because they are out of cal?
How often are the instruments calibrated?
To give an example, I just reviewed an annual calibration on some of my instruments. Two of them failed calibration, one on the high end and one on the low. Since the calibration over the normal operating range was acceptable, I allowed continued use of both instruments with the caveat that calibration be reperformed every cycle (about 60 days) until the instruments are replaced. The reason that I wanted a calibration every cycle is so that I can monitor for further degradation and take action if the instruments become unusable. I suspect that the thermometers in use for the weather stations have not been calibrated since installation. That may be perfectly acceptable based on how they drift over time; but, where is it documented that it is acceptable?
Here is a study on the bedrock foundations of Greenhouse Theory:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
CodeTech (15:54:12) :
I sense a lot of anger there! ;)
“You claim that automatic adjustment takes place over long time periods, but offer no proof to back this claim.”
CO2 in ice cores shows us how fast CO2 levels changed in the past, and how high they were. Changed much slower, and concentrations were much lower. If the “automatic adjustment” is fast, how come CO2 levels have risen so much in the last 50 years? Why aren’t they being “adjusted”?
“I’m not sure which planet you are on, but on THIS planet we are being told that CO2 ALONE is causing temperature increases.”
Right now, it’s the single biggest (but not the only) factor, and it’s increasing at the greatest rate. In the past, orbital forcing’s, solar changes and other things have been the big drivers.
“Your belief that CO2 is rising faster than, whenever, is not supported if you stop excluding major volcanic effects.”
Who’s excluding major volcanic effects, and from what? I have no idea what you mean here.
“Again, thanks for playing. Be sure to pick up your parting gift on the way out.”
I LOVE parting gifts!
Chris V.,
I’m hurt that you didn’t answer my comment about skeptics and warmers. :(
Mike Bryant
Les Johnson (17:07:41) said:
“What part of that don’t you understand?”
Maybe I’m a little dense- can you show the math?
I just don’t see how you get from W/M2 to temperature without dealing with the specific heat of the various layers of the atmosphere and oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Heat_capacity
Like I said, it seems like it would be a rather complicated calculation.
Mike Bryant (17:26:27) said:
“Chris V.,
I’m hurt that you didn’t answer my comment about skeptics and warmers. :(
Mike Bryant”
Nothing personal! I just have my hands full at the moment. ;)
No anger here, Chris V. Perhaps your sensor needs calibrating.
Smokey (17:06:35) said:
“Let’s compare that Hansen graph with GISS’ solar forcing graph: click”
Smokey- Before I go climbing down this particular rabbit hole ;) can you tell me why that graph shows NEGATIVE solar forcings between 1880 and 1920?
“Finally, here’s the temp record that Hansen hasn’t had a chance to skew toward his putative approaching climate catastrophe: click”
Can you add a long-term trend line, or tell me what the long-term trends are for those graphs? (I assume that’s RSS- the trends should be on their website)
Chris V,
Thanks for the RC link. I don’t see it explicitly stating whether they took HFCs and HCFCs into account, but perhaps their impact is small.
Anyway, accepting B as the closest scenario, here’s how the graph used in many “victory celebrations” in 2005 has held up with subsequent years put in.
This year, after 10 months, the average anomaly (these are GISS station anomalies) is running about 0.5. You can see where that point will put us.
Yankee Stadium hell, I think you and Hansen would have to be in the Elysian Fields to be “in the ballpark”.
Chris V: ask Hanson. Its his example.
Les Johnson (18:24:08) :
Way back when, you said:
“If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.”
Then later on you said:
“ask Hanson. Its his example.”
I don’t know what Hansen said, but I am 100% sure you misunderstood it. If it were possible to calculate the non-equilibrium temperature from just the forcings, he wouldn’t need to use the model.
I’d like to be
Under the C
Chris V.:
Sure.
But that would deny you the fun of doing it yourself.
Smokey (19:21:00) :
The global long-term trend is +0.16 degrees C/decade- about the same as GISSTemp (which I think is +0.17).
Eyeballing trends can be very deceptive.
Figured out the solar graph you posted yet?
Once you gain considerable experience with complex computer systems you start to get a feel for how robust a system must be that has operated for hundreds of millions of years if not billions of years.
Richard, that’s a very astute observation. However, I’d add that people react to the failure of complex models to accurately replicate reality by making the models more complex. And that is the solution you imply.
This is invariably the wrong answer and the solution lies in scrapping their model and finding a simpler one that better reflects reality. And note that is also the scientific method.
BTW, the models are wrong because they incorporate the forcings model (theory) for which there is no empiricial support.
The main thing about the Mauna Loa C02 figures quoted:
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
is the correlation between warm years and higher C02. As usual, the AGW side has cause and effect reversed.
The correlation is clear to see on many years in the series, but the obvious pairing would be 1992 (the first complete year after Pinatubo) and 1998 (super El Nino). The cold Pinatubo year gives a .43 increase in C02. The warm El Nino year gives the largest increase in the series, 2.93.
When the ocean and atmosphere are cool, the ocean emits less C02. When the ocean and atmosphere are warm, the ocean emits more C02.
Don’t be surprised if we see some negative change in C02 in the next few decades.
Chris V.:
Of course. The question is: have you figured it out yet?
See Harold Ambler above.
I hope this isn’t too long, if it is snip it…
Carbon dioxide is not a pollutant
Letter from retired chemist to the EPA
__________________________
Dear Marlo Lewis,
16 Nov 08 – Fred Singer, via his TWTW of 15 Nov 2008, suggested that we submit comments to the EPA over proposed carbon dioxide regulation.
As a retired analytical chemist and webmaster of http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com I would like to submit the following comments, which I hope will be taken into account and receive serious consideration.
By the means of observational and falsifiable evidence, carbon dioxide has never been proven to influence the climate. Never. Only in laboratory flasks, never in the open atmosphere. That is no surprise as it can not, can never and has never influenced the climate in any way whatsoever.
The one and only influence that carbon dioxide could possibly have in the atmosphere is to increase the dispersal of reflected IR energy from the earth’s surface, but most certainly not warming it in any way whatsoever.
Reflected IR energy coming off the earth after solar energy has heated it would be absorbed and instantly, at the speed of light, dispersed by susceptible molecules like carbon dioxide and water vapor in a random three-dimensional manner, thus halving the energy re-radiated back towards the earth. In a cascading manner, that is why air temperatures drop the instant a cloud passes in between the earth and the observer and why night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures (except in the unusual climatic conditions whereby wind might carry warmer air during the night-time over a cooler area).
If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead – instead, an instant cooling is experienced – instant.
Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we’d be able to make energy from thin air. Also, air (as in oxygen and nitrogen) does not react substantially to radiation (as you can test in your own microwave oven, where the food gets hot but not the air. Any heating of the air is due to convective heating off the food) and thus carbon dioxide can not possibly warm the air via re-radiating IR energy.
As a further rebuttal of the influence of carbon dioxide over the climate, the alleged greenhouse effect is a non-existent effect.
No greenhouse, whether made from glass, plastic, cardboard or steel will reach a higher inside temperature due to the magic of re-radiated IR energy. If it did, engineers would have long ago been able to design power stations made from air, mirrors and glass, extracting more energy out of it than was put into it – if only!
All natural heating that takes place in a greenhouse (be it made with glass, plastic, cardboard or steel) is due to the restricted access of the heated air to the open atmosphere, where it would normally disperse its excess heat to the next available cooler molecule of any of the IR susceptible gases in our atmosphere in the cascading manner described above.
To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science so eagerly practised by academia across the world in order to keep their funding sources open to the governmental decrees, which are in turn based on totally false IPCC dogma (yes, dogma – not science).
It is therefore that I rest my case, as expanded upon on my website (see links below).
Sincerely yours,
Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK
Chris V; Well, no need to worry about the specific heat of the ocean. NASA’s ARGO project shows no warming of the ocean since 2003. If any of the supposed CO2 forcing is being transferred to the ocean’s, its not apparent.
Besides that, an entire 1C shift in ocean temperatures produces a mere 10 ppmv difference in CO2. So ocean/CO2 solubility is not really an issue on the scale we’re dealing with it. Call me next ice age and we can discuss it.
Harold Ambler (20:43:45) :
You say that higher temps yield higher CO2 levels, with 1998 #1. But the #2, 3, 5, and 6 CO2 levels on that list are all after 2002.
I thought the last decade has been cooling?
Smokey (21:01:20) said:
“The question is: have you figured it (the solar graph) out yet?”
Yes. The recent solar forcing on that graph has a maximum of less than 0.3 W/M2.
The current CO2 forcing is about 2 W/M2.
0.3 is a lot less than 2.
Mike Bryant (17:14:48) :
Here is a study on the bedrock foundations of Greenhouse Theory:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
Thanks! Looks like the foundations are a bit shaky.
evanjones (22:19:58) : Besides that, an entire 1C shift in ocean temperatures produces a mere 10 ppmv difference in CO2. So ocean/CO2 solubility is not really an issue on the scale we’re dealing with it.
What’s the source for this claim? I once briefly looked into the question of how much atmospheric CO2 increases for a given increase in the ocean temperature and couldn’t find a clear answer.
Chris
I am beginning to wonder if there is any such thing as a CO2 forcing much less one that can be quantified in watts/square meter. Perhaps you can find reference that has not already been disproved by the data? I think we should also be looking at admitting that the supposedly positive feedback idea is at this time a dead one.
Chris V. (22:28:05) :
You say that higher temps yield higher CO2 levels, with 1998 #1. But the #2, 3, 5, and 6 CO2 levels on that list are all after 2002.
I thought the last decade has been cooling?
I’m not terribly concerned about proving the cooling trend, which is self-evident to those with eyes to see. I am concerned with the hysteria surrounding C02.
C02 is our friend. It does not drive climate. Mankind doesn’t even drive C02, as this series:
1986 1.51
1987 2.33
1988 2.09
1989 1.27
1990 1.31
1991 1.02
1992 0.43
1993 1.35
1994 1.90
1995 1.98
1996 1.19
1997 1.96
1998 2.93
1999 0.94
2000 1.74
2001 1.59
2002 2.56
2003 2.27
2004 1.57
2005 2.53
2006 1.72
2007 2.14
again, makes clear.
CO2 has NO effect on earth temp.
It is a hoax. There is NO forcing there is NOTHING.
The people who are behind this hoax have a political agenda which will wreck our economies.
By the means of observational and falsifiable evidence, carbon dioxide has never been proven to influence the climate. Never. Only in laboratory flasks, never in the open atmosphere. That is no surprise as it can not, can never and has never influenced the climate in any way whatsoever.
The one and only influence that carbon dioxide could possibly have in the atmosphere is to increase the dispersal of reflected IR energy from the earth’s surface, but most certainly not warming it in any way whatsoever.
Reflected IR energy coming off the earth after solar energy has heated it would be absorbed and instantly, at the speed of light, dispersed by susceptible molecules like carbon dioxide and water vapor in a random three-dimensional manner, thus halving the energy re-radiated back towards the earth. In a cascading manner, that is why air temperatures drop the instant a cloud passes in between the earth and the observer and why night-time temperatures are lower than day-time temperatures (except in the unusual climatic conditions whereby wind might carry warmer air during the night-time over a cooler area).
If re-radiated warming took place, the carbon dioxide and water molecules in the atmosphere would be capable of maintaining the temperature for the few seconds that a cloud might pass overhead – instead, an instant cooling is experienced – instant.
Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we’d be able to make energy from thin air. Also, air (as in oxygen and nitrogen) does not react substantially to radiation (as you can test in your own microwave oven, where the food gets hot but not the air. Any heating of the air is due to convective heating off the food) and thus carbon dioxide can not possibly warm the air via re-radiating IR energy.
To classify carbon dioxide as a pollutant is thus nothing short of scientific chicanery, for reasons that have nothing to do with science, but based purely on the pseudo-science.
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/theory.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/latest.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/latestarticles.html
Chris V.:
Prove it.
And computer models do not qualify as proof.
Chris V : And why is none of that supposed extra 2 watt/m2 of energy, NOT going into the oceans? (NASA ARGO temperature buoys)
And why is none of it apparently going into the atmosphere? Global temperature anomalies have been falling since 1997 (UAH), or 1998 (RSS and Hadley) or 2001 (GISS).
Smokey (09:58:12) said:
“Prove it. ”
Go read the IPCC report. It won’t kill you.
Ignore the report itself if you like, and just look at the papers it references on this topic.
Les Johnson (10:25:25) :
“And why is none of that supposed extra 2 watt/m2 of energy, NOT going into the oceans?”
I dunno- why isn’t the energy from the sun (as shown on the graph Smokey posted) not going into the oceans?
Ron de Haan says:
Perhaps those IR photons know when clouds are overhead and delay being emitted until the clouds are gone.
Chris V:
your I dunno- why isn’t the energy from the sun (as shown on the graph Smokey posted) not going into the oceans?
Nice dodge. Why are you asking me about the content of another poster’s data?
I am asking you, why the supposed 2 watt/m2 of CO2 forcing, as posted by you, is apparently not going into either the ocean or the atmosphere.
Occam would suggest that there isn’t any additional 2 watt/m2.
But, I will wait for your explanation.
Chris V: Heck, let me comment on Smokey’s data, anyway.
Just a guess, with out actually crunching the numbers, but the energy transfer (0.3 watt/m2) and the time frame (2003 – present) are both too small, to measure any transfer, in such a large heat sink as the oceans.
Now, your number (2.0 watt/m2), on the other hand, is 7 times larger, and should be measurable; if it exists.
Chris (12:23:42) :
Your posting on Hansen’s assumed GHG inputs took place a long time ago in this thread, but your numbers do not quite match up with my memory. Quite a few skeptics, including McIntyre, were trying to divine what Hansen’s inputs were and Gavin Schmidt laid this discussion to rest over a year ago when he posted the values for the various GHG inputs. Unfortunately, I cannot find his posting at the moment, but I remember that CO2 in 2008 was assumed to be 388 for Scenario A, with Scenario B being a tiny less.
Chris V:
“Some skeptics claim that cosmic rays or solar activity are the big drivers of climate. Why not make some predictions? . . . .Then we wait and see what happens. Ultimately, the ability to make accurate predictions is the best test of a theory, right? At least that’s what you guys all seem to be saying.”
How long are you willing to wait? If I understand the term “forcing” correctly, it applies only to, e.g. variations in solar output, variations in atmospheric CO2, etc. The short term effects of these forcings, by all accounts, are dwarfed by the transient response of the climate system, basically meaning that the only way to discern a forecasted response to one of these forcings is to wait several decades. Even then, if the climate system behaves similarly to what was predicted, it could have been just chance, so you wait quite a bit longer to see if the climate system contonues to be have as predicted. My estimate is at least a century. This applies to forecasts by the IPCC climate models, as well, which is why I view them as being of little, if any, value.
As far as Hansen’s Scenario A, B, C forecasts back in the 80s, he could have just dusted off the model in 2005, plugged in the greenhouse emissions, volcanic eruptions, atmospheric component concentrations, etc. He did not do so when defending his forecasts from Michaels and Crichton, and the inference I draw from that is that he realized that the model wouldn’t look too rosy. Instead, he just compared the Scenario B forecast to the subsequently measured temperatures and declared a good fit, without first establishing that the assumptions underlying Scenario B actually occurred.
If we want the atmosphere to heat up with 1 degree Celcius and CO2 should have to do the job, every CO2 molecule should be heated at a temp of about 1000 degree Celcius. (quote David Archibald).
We all know this is not happening.
Look at the figures about CO2: Human induced CO2 0.0164% of our atmosphere.
Calculation:
THE NUMBERS ABOUT CARBON DIOXIDE IN OUR ATMOSPHERE
Here are the calculations, based on information obtained directly from the Royal Dutch Meteorological Institute in De Bilt, Holland (KNMI).
Mass (air) = 4 pi R^2 * P/g, where
R=earth radius=6,371,000 m; P=surface pressure=101,300 Pa; g=acceleration due to gravity=9.8 m/s^2
Thus, Mass (air) = 5.3 x 10^18 kg = 5,300,000 Gigatons
Mass (CO2 = mass (air)*ratio (CO2/air)*mol. mass (CO2)/mol. mass (air), where
ratio (CO2/air)=380 ppm=380 parts CO2 per 1 million parts of air
molecular mass (CO2)=44 kg/kmol – molecular mass (air)=28.8 kg/kmol
Thus, Mass (CO2)=3 x 10^15 kg=3,000 Gigatons
Man-made emissions of CO2 are estimated at 110ppm, which is 28.95% of the total CO2 and that equals 868 Gigatons = 0.0164% by mass of the total atmosphere.
(A Gigaton is a 1,000 million tons and 1 ton is 1,000kg, equal to 2,240lbs.)
There is a nice graph on that provides a visual on CO2 in our atmosphere.
Please have a look at it so get the whole idea of CO2 being a climate forcing factor out of your mind for the rest of your life. See: http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/graph.html
At this moment you can find a few nice video’s at the “GORE LIED” website that tell you exactly what drives our climate. Look the complete series.
http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2008/11/video-speech-by-roger-helmer.html
Once again. The AGW problematic is a hoax and its promoted by people who have a political agenda.
It we do not come to our senses we will find ourselves in a world that is ruled by eco communists. Today they are attacking coal power plants, tomorrow they are euthanising your family because they think it is good for the environment.
Believe me, this is serious business.
http://green-aganda.com if you have the stomach for it.
Smokey:
“CO2 has a negligible effect, smaller than almost any other climate forcing, all of which overwhelm the tiny effect from CO2. Otherwise, the steady increase in carbon dioxide would produce a steady increase in the planet’s temperature. That has not happened. In fact, the planet is cooling.”
At the outset, to avoid any confusion, I want to say that my opinion is that I agree with the conclusion that the forcing from CO2 emissions is small and unimportant. Having said that, I think that your reasoning here improperly assumes that the response of the climate system to a hypothetically steady solar influx settles rapidly to a near-constant value. I don’t think that is the case. My understanding is that the response of the climate system to even a constant solar influx is highly chaotic, even on decadal time scales. This means that even under no forcing, annual temperatures would still fluctuate wildly around a median for quite some time.
The response to your argument would be that the very slight cooling we have seen since 1998 is simply the result of greenhouse gas warming being offset by a particularly strong, unpredictable transient response of the climate system. In fact, many global warming advacates have made this precise argument. What this does show, however, is that it is far, far too soon to be drawing any conclusions about the amount of climate sensitivity to CO2. What’s good for the goose and all that. If the decade plus between 1998 and 2008 isn’t long enough to disprove a significant climate sensitivity, then how long do you think it would take to actually demonstrate or infer a value of climate sensitivity based on measured temperatures. It should take a lot longer than a decade.
The conclusion of your line of reasoning is not that a lack of a significant relationship between CO2 and temperature has been established, it is that a significant relationship has not been established.
Les Johnson (11:53:28) said:
“Just a guess, with out actually crunching the numbers, but the energy transfer (0.3 watt/m2) and the time frame (2003 – present) are both too small, to measure any transfer, in such a large heat sink as the oceans.
Now, your number (2.0 watt/m2), on the other hand, is 7 times larger, and should be measurable; if it exists.”
The CO2 forcing today is about 2w/m2. CO2 levels have been increasing steadily for the last 100 years or so, so back about 50 years ago the CO2 forcing would have been less- maybe 1 w/m2.
So , as the CO2 forcing increased from 1960 to today, what did the temeperature do? It Increased rather significantly.
An Inquirer (13:21:46) :
Chris V provided a link to RC in Chris V. (11:15:18) (yesterday)
Unfortunately, I couldn’t find a detailed breakdown of the GHG forcings (gas-by-gas) on that thread.
Wondering Aloud (08:01:01) said:
“I am beginning to wonder if there is any such thing as a CO2 forcing much less one that can be quantified in watts/square meter.”
Is water vapour a greenhouse gas? Is there such a thing as a water-vapour forcing? Can water-vapour forcing be quantified?
If we can calculate the forcing for water vapour, then we can calculate the forcing for CO2.
Mike Bryant:
“Reflected energy can in any case not make the emitter of the original energy warmer; if it could, we’d be able to make energy from thin air.”
Your earlier point about the variability of opinions among skeptics of global warming is a good one. I did want to point out, however, that your assumption here is that the original “source” of the reflected radaition is itself not being warmed by another object.
To illustrate this point, consider a thermos into which coffee is poured at 80 C after which you seal the thermos. Thermoses are designed to include reflective material on the inside to take the radiated energy from the liquid and reflect it back. This makes the thermos more efficient at retaining heat than one without the reflective liner. In this simple scenario, you would be correct in asserting that the reflected energy cannot raise the temperature of the coffee above its initial state of 80 C.
Now assume that you have some high-tech thermos that substitutes the reflective material with a battery-operated heating element, which adds a small amount of heat to the liquid in the thermos, such that coffee poured in it will reach a steady-state temperature with respect to ambient outside the thermos at, again, 80 C. This occurs irrespective of the initial temperature of the coffee. If coffee at 70 C is poured in, the heating element will, over time, cause the coffee to hit its equilibrium temperature where the heat in from the heating element is exactly balanced by the heat lost to ambient through the thermos walls. If coffee is poured in at 90 C, it will similarly cool to the steady-state temperature.
Finally, add a reflective coating to that high-tech thermos. You will find that the reflective coating will indeed cause the steady-state temperature to rise to something above 80 C.
It is this latter circumstance that is analogous (loosely) to the Earth’s climate system. When clouds roll in overnight, the effect is to raise temperatures with respect to what the temps otherwise would have been. This is because, absent the clouds, the radiated energy from the surface would simply escape to space. Does this process cause temperatures to go up in the darkness? Absolutely not. But in the daytime, when the sun is heating the surface, greenhouse gasses elevate the temperatures beyond that which would have occurred absent the greenhouse gasses. Pumping more into the atmosphere should cause temperatures to increase over time, because it will take longer for the surface to shed that radiation into space.
The source of the Earth’s temperature is the sun, and the only mechanism the Earth (inclusive of the atmoshpere) has to shed that energy is through radiation. Convection and conduction aren’t operative where one side of the boundary is a vacuum. The temperature of the Earth at which energy in = energy out is governed broadly by the Stephen Boltzmann equation, if I remember the name of the equation correctly, which assumes a perfect black body in thermal equilibrium with itself. Neither condition is true with respect to th Earth, meaning that the equilibrium temperature of the Earth will be higher (less efficient at discarding energy) than that given by the equation. Adding CO2 means that the Earth becomes even less “in thermal equilibrium with itself”, becomes less efficient at discarding the energy received from the sun, and in response, raises its temperatures.
Where those temperatures occur, and their magnitude, is very much a live issue, but I have to disagree with you in that temperatures do have to rise.
kurt,
I agree with your post above. I was merely showing a comparison of solar irradiance and warming [if those solar vs GISS charts I posted were what you were referring to].
I agree that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas. But as stated, it has such a tiny effect that it can be ignored. And it certainly will not cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
There’s an issue here to which I posed a question on another article, but i don’t think anyone has addressed it. I’m a patent attorney, so aside form having an engineering degree, i don’t have the technical expertise to address it, but perhaps others do.
Many posters suggest that CO2 can’t be important because it’s a trace gas. I don’t find this argument immediately persuasive. That trace gas, after all, is responsible for all plant life on Earth. Having said that, let’s make the assumption that you can quantify the additional radiation captured by a doubling of CO2 (no small accomplishment itself, I know, given the overlap in radiative bands of all GHGs). On that assumption, how do you divide that captured energy amongst the outflux that gets re-radiated, and the outflux that gets transferred kinetically to other gasses. I’m guessing you’ve got at least two differential equations to solve simultaneously, but without some additional parameters known, it’s not possible.
CO2, being but one element of a gas mix, is not going to increase it’s temperature to the level needed to re-radiate the extra watts it receives; much of that energy will be transferred kinetically to the surrounding gas molecules, essentially causing the atmosphere to heat as one. Granted, any incremental increase in the temperature of air will cause all air molecules to radiate at a higher temperature, but by tamping down the temperature increase by spreading it out, the net radiation back to the surface gets diminished because radaition is propotional to the fourth power of temperature.
What I’m thinking is that the primary way that the energy captured by CO2 gets dissipated is not radiation, partly back to the surface, but primarily upwards convention as the kinetic transfer between gas molecules moves the heat rapidly throughout the atmosphere.
Any physicists out there that could explain why I’m all wet? I won’t mind.
kurt,
In your post to Mike Bryant above, you state, “…greenhouse gasses elevate the temperatures beyond that which would have occurred absent the greenhouse gasses. Pumping more into the atmosphere should cause temperatures to increase over time, because it will take longer for the surface to shed that radiation into space.”
OK, that’s true as far as it goes. But the net effect of increasing CO2 is logarithmic, not geometric or even linear. So even doubling the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only result in a very small theoretical rise in temperature, since the largest amount of the greenhouse effect caused by atmospheric CO2 has already occurred with the first 20 ppmv concentration.
Adding another 20 ppmv of CO2, or another 40, or 80, will not result in any measurable change in the planet’s temperature, because many other climate forcings overwhelm the tiny effect.
The atmosphere is currently starved of beneficial carbon dioxide. More CO2 would be better for both plants and animals, and any putative warming due to human emissions would be an extremely tiny fraction of one degree C. How that tiny effect could even be measured, much less measured with any accuracy, is problematic.
And that gets us to the central argument: since further increases in CO2 would have a negligible effect, why are otherwise rational people endorsing and attempting to justify the enormous cost of monumentally stupid ideas like carbon [dioxide] sequestration?
Answer: the AGW/CO2 hypothesis is driven by money and politics, not by science.
Once again, there is NO CO2 forcing. CO2 is a trace gas, 0.0365% of our atmosphere.
Governments have spend over 50 billion US dollar to get the proof on the table and what they have come up with is plain lies. There is 0 proof.
1.
The settled science that a greenhouse warms up due to re-radiated light (energy), as set out by Fourier (1824), Tyndall (1861), Arrhenius (1896), NASA (2008), et al., is false.
2.
Considering, therefore, that even inside an actual greenhouse with a barrier of solid glass no such phenomenon as a greenhouse effect occurs, most certainly there can be no greenhouse effect in our turbulent atmosphere.
Energy can not be created from nothing, not even by means of re-radiated infra red. Widely accepted theory has it that more energy is re-radiated to earth than comes from the sun in the first place, amounting to almost an extra two suns. All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise. A block of ice in a room does not cause the room to warm up, despite the block of ice radiating its energy into the room. Yet carbon dioxide’s re-radiation of infrared energy warming up planet earth is the preposterous theory hailed by not only the alarmists, but accepted and elaborated by most skeptics as well, with mathematical theorems that do little more than calculate the number of fairies that can dance on a pinhead.
The accepted carbon dioxide greenhouse theory is thus declared a complete and total scam, as more fully detailed in these papers, amongst many (and I salute all scientists who agree with these papers and will gladly publicise all papers on this subject) :
“Falsification Of The Atmospheric CO2 Greenhouse Effects Within The Frame Of Physics”
http://www.tech-know.eu/uploads/Falsification_of_the_Atmospheric_CO2_Greenhouse_Effects.pdf and
“Greenhouse Gas Hypothesis Violates Fundamentals of Physics”
http://freenet-homepage.de/klima/indexe.htm
Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/FAQ.html
http://www.ilovemycarbondioxide.com/carbondioxide.html
“Really new trails are rarely blazed in the great academies.
The confining walls of conformist dogma are too dominating.
To think originally, you must go forth into the wilderness.”
S. Warren Carey
“One definition of insanity is the compulsion
to make the same mistake over and over again
all the while expecting a different and successful outcome.”
Phil Brennan
The changes in climate are due to the activity of the sun and variations in cloud cover.
See the three short video’s: http://gorelied.blogspot.com/2008/11/great-global-warming-swindle-6-part.html
In this video’s the whole case is explained and more…
Smokey:
“But the net effect of increasing CO2 is logarithmic, not geometric or even linear. So even doubling the concentration of atmospheric carbon dioxide would only result in a very small theoretical rise in temperature, since most of the greenhouse effect caused by atmospheric CO2 has already occurred with the first 20 ppmv concentration.”
I agree in principle with this, but I’m not sure about the numbers thrown out there. It’s certainly a logarithmic response and therefore a linear increase in CO2 contributions have less and less influence. Without knowing the precise values of the constants in the logarithmic equation, though, I’m a little less sure about the rest of your asserion (we need to know what the exponent is of the inverse equation). This wouldn’t necessarily mean that the majority of the existing effect comes in the first 20ppm. Even logarithmic curves tend to infinity, after all. Complicating all of this is the fact that there are other GHGs that absorb in the same bands as CO2, which I would think should even further reduce the effect of a doubling of CO2. This is why I always argue that, from a quantitative standpoint, no one will ever prove or disprove the global warming theory – not in my lifetime anyway, and likely not in my kid’s either (and he’s only 2).
Let me throw one more thing out there. Hansen and others spit out a lot of loose language about there being positive feedback loops in the climate system. I’ve looked at the graphs of temperature reconstructions, and I have to say that on any time scale shorter than the glatiation – intergalciation intervals, I don’t see anything that looks like positive feedback. If I design a circuit with positive feedback, for example, that circuit should alternate between two rails, one high and one low. which we do see in the temperature record in the sense that we have periodic ice ages, and from a geologic standpoint, they seem to appear and disappear (the transition period) relatively quickly.
That’s the way positive feedback is supposed to work. Whatever stored energy the system has that can be drawn upon to reinforce the signal gets used up, and used up quickly, because the positive feedback is on temperature (or voltage), whatever it’s source – feedback on feedback essentially. But once you hit the ice age, or interglacial, the remaining positive feedback reservoir that could increase temperatures is mostly spent, while there should be a huge reservoir available to decrease temperatures when the system eventually falls back below the intermediary threshold.
In short, whatever the initial climate sensitivity is to a doubling of CO2, I just can’t buy off on this positive feedback loop idea that says that temperatures are going to spin out of control once we pass over some “tipping point” that only seems to exists in some scientist’s theoretical model.
Many posters suggest that CO2 can’t be important because it’s a trace gas. I don’t find this argument immediately persuasive. That trace gas, after all, is responsible for all plant life on Earth.
Kurt, that is true. But, during the geological period when life as we know it emerged (algae and such) CO2 was the dominant gas in the atmosphere. It was much much hotter, from both the high CO2 and also from much higher volcanic activity than the present. Eventually, so much of that life spread across the oceans, that its waste byproduct became more dominant in the atmosphere that its food. And that waste became the atmospheres life blood for the animal kingdom – oxygen.
The more relevant curiosity is this – there does not seem to be a pattern in geologic history that can show that a rise in CO2 levels, which has happened before, PRECEDED a rise in temps. There are many studies (iec cores are the best so far) that show CO2 increases lag behind temp increases. I can’t say I’ve seen every study that’s out there, but lets say there are a few that shows CO2 rising first. Even then, it is still a correlation between CO2 and temp increases, and not a causal relationship.
Ron de Haan:
“All materials above zero Kelvin radiate energy, yes, but energy does not flow from a cold body to a warm one and cause its temperature to rise.”
I’m not sure what you mean by this. You could be asserting that energy can’t move naturally from a cold object to a warm object (assertion 1), or be stating that even if it does flow from the cooler to the hotter, that it won’t cause the latter’s temperature to rise (assertion 2). Either of these assertions are false.
As noted earlier in a post on another article, heat pumps extract heat from cooler regions and move them to warmer areas. Granted, you have to expend energy to move the heat, but once it gets there, it heats the region into which it gets put. Thus, assertion 2 is plainly false.
Similarly, the idea that heat can’t be moved from a cold body to a warm body is also false. The moon, for example, is much cooler than the Earth, but as you noted, it radiates energy because it’s temperature is above zero K. Certainly you are not suggesting that the Earth has some “smart shield” around it that redirects the radiation from the moon, but lets the sun’s radiation in. And as noted in the preceding paragraph, once the radiation from the moon gets absorbed by the Earth, the Earth’s temperature will rise as a result, with respect to a hypothetical in which the moon didn’t exist.
No one is arguing that energy is being created from nothing. The argument is that the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere determines how efficiently the Earth re-radiates back to space that which it absorbs from the sun. In this analysis, whether or not CO2 is a “trace gas” isn’t immediately relevant. As noted by Smokey, above, the very first increment of CO2 (in other words, the tracest of the trace) had the largest effect of all subsequently sized increments. What kind of logic is it that says that the effect on temperatures of a trace gas can’t be that important because it’s too small, when the efffect on temperature is logarithmic?
Don’t misunderstand me, in that I also believe (strongly so) that the global warming scaremongering is grossly overblown. Don’t even get me started on the futility of trying to predict actual climactic effects of increased temperatures (hurricanes, droughts, etc) . I do, however, think that it is counterproductive to be presenting arguments that are untrue and can be instantly discredited.
Ron de Haan (17:51:50) :
The changes in climate are due to the activity of the sun and variations in cloud cover.
The sun doesn’t vary enough for this and the observed variations of cloud cover and albedo do not match the solar cycle. It is not good strategy to combat AGW with something equally flimsy.
Kurt,
Sorry, those words were not mine. They belong to:
Hans Schreuder
Ipswich, UK
I am a plumber, but even I can see truth when it hits me between the eyes.
Mike the Plumber
It’s all pipes!
Mike the Plumber
Mike Bryant:
“Kurt . . . Sorry, those words were not mine. They belong to Hans Schreuder.”
Sorry. Should have read the post more carefully.
kurt,
Apparently the moon also has a smart shield protecting it form the earth’s radiated energy!
The point you missed, I believe, is that in the absence of a conducting mechanism (ala heat pump) the sum flow of energy will be from a warm body to a cold body, until equilibrium is reached.
Smokey (17:44:02) :
At the current rates of CO2 emissions, some of us will live to see CO2 levels that are double pre-industrial levels. The best estimates for the temperature change associated with that doubling (the CO2 sensitivity) are about 3 degrees C. The estimate for the CO2 sensitivity comes (mostly) from paleoclimate studies, observed climate responses to volcanoes, and climate models.
During the last ice age, global temps were only 5 degrees cooler than today, so 3 degrees is a very big change.
kurt says:
If its effect were exponential, I would be worried ,,,
Also, you have not dealt with the issue that clouds cause immediate cooling, not cooling after some dozens of minutes.
John M (16:53:07) :
That link to RC is not the one that I am looking for. You are right, I am looking for detailed breakdown of the GHG forcings (gas-by-gas), year by year in ppm for each Scenario. I was under the impression that Gavin posted it but I am not finding it at the present time. I believe that trying to recreate Hansen’s inputs is not as reliable as getting the inputs directly.
Say Anthony, the NW is getting some very warm stagnet weather that includes record breakers in Meacham, Oregon (topped at 58 degrees on the 17th which is a record breaker warm day since 1948) during the day. The jet stream seems to be wanting to dip down to the tropics out in the Pacific Ocean before trying to rise back up to the 45th parallel on shore. What is causing the severe dip into warmer areas? Is this like stacked up airplanes? The cold jet stream rise into Arctic cold air and then its dip down over the midwest isn’t moving East so the jet stream behind it is stacking up causing it to fold down into the tropics? What could be causing this stalled and folded jet stream with warm and cold folds?
Chris V: your
At the current rates of CO2 emissions, some of us will live to see CO2 levels that are double pre-industrial levels.
Nope. Unless there is a major breaktrough in longevity medicine.
You are confusing emissions with atmospheric CO2 content.
While emissions are increasing at about 2%/year, atmospheric CO2 is only increasing at about 0.6%/year.
And, you are assuming that all CO2 feedback is positive. Recent work by Lindzen, Christy and Spencer all suggest that CO2 may have a negative feedback component.
That means that at the present rate of atmospheric CO2 increases, we will see a doubling in a little over 100 years.
Richard Sharpe:
“If its effect were exponential, I would be worried.”
The underlying math of a logarithmic response of temperatures to CO2 is that the marginal effect of increasing CO2 gets smaller as CO2 concentration rises. Simply asserting that CO2 can’t have a large greenhouse effect because it is a trace gas is a fallacy. I’m not saying that it doesn’t have an insignificant effect, I’m just saying that you can’t simply assume it based on it’s being a trace gas.
In terms of the cooling effect of clouds, the immediacy of feeling that effect is due to the blocked incoming radiation from the sun, just as it would be if you stepped beneath a large shade tree. I have no idea why someone would posit that greenhouse gasses would cause a delay of dozens of minutes, or even one minute for that matter, for you to stop feeling the heat of the sun shining on you, or for temperatures to begin to drop in the shaded region. Given that the energy input to the surface has been cut suddenly, of course temperatures are going to start to go down instantly. Greenhouse gasses don’t act like a reservoir behind a dam, that is let loose to compensate for a sudden drop in rainfall. They don’t store energy at all. They absorb it and then instantly dissipate it, as efficiently as they are able.
If I have a CPU running 150 watts in a closed computer case, with no air flow, so as to trap in the heat from the CPU in the region surrounding it, it will run hotter than if it were laid out on a table. The fact that the trapped heat raises the temperature of the processor isn’t disproven by someone’s observation that the CPU’s temperature drops instantly when its load is cut to 100 watts. Why would it be?
For readability, I should have swapped the last two paragraphs.
Chris V; Your
So , as the CO2 forcing increased from 1960 to today, what did the temeperature do? It Increased rather significantly.
Not quite right. There was warming until 1998 (or 2001 if you are a fan of GISS)
Are you confusing casuality with causation?
With even more CO2 from 1998 to present, there has been a negative temperature trend for the last decade, and NO WARMING OF THE OCEANS.
It should also be remembered that there was a significant warming from 1900-1940, well before the vast majority of CO2 had been emitted.
Earle Williams (19:29:14) :
“The point you missed, I believe, is that in the absence of a conducting mechanism (ala heat pump) the sum flow of energy will be from a warm body to a cold body, until equilibrium is reached.”
All you are really saying is that the effect of the earth in heating the moon is greater than the effect of the moon in heating the earth. But the moon does heat the Earth, by some small amount. (Both are small amounts, really). Actually, the only point of the heat pump analogy was to show that the house, for example, doesn’t care where the extra heat comes from, it just takes it and warms, even if it does come from a cooler object. The moon example was to illustrate that with radiative heat transfer, cooler objects can transfer heat to warmer ones, because heat outflux is solely dependent on the temperature and material properties of the radiator.
My overall point is that, if you change the equilibrium constraints, such as raising the temperature of the cool sink for the warm object, the temperature of the warm object will rise. This point does not rely on any assertion that the net flow of heat reverses itself. Make the composition of the moon so that it is less reflective (paint it all black), it stores more energy from the sun, radiates more to Earth, and the Earth’s temperture will rise.
Kurt,
“Make the composition of the moon so that it is less reflective (paint it all black), it stores more energy from the sun, radiates more to Earth, and the Earth’s temperture will rise.”
I’d like to see what a physicist would say about that one…
Mike
Kurt,
“Greenhouse gasses don’t act like a reservoir behind a dam, that is let loose to compensate for a sudden drop in rainfall. They don’t store energy at all. They absorb it and then instantly dissipate it, as efficiently as they are able.”
I’ve been in greenhouses, and when a cloud passes overhead, the temperature does not quickly drop. Outside, when a cloud passes overhead there is an immediate drop. So are you saying the greenhouse effect is a misnomer?
Mike
There is a story about GISS data from Brazil on icecap.us
“Nov 17, 2008
October’s Temperature Discrepencies
By Eugenio Hackbart, METSUL “
I am not a regular poster here but all those issues have been already considered in depth at http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 dedicated to climate physics only .
I do not know where this Chris V is coming from but he obviously hasn’t got a clue about the issues .
So only fast and for those who want to fill in the details , check the above link :
1) The fact that any gas molecule abosrbs and emits in infrared (the homonuclear too but much less) is a trivial fact .
2) The above fact has nothing but REALLY nothing to do with a greenhouse which only works because it suppresses convection . Also trivial . The atmosphere and oceans have nothing in common with a greenhouse .
3) Under the assumption of radiative equilibrium , it can be shown that the surface temperature of a planet would slightly and non linearily increase with the concentration of IR active gases (primarily H2O) if and only if radiation was the only mean for energy transfer . The real atmosphere is neither in radiative equilibrium nor has it only radiation available for energy transfer .
Convection and conduction cannot be neglected like it is done in all radiation transfer models .
4) There is no derivation of “the radiative forcing” and indeed cannot be for the reason mentionned in 3) above . The house number of 2 W/m² that is thrown around is an average result of computer models that suppose radiative equilibrium and neglect convection (the models are generally fed by a standard lapse rate profile) .
You should have noticed that the warmer ChrisV evaded the question about the proof of the 2W/m² . For good reason – the question cannot be answered in another way than saying “the models with unrealistic assumptions and tuned to the bone say so .”
4) Even admitting that the impact of IR active gases could be summed up in some average number of x W/m² with x being in the range of extremely small to very small , it is not possible to provide the derivation from this number to the average global temperature . This relationship is obviously non linear and unknown . It is again models (GCM) who give a range of temperature variation .
It is those same models who can’t get even the sign of variations right at regional levels and have a cloudiness dispersion of 50 % .
So inputting a wrong number in a wrong model should only be qualified of waste of time .
5) It is on the basis of the wrong models that has been established the temperature trend of 0.2 ° C / decade (IPCC report) . This number is a PREDICTION and the first falsifiable one one dared by IPCC in 20 years .
The real trend over the first decade 2000 – 2008 falsifies the models with a confidence level of 95 % .
Or in other words , the probability that the models are right AND the real observed temperatures do what they did because of bad luck is 5 % .
6) The climate system is a chaotic system .
The property of a chaotic system is that it is not predictible and doesn’t follow statistical laws .
Another property is that it generally stays in a bounded volume of the phase space (called attractor) what explains why through billions of years despite the large variations of all parameters on all time scales (from hours to million of years) , the system always stayed in a quasi stable state . It never got lower than a mild relatively short ice age and never higher than a tropical climate .
Last property is that it presents pseudo trends on all time scales . By taking any time scale you will detect a trend . However if you are ignorant about the true nature of the system and go to stupidly extrapolate the trend from short time series to long time scales , the system will always punish you by showing an opposite trend when the observation time increases .
Leif,
“Ron de Haan (17:51:50) :
The changes in climate are due to the activity of the sun and variations in cloud cover.
The sun doesn’t vary enough for this and the observed variations of cloud cover and albedo do not match the solar cycle. It is not good strategy to combat AGW with something equally flimsy”.
Leif,
David Archibald makes use of this theory and so does Patrick Moore, Richard Linzen, Jan Weize, Nir Shariv, Ian Clark, Tim Patterson and Svendsmark, see video on the gore lied website. What about the graph (Weize and Shariv) over a 5 million year time line showing a relationship between temperature and cosmic rays?
Patterson makes a fairly hard case!
Maybe we are focusing too much on a relative small band of differences in temperature trying to generate proof for a mechanism that can not be measured globaly within a such a narrow band?
Linzen makes the remark that if we would check a patients health by measuring the body temperature by 1/00 of a degree Celcius the whole world would declare us mad. The same is the case for our environment.
The 0.6 degree rise of temp on the NH until 1998 is a relative factor if you take the variations in climate station measurements into account.
Are people worried about nothing? Should this be the response to the AGW hysteria?
kurt, I have enjoyed your and smokey’s discussion. You state in your 18:10 post that a log curve eventually goes infinite, true, although the reponse needn’t be, see my crude example here: http://i35.tinypic.com/fc0eua.jpg
While CO2 concentration might approach infinity, the temperature response can go flat (effectively)
Chris V.
the last ice age, global temps were only 5 degrees cooler than today, so 3 degrees is a very big change.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
1. Try 8c cooler.
2. during previous interglacials temperatures spiked 2-3c higher than the current interglacial.
3. we appear to have had the most stable interglacial period going back 400k years.
Leif,
Is NASA changing the ocean temperature data as well?????????????????
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/cloud-cover-albedo-and-temperature.html
Kurt says:
So, it seems to me that the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 in the bands that can be absorbed by CO2 (ie, some fraction of the total outgoing energy) is proportional to the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, unless you can somehow magically push all that CO2 into a thin shell that no photon of the required frequency can avoid.
Leif,
Is NASA changing the ocean temp data also??????????????
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/cloud-cover-albedo-and-temperature.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
Speaking of CO2, does anyone here know if the PPMs of CO2 are are stratified because it is heavier than air?
The NCDC has not updated this page even though it was supposed to have been updated yesterday the 17th:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/oct/global.html#introduction
When it does update, i bet the spin will make you dizzy.
I guess those guys are spinning themselves into a tizzy with the recent challenges.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/more-flubs-at-the-top-of-the-climate-food-chain-this-time-ncdcs-karl/
Les Johnson (22:15:25) :
“That means that at the present rate of atmospheric CO2 increases, we will see a doubling in a little over 100 years.”
Doubling relative to todays levels, or relative to preindustrial levels? I was referring to pre-industrial levels.
I’ve seen several projections that give 560 ppm CO2 (that’s double the pre-industrial level) by 2070.
Mike Bryant: your
So are you saying the greenhouse effect is a misnomer?
It is, when applied to the atmosphere. (my apologies if the following is already known to you)
A green house works by decreasing turbulence. So called Green House Gases work by absorbing then re-emitting IR.
To show the difference, studies by the University of Alaska, used IR transparent polyethylene, and IR opaque glass, for green houses.
They found no significant difference in the temperatures in the green houses, which indicates that depressing turbulence is the major factor in heat retention in a green house, and not IR retention. Thus, a so called “Green House” gas, is the misnomer.
Inhibiting turbulence, increases IR radiation. But decreasing IR, lowers turbulence.
Increasing turbulence, reduces radiation. Increasing radiation, increases turbulence.
Which brings up one of the problems with CO2. It can actually have a direct net negative forcing, depending on the atmospheric lapse rate (or, the temperature gradient).
All models use 6.5 deg C/1000 meters as the lapse rate. CO2 is a warming agent at 6.5 deg C/1000 meters.
Change this to 6.4, and there is no net effect either way. Change the lapse to 6.0, and CO2 becomes a net cooling agent, through increased turbulence.
Measured lapse rates are between 4 and 10 deg C/1000 meters.
Les Johnson (22:36:03) :
“Are you confusing casuality with causation?”
I am not confusing correlation with causation; just noticing that the temp increase is consistent with what we would expect CO2 to do.
Ron de Haan (08:18:09) :
David Archibald makes use of this theory
Hardly a recommendation :-)
so does Patrick Moore, Richard Linzen, Jan Weize, Nir Shariv, Ian Clark, Tim Patterson and Svendsmark,
One could make a [longer!] list of people that don’t…
What about the graph (Weize and Shariv) over a 5 million year time line showing a relationship between temperature and cosmic rays?
We can’t even measure the temperature for October, 2008, so one might be skeptical of 5 million years :-). Presumably the orbital cycles were taken out first [I haven't seen the Figure in detail]. Presumably the cosmic ray data comes from 10Be. There is good evidence that the 10Be-record is influenced by temperature. See e.g. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L21812, doi:10.1029/2008GL035189, 2008
Atmospheric impact on beryllium isotopes as solar activity proxy
A. Aldahan et al., published 14 November 2008.
[1] Reconstructing solar activity variability beyond the time scale of actual measurements provides invaluable data for modeling of past and future climate change. The 10Be isotope has been a primary proxy archive of past solar activity and cosmic ray intensity, particularly for the last millennium. There is, however, a lack of direct high resolution atmospheric time series on 10Be that enable estimating atmospheric modulation on the production
signal. [...] Our data indicate intrusion of stratosphere/upper troposphere air masses that can modulate the isotopes production signal, and may induce relative peaks in the natural 10Be archives (i.e., ice and sediment). The atmospheric impact on the Be-isotopes can disturb the production signals and consequently the estimate of past solar activity magnitude.
—–
And: “indications of a connection between intrusion frequency and surface air temperature at the studied latitudes. Intrusion-free periods apparently show elevated average temperatures compared to periods with frequent intrusions”
and they caution: “These effects, which alter the production signal, should be quantified or eliminated before accurate estimates of past solar irradiance variations can be made.”
So, things may not be as simple and direct as most assume.
People have tried to independently confirm the Svensmark theory:
Solar influences on cosmic rays and cloud formation: A reassessment.
Sun, Bomin; Bradley, Raymond S.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), Volume 107, Issue D14, pp. AAC 5-1, CiteID 4211, DOI 10.1029/2001JD000560
Publication Date: 07/2002
Abstract
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1997] proposed a ‘cosmic ray-cloud cover” hypothesis that cosmic ray flux, modulated by solar activity, may modify global cloud cover and thus global surface temperature by increasing the number of ions in the atmosphere, leading to enhanced condensation of water vapor and cloud droplet formation. We evaluate this idea by extending their period of study and examining long-term surface-based cloud data (from national weather services and the Global Telecommunication System) as well as newer satellite data (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) D2, 1983-1993). No meaningful relationship is found between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover over tropical and extratropical land areas back to the 1950s. The high cosmic ray-cloud cover correlation in the period 1983-1991 over the Atlantic Ocean, the only large ocean area over which the correlation is statistically significant, is greatly weakened when the extended satellite data set (1983-1993) is used. Cloud cover data from ship observations over the North Atlantic, where measurements are denser, did not show any relationship with solar activity over the period 1953-1995, though a large discrepancy exists between ISCCP D2 data and surface marine observations. Our analysis also suggests that there is not a solid relationship between cosmic ray flux and low cloudiness as proposed by Marsh and Svensmark [2000].
—-
So, I wouldn’t be so sure of such a connection.
Les Johnson
“With even more CO2 from 1998 to present, there has been a negative temperature trend for the last decade, and NO WARMING OF THE OCEANS.
It should also be remembered that there was a significant warming from 1900-1940, well before the vast majority of CO2 had been emitted”.
Les,
I just read a NASA publication about a correction of the ARGO data.
The statement is there is much MORE ocean warming?
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html
wattsupwiththat?
Chris V: your
I am not confusing correlation with causation; just noticing that the temp increase is consistent with what we would expect CO2 to do.
So the negative temperature trend since May, 1997 (UAH), is consistent with CO2 forcing?
Chris V: and the increasing temperature trend 1900-1940 is consistent with the then low values of CO2?
And the negative temperature trend 1950-1980 is consistent with the then rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 content?
Ron de Haan: your
I just read a NASA publication about a correction of the ARGO data.
The statement is there is much MORE ocean warming?
No, not quite. The ARGO data is from 2003-present. As you can see from that chart, they have a “tail” in temperature at that period.
Josh Willis, the lead author, found errors in measurements, especially in the XBT data. His fixes fit the models better, pre-ARGO, but the ARGO data still shows no warming. Previous work showed a COOLING with ARGO data.
This is Willis’s conclusion, via NASA’s web site:
With biased profiles discarded, no significant warming or cooling is observed in upper-ocean heat content between 2003 and 2006.
My emphasis.
Leif,
Thanks a lot for your extensive reply.
Is it possible to make a listing of accepted science?
It’s really difficult to get the “sound science” out of the heap of reports and publications.
There is doubt about everything, temperature data sets and lately also the ocean data sets, see revised ocean heat content
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html
wattsupwiththat?
Ron: Jennifer Marohasy gives a good explanation of the ARGO changes. There is a link to NASA as well.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/apologies-to-josh-willis-correcting-ocean-cooling-part-3/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php
But, again, there has not been a cooling of the oceans, as ARGOs first results suggested, but neither has there been a warming.
Chris V
As someone alluded to above, the problem with 3 degrees rise for a doubling of CO2 producing a 3 degree change is that this is a WAG from the models based on supposed large positive feedbacks. Neither the paleo record nor current work looking for this feedback support this in any way. A doubling of CO2 is unlikely, based on current data to cause temperature increase in excess of 1 degree C, most of which should have already occured. Further increases would produce smaller effects of course.
It is generally accepted that global temperatures declined from about 1940 – 1970.
However, during rampant industrialization [abetted by the incineration of numerous cities during the 1940's due to the second world war], atmospheric carbon dioxide increased significantly.
This CO2 rise in the 1940’s is confirmed by Beck, et. al., as posted here. And carbon dioxide levels were far in excess of todays in the early 1800’s.
The consternation of the alarmists at Beck’s paper is evidence, IMHO, that Beck was accurately reporting the situation. Measurements of CO2 using the chemical method that Beck reported show that CO2 levels were in excess of 400 ppmv in the 1940’s — quite a bit higher than today’s CO2 level.
As to be expected, Beck’s peer-reviewed paper has been loudly criticized by various alarmists, but it has not been falsified [not that they haven't tried].
The discussion on this thread and similar ones often devolves into minute nitpicking of insignificant items, rather than looking at the big picture.
Although the alarmist side constantly moves the goal posts [from runaway global warming, to drowning polar bears, to catastrophic Greenland and Antarctic melting, to rising sea levels, to disappearing sea ice, to "global cooling proves global warming", etc., etc.], the simple fact remains that the UN/IPCC has been consistently wrong from AR-1 through AR-4, and the Gore/Hansen duo has been spectacularly wrong.
Rather than engaging in endlessly nitpicking, unproductive arguments over unknowns such as the logarithmic exponent describing the almost nonexistent/nonexistent effect of carbon dioxide on temperature, and the ‘estimate’ of CO2 sensitivity, let’s look at empirical evidence, and the big picture: CO2 is rising, and the planet’s temperature is falling. Any normal person would conclude that CO2 is not causing runaway global warming, climate catastrophe, or for that matter, any other problems.
It appears that the endless hairsplitting arguments have one main purpose: to draw attention away from the subject of the original article, which is that GISS massages and adjusts climate data, and then does everything possible to avoid publicly archiving its taxpayer-funded raw data. This is the climate we’re talking about, not nuclear warfare secrets. The raw data should be made available to any taxpayer who wants to look at it. But GISS withholds it.
The blink graph at the top of the page shows what GISS is doing to the temperature record. Maybe those who endlessly argue about anything else would like to defend the actions of GISS.
Les Johnson (12:38:36) said:
“Chris V: and the increasing temperature trend 1900-1940 is consistent with the then low values of CO2?
And the negative temperature trend 1950-1980 is consistent with the then rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 content?”
CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. But increasing CO2 provides a long-term positive forcing; other forcings (like solar early in the century, and sulfate aerosols mid centrury) are superimposed onto that.
Wondering Aloud (15:03:45) said:
“As someone alluded to above, the problem with 3 degrees rise for a doubling of CO2 producing a 3 degree change is that this is a WAG from the models based on supposed large positive feedbacks.”
No, it is not based on the models- the sensitivity numbers come from multiple, independent analyses- paleoclimate, modern climate, and models.
The models don’t “suppose” positive feedbacks. Positive feedbacks in the models are emergent qualities- they arise out of the basic physics used by the model.
In the paleo analyses, whatever feedbacks actually occurred- positive and negative- are reflected in the temperatures.
Two entirely different methodologies yield similar results.
Chris V: your
CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. But increasing CO2 provides a long-term positive forcing; other forcings (like solar early in the century, and sulfate aerosols mid centrury) are superimposed onto that.
Nope. Aerosols were greater at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, according to these researchers:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080819160103.htm
In fact, they say that aerosols were 2-5 times higher.
And these researchers suggest that the effect of aerosols is not known enough to gauge the effect.
“Because of the large uncertainty we have in the radiative forcing of aerosols, there is a corresponding large uncertainty in the degree of radiative forcing overall”, Crozier said. “This introduces a large uncertainty in the degree of warming predicted by climate change models.”
http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/tw.top/2/wed/dg/Uus-climatemodels.RjIW_IaB.html
So, that leaves CO2 or solar or unknown.
CO2 has been going up, and only up.
Solar effects go up and down.
Temperature has gone up and down.
hmmmmm…..
Just what on earth is a ‘forcing’?
REPLY: Anything that drives the energy balance of earth one way or another. Solar, PDO, clouds, water vapor and other GHG’s, soot, land use, ground cover, albedo such as ice and snow. Forcings tend to be measured in watts/meter squared when used in modeling calculations that describe earth’s energy balance.
More here: http://www.ace.mmu.ac.uk/eae/climate_change/older/Climate_Forcing.html
- Anthony
Some more references on aerosols; as warming agents
Jacobson, M., 2001: Strong radiative heating due to the mixing state of black carbon in atmospheric aerosols, Nature, 409:695-697; Sato, M. et al., 2003: Global atmospheric black carbon inferred from AERONET, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 100, no. 11: 6319-6324.
We found that atmospheric brown clouds enhanced lower atmospheric solar heating by about 50 per cent. Our general circulation model simulations, which take into account the recently observed widespread occurrence of vertically extended atmospheric brown clouds over the Indian Ocean and Asia, suggest that atmospheric brown clouds contribute as much as the recent increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gases to regional lower atmospheric warming trends. We propose that the combined warming trend of 0.25 K per decade may be sufficient to account for the observed retreat of the Himalayan glaciers.”
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v448/n7153/abs/nature06019.html
Smokey,
You are correct sir. Let’s get back on point. Why can’t we look behind the curtain?? We paid for it, release everything, NASA, GISS,NCDC and any other group or agency that gathers data with taxpayer money.
Anyone have any objections to full transparency??
Mike the Plumber
Smokey (15:35:58) :
I’m sorry, but I can not take Beck’s graph showing past CO2 levels seriously. Those measurements were taken by different people, in different places, using different methods. The year to year variability he shows is WAY beyond the variability that is observed at Mauna Loa.
There are several 1-year periods (around 1830, 1890, and 1940), where Beck shows CO2 levels varying by over 100 ppm! That’s just not physically possible.
REPLY: I’ll have to agree with Chris V. on this one. Just the variability in the chemical reduction process alone imparts a significant error band. Plus a lot of the measurements were done in cities, which back then had scads of fireplaces, industrial furnaces, and wood fired cooking stoves.
I don’t think those measurements were capable of resolving the background CO2 from the noise of the in situ where it was done. Thus I don’t think the measurements are valid. – Anthony
Leif:
Now this:
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
And at ICECAP.US:
This:
Nov 18, 2008
Evidence of Sunspot Involvement in Climate Change Compelling
Engineering News
Over the last few years, the evidence that sunspots on our sun are directly related to climate change on earth has been steadily increasing.
And this:
Nov 18, 2008
Obama Clueless on Climate Change Non-Threat, Impacts of Cap-and-Trade
Boston.com
“Few challenges facing America—and the world – are more urgent than combating climate change,” Obama says in this video. “The science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear. Sea levels are rising. Coastlines are shrinking. We’ve seen record drought, spreading famine, and storms that are growing stronger with each passing hurricane season. Climate change and our dependence on foreign oil, if left unaddressed, will continue to weaken our economy and threaten our national security.
Les Johnson (16:35:01) :
The sciencedaily link you provided is not about aerosols- it’s about heavy metals. They are not the same thing.
And yes, there are many uncertainties about aerosols in general.
Chris V: your
The sciencedaily link you provided is not about aerosols- it’s about heavy metals. They are not the same thing.
And how do you think that the heavy metals got to Greenland?
hint- as aerosols.
Anyone else having any trouble getting on NASA’s Climate Change Propaganda Page?
http://climate.jpl.nasa.gov/
Les Johnson (11:00:00) said:
” Inhibiting turbulence, increases IR radiation. But decreasing IR, lowers turbulence.
Increasing turbulence, reduces radiation. Increasing radiation, increases turbulence.
Which brings up one of the problems with CO2. It can actually have a direct net negative forcing, depending on the atmospheric lapse rate (or, the temperature gradient).
All models use 6.5 deg C/1000 meters as the lapse rate. CO2 is a warming agent at 6.5 deg C/1000 meters.
Change this to 6.4, and there is no net effect either way. Change the lapse to 6.0, and CO2 becomes a net cooling agent, through increased turbulence.
Measured lapse rates are between 4 and 10 deg C/1000 meters. ”
This isn’t right; it isn’t even wrong.
– Wolfgang Pauli
1) Jason sea levels not up to date. http://sealevel.colorado.edu/
2) Spaceweather not up to date. http://www.spaceweather.com/
3) GISS really messed up. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/14/the-evolution-of-the-giss-temperature-product/
4) Argo data screwed up (fixed now? who knows) http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/apologies-to-josh-willis-correcting-ocean-cooling-part-3/
5) Surfacestations, little maintenance, little adherence to procedures. http://www.surfacestations.org/
6)Mauna Loa CO2. Old computers, procedures adequate? Now a big jump up, anyone remember the big drop?(it, of course was changed along with many historic values) http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/08/06/post-mortem-on-the-mauna-loa-co2-data-eruption/
7) Karl, not really a doctor, but he plays one at the NCDC. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/more-flubs-at-the-top-of-the-climate-food-chain-this-time-ncdcs-karl/
8) CT Sea Ice graph change downward never fully explained. http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/2918/anomalykm3.gif
9) Mann’s hockey stick graph falsified. ht