Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball
The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set climate research back thirty years, mostly by focusing world attention on CO2 and higher temperature. It was a classic misdirection that required planning. The IPCC was created for this purpose and pursued it relentlessly. Through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) they controlled national weather offices so global climate policies and research funding were similarly directed.
IPCC’s definition of climate change narrowed the focus to human causes, but they exacerbated it by ignoring, downgrading or misusing variables. Most important and critical was water in all its forms and functions. The obsession restricted focus to higher temperatures and increased CO2, which directed funding of impact analyses, whether economic or environmental to cost only, instead of cost/benefit. Climate studies only considered temperature, usually and incorrectly attributing changes caused by precipitation to temperature. This practice was most evident in paleoclimate reconstructions, either done by IPCC participants or chosen for inclusion in the IPCC Reports.
It is almost a maxim that if the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), who effectively controlled IPCC science, were looking at a topic it was because it posed a threat to their predetermined hypothesis.
Tom Wigley took over from Hubert Lamb as Director of the CRU and guided much of the early research and then remained the major influence as the leaked emails revealed. He completely redirected CRU from Lamb’s objective, which was the need for data before any understanding could occur;
“the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.”
Lamb was at odds with and appears to regret hiring Wigley and wrote about the different direction Wigley took the Unit. He wrote,
“Professor Tom Wigley, was chiefly interested in the prospect of world climates being changed as a result of human activities, primarily through the burning of wood, coal, oil and gas reserves…”
That became the focus of the CRU and subsequently of the IPCC. It was a predetermined hypothesis that led to manipulated climate science. The leaked CRU emails disclose Wigley as the eminence gris to whom all his old pupils and colleagues at CRU turn to for advice and direction.
A classic danger in climate research and an early threat to claims of a human signal was that they could be dismissed as a result of auto-correlation. The issue was identified in 1944 in Conrad’s classic Methods in Climatology. A 1999 article The Autocorrelation Function and Human Influences on Climate by Tsonis and Elsner commented on Wigley’s attempt to prove a human influence was not due to autocorrelation. They note,
This (Wigley’s) result is impressive, and there may indeed be a human influence on climate. However, the use of the autocorrelation function as a tool for such comparisons presents a problem. Climate models, whether forced or unforced, constitute dynamical systems. If these models faithfully represent the dynamics of the climate system, then a comparison between an observation and a model simulation should address whether or not these two results have the same dynamical foundation.
In Quantitative approaches in climate change ecology Brown et al., identify the issues.
We provide a list of issues that need to be addressed to make inferences more defensible, including the consideration of (i) data limitations and the comparability of data sets; (ii) alternative mechanisms for change; (iii) appropriate response variables; (iv) a suitable model for the process under study; (v) temporal autocorrelation; (vi) spatial autocorrelation and patterns; and (vii) the reporting of rates of change. While the focus of our review was marine studies, these suggestions are equally applicable to terrestrial studies. Consideration of these suggestions will help advance global knowledge of climate impacts and understanding of the processes driving ecological change.
The two lead items in Brown et al’s list for resolving problems of auto-correlation are also central to understanding the corruption and misdirection of the IPCC.
(i) data limitations.
As Lamb identified, lack of data was and remains the most serious limitation. The situation is completely inadequate for temperature, supposedly the best measured variable. How can two major agencies HadCRUT and GISS produce such different results,
supposedly from the same data set? Paul Homewood produced the following Table comparing results for four data sources for the period 2002 to 2011.
GISS and UAH differ by 0.36°C, which is enormous in nine years. Compare it to the 0.6°C increase over 140 years, a change the 2001 IPCC claimed was dramatic and unnatural.
Data is even worse spatially and temporally for water in all its forms, especially precipitation. In a classic understatement the 2007 IPCC Report says,
Difficulties in the measurement of precipitation remain an area of concern in quantifying the extent to which global- and regional-scale precipitation has changed.
They also concede that,
For models to simulate accurately the seasonally varying pattern of precipitation, they must correctly simulate a number of processes (e.g., evapotranspiration, condensation, transport) that are difficult to evaluate at a global scale.
The lack of data is worse than temperature and precipitation for all other weather variables. There is insufficient data to determine inferences of auto-correlation.
(ii) alternative mechanisms for change.
Ability to determine mechanisms and their implications is impossible without adequate data. Besides, we don’t understand most mechanisms now so considering alternatives is difficult. Many mechanisms are identified but there are many more still unknown. Donald Rumsfeld’s quote is appropriate.
“… there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”
Contradiction between results from different authorities, such as the temperature data, proves the point. The IPCC bypassed the problems with a limited definition that allowed them to ignore most mechanisms. Often the excuse was quite bizarre, such as this from Chap
ter 8 of the 2007 report.
Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere, the models employed for the current assessment do not generally include the QBO.
IPCC did what Einstein warned against. “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.”
Beyond Auto-correlation?
Autocorrelation is a danger in climatology but what has happened in IPCC goes beyond. In major reconstructions of past climates, temperature series are created from data and processes that are primarily due to precipitation.
Dendroclimatology
Many of them began as chronologic reconstructions. Tree rings began as dendrochronology; an absolute dating method that assumed a new ring is created every year. Age of the Bristlecone Pine made them valuable for this purpose at least. A. E. Douglass founded the discipline of dendrochronology in 1894 and later used tree ring to reconstruct solar cycles and precipitation; the latter became the purpose of all early climate reconstructions.
Available moisture explains most plant growth as farmers and gardeners know. Koppen recognized this in his climate classification system that required classification first on precipitation (B Climate) then on temperature (A,C, and D Climates).
Gross misuse of tree rings to argue the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) didn’t exist was exposed because of inappropriate statistical manipulation. The conclusion used in the 2001 IPCC Science Report claimed the tree rings (the effect) showed no increase in temperature (the cause). In reality with climate change there is a change in all weather variables, hence the auto-correlation problem.
The degree of change to each variable is a function of the latitude as major weather mechanisms migrate toward or away from the poles. For example, during the Ice Ages the Polar climate region expanded primarily at the expense of the middle and low latitude climates, particularly in the desert zone, approximately between 15 and 30° latitude. The low latitude deserts become wet regions in what was traditionally called Pluvials. In the early days it was thought there was no evidence of the Ice Age in the tropical region associated with the Hadley Cell circulation.
Moisture is a controlling factor even in harsh temperature conditions at the tree line. Research at Churchill, Manitoba showed the major predictors of growth were rainfall in the Fall of the preceding year and winter snow amount.
The spruce tree in the photo (Figure 1) is at the tree line at Churchill. It is approximately 100 years old. The lower branches are larger and are on all sides because they are protected from desiccating winter winds by snow; above that powerful persistent arid northeast winds prevent branches growing. Local humor says you cut three trees and tie them together for a complete Christmas tree.
Tree growth, especially annual, is primarily about moisture not temperature. The amount of moisture required by the plant and the amount available both vary with wind speed. At the tree line the ability to trap snow is critical to survival. Small clumps or outliers exist beyond the tree limit as long as they trap snow. Similarly, an open area within the tree limit will remain treeless if denuded of snow by the wind.
Speleology (Stalactites/ Stalagmites)
Stalactites (ceiling) and stalagmites (ground) are another example of precipitation created features claimed to represent temperature. They are created by rainwater, which is a mild carbonic acid because of dissolved atmospheric CO2 that absorbs calcium as it filters through limestone. As the water drips from the ceiling calcium deposits accumulate to create the stalactite. Where it hits the floor more calcium accumulates to create a stalagmite. Growth of both features is a direct result of changes in precipitation at the surface.
Glacial Stratigraphy and Ice Cores
Seasonal or annual records in stratigraphic form are collectively called rhythmites. An early use of rhythmites in climate reconstruction was a specific form called varves and related to annual sedimentary layers in proglacial lakes. In 1910 Swedish scientist Gerard de Geer provided an important chronology for glacial sequences of the Holocene. The thickness of the sediment layer is a result of temperature, but also how much rain fell during the summer that changed the melt rate of the snow and ice.
Seasonal layers in a glacier often reflect temperature change, but are also modified by precipitation. Glacier movement is used as a measure of temperature change, but it is also about precipitation change. Thickness of each layer varies with the amount of snow. (Yes, droughts also occur in winter). When sufficient layers form to about 50 m depth the ice becomes plastic under pressure and flows. Ice is always flowing toward the snout within the glacier. Amount of advance or retreat of the glacier snout is as much about snow accumulation above the permanent snowline as temperature. A snout can advance or retreat without a change in temperature.
Meltwater from a glacier is a function of temperature, but also precipitation. When rain falls on the glacier it increases the melt rate of snow and ice dramatically. This is likely a major explanation for the rapid melt and vast proglacial lakes associated with melt of the ice during the Holocene Optimum. Dynamics of a continental glacier are a slow build up as snow layers accumulate, followed by a relatively rapid melt as snow turns to rain.
The amount of CO2 in the ice crystals varies with the temperature of the water droplet and raindrop, just as seawater CO2 capacity varies. This means glacier meltwater has a higher concentration of CO2 and as it trickles down through the ice layers modifies the ice bubbles as Jaworowski explained in his presentation to the US Senate Committee (March 2004).
This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].
IPCC maintained focus on the Carbon Cycle, but the Water Cycle is more important, especially as it relates to the dynamics of change. Put a dehydrated rock in a chamber and vary the temperature as much as possible and little happens. Add a few drops of water and the breakdown (weathering) of the rock is dramatic. Any climate experiment or research that excludes water, such as the list of greenhouse gases in dry air, is meaningless. Water exists everywhere on the planet.
Precipitation occurs over the oceans but we have virtually no measures so we cannot determine the diluting effect on the salinity and gaseous content of the critical surface layer. How much does precipitation as a 10 percent carbonic acid solution affect the CO2 measures of that layer? Snowmelt has a higher percentage of CO2 concentration.
Wind speed and direct
ion are major determinant of water distribution in the atmosphere and therefore across the world. It alters the impact of temperature, as we know from wind chill or heat index measures. What is the effect of a small increase in regional, hemispheric or global wind speed on the weather and climate?
Atmospheric pressure varies with temperature that determines the weight of the atmosphere pushing on the surface. How much do these changes affect sea level? We know it is considerable because of storm surges that accompany intense low-pressure systems.
The list of variables unmeasured, unknown or excluded from official IPCC science invalidates their models and their claims. Water in all its forms and functions is the most egregious. It also illustrates the degree of auto-correlation confronting climate research and understanding. It appears Wigley and therefore the IPCC knew of the problems but chose to sidestep them by carefully directing the focus – a scientific sleight of hand.
###
Related articles
- Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’
- A look at treemometers and tree ring growth
Excellent article. Globaloneywarming is not science but a whole lot of stupid and fraud.
If observations do not agree with the warmists’ agenda, they change the data, with no explanation, with no scientific logic to justify the change in the data. Science is by definition, the process of working to explain anomalies and paradoxes (a paradox is an anomaly which invalidates a theory or hypothesis and indicates there either fundamental theory errors or there is something that has been missed in the controlling variables.) Anomalies and paradoxes disappear when the science is corrected. The discovery of anomalies and paradoxes is the catalyst, often a necessary step in the process to solve the scientific puzzle.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NCDC_MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif
The warmists are in denial, reality Vs their models. The plateau with no warming, the latitudinal paradox, the almost complete lack the predicted and required (if AGW forcing works as per theory) warming in the upper tropical troposphere, the fact that there are cycles of warming and cooling that match the same latitudinal warming observed in the last 100 years that we are observing now that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes and that do not correlate in any manner with CO2 changes, and so on.
The observations support the assertion that roughly 90% of the warming in the last 100 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. The papers that allege to show the sun did not cause the warming in the last 100 years did not try to understand how the sun caused the warming. Something did cause the warming and the observations do not support the assertion that forcing mechanism was CO2.
The observations support the assertion that the sun has changed cycle to cycle, that there are multiple fundamental assumptions about the sun that are incorrect.
Likewise the observations support the assertion that the AGW forcing saturates due to a missing parameter in the upper troposphere. i.e. The laws of physics still work for greenhouse gases the reason why there is no tropospheric warming in the tropics is due to the missing parameter.
Its good to see some of the assumptions of dendroclimatology being checked. But if water is a controlling variable at the tree-line, so should the other two factors of photosynthesis: sunlight and CO2. Temperature has never been shown to affect growth other than a miniscule effect on growing season length. However, sunny days are warmer in summer, which would tend to confound any efforts to correlate temperature and growth. Ambient levels of CO2 were climbing throughout the proxy calibration period of the early 20th century. It seems impossible to disentangle the effects of this CO2 enrichment from those of higher temperatures. In the latter part of the century, tree growth diverged from both, suggesting that some limit had been reached and trees were no longer starving for CO2.
Regards climate science, discovery, analysis, accuracy, repeatability, thoroughness, and with a critical eye to minimizing uncertainty, we find this endeavor to be hard. Therefore we have elected to do it wrong.
Regards, the IPCC
/humor
Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.
Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850 and the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s. It wasn’t wigly or cru or the ippc
REPLY: You might want to calm down, wipe your monitor clean of spittle, and resubmit with all your points spelled correctly – Anthony
Understanding the “Global Climate” is not possible using traditional science. This is due to the requirement that any scientific hypothesis must be tested against a control.
Physicists, engineers, geologists are reduced to “modeling” the Earth with computational based tools that amount to drawing cartoons.
Biologists are more experienced at understanding biological systems at the planetary scale, ie “Ecosystems” with their uniquely non-linear behavior patterns.
The Earth is a biological system, built upon billions of years of biochemical evolution.
I doubt there is a physicist anywhere that could describe how planetary albedo responds to surface biology over long time scales.
Dr. Ball;
Perhaps your best yet. Very well written, to the point. Carry on carrying on!
Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things. Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850 and the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s. It wasn’t wigly or cru or the ippc”
Steven Mosher = Mr.Know nothing, can’t even spell. You don’t come up to Dr Ball’s knees, and he is a short guy.
“How can two major agencies HadCRUT and GISS produce such different results,”
I think that it is remarkable that they do agree so well in some regards though.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/gistemp/mean:720
If a 15 year Gaussian rather than a 10 year one had ben the analysis done early on then things may well have been looked at differently.
Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“Ball … doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.”
And there I was thinking that they both measured Global temperature!
Mosher says: the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s.
—————-
CO2 raises temps in closed systems i.e. in test tubes, but clearly not significantly in an open system such as our atmosphere.
As to GISS and UAH, you know very well that Tim wasn’t comparing these two, but HADCRUT with GISS.
Table comparing results for four data sources for the period 2002 to 2011.
GISS and UAH differ by 0.36°C, which is enormous in nine years.
The actual difference in trend between GISS and UAH is extremely small from January 2002 to December 2011. They do have different base periods, and perhaps the base periods should be uniform across all data sets, but that is a different issue. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/trend
Water in all its forms is obviously the most important climate factor.
The dry lapse rate is 9.8 C/km. The moist lapse rate is 5 C/km. What that means is that a moist atmosphere is warmer than a dry atmosphere. Increased levels of CO2 tend to increase the lapse rate thereby cooling the atmosphere, relative to a moist atmosphere.
It appears that what isn’t said is more important than what is said by the warmers.
Great post, thanks!!
…this reminds me of one of my favorite Climategate email threads:
http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=198
Which was the same decade that an economist wrote that barter was the first money system (sea shells, rocks, wives, wampum, whatever) and everyone has believed it since as gospel truth. It was never corrected when in the 1950s the translation of the Sumerian tablets with their complex markings of debits and credits showed the highly sophisticated monetary system created 5,000 years ago to keep track of payments and transactions for harvests and trade over the period of a year. The tablets also displayed the financial ‘forward planning’ process used by the various Sumerian governments in the management of their agriculture, industry, and taxes. (History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History by Samuel Noah Kramer.)
“GISS and UAH differ by 0.36°C, which is enormous in nine years. Compare it to the 0.6°C increase over 140 years, a change the 2001 IPCC claimed was dramatic and unnatural.”
Hey, I’m with Mosh on this one. Comparing UAH Sat Lower Trop Temps against GISS Weather Station Surface Temps was way wrong. You might as well throw HADSST in as well, you’ll find a similar ‘difference’. We wouldn’t accept that kind of apples to oranges comparison from warmists, so we sure as hell shouldn’t be making them ourselves.
Werner Brozek says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:59 pm (Edit)
OK.
So, remove that 0.4 baseline difference between GISS and UAH, and you get ???
(Hint: The two become nearly identical. But, if the other records were also re-zero’ed based on the last twelve years of monthly data, you also get a “uniform” identical record when the group is compared together. )
The last twelve years are different month-to-month only because of the baseline difference, which reinforces the idea that we getting consistent information from difference analytical data lists. Perhaps not independent data sources, but the difference methods are creating consistent monthly data.
ONLY the computer simulations are crashing and failing.
Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.
Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850 and the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s.
____________________________
Ah, Steven- art thou in the cups?
Are you suggesting that Arrehenius prediction of 5-6C degrees/doubling of CO2 is anything but unfortunate (or laughable)? Catch up!
I apologize to all- I responded to Mosher and further disrupted this thread, which i now understand was his intent all along, to distract from the truths put forth by Dr. Ball.
All apologies.
@Mosher
We were told for decades the greenhouse effect would boil the planet, that at the equator it would cause unprecedented temperatures throughout the lower atmosphere and all sorts of catastrophic “stuff” was going to happen.
Instead of personal attacks, perhaps you could explain why the surface is warming faster than the lower troposphere, which is not what we were told should happen. After all, it’s simple high school physics right?
Er, for the record, When I say “I’m with Mosh on this one”, I mean on the ‘don’t compare GISS to UAH’ part, not the ‘ human cause of climate change was identified 100 years before humans produced enough CO2 to possibly effect climate’ part. I can only assume that Mosher was worried about making an argument based on facts instead of snark, so handicapped himself by shooting himself in the foot.
Who else remembers the myriads of magazine articles such as this and countless TV specials and news reports about how the “greenhouse effect” was going to cause heat to be “trapped” in the troposphere back in the late 80’s and 90’s……and believing it? I mean, who wouldn’t believe NASA with all them super smart scientists; they surely had to be right.
Remember Mosher, this is all high school physics we were told back then. We’re still told it is basic high school physics today, but was there a new hypothesis constructed to replace the one we were indoctrinated with 25 years ago? Has the science changed?
http://is.gd/pZdujx
Mosher makes a valid point regarding baselines for comparison. Everyone makes typos on spelling from time to time.
I think people should be open to criticism and correction and respond each time on merit, avoiding personal attack. Stick to the science or we will reduce the value of the debate.
Wigley, Hansen, and Schneider damaged climate research almost beyond repair.
The WMO does not control national weather services. Funding for climate research in the U.S. is mainly from the NSF and many other major countries similar funding agencies. The idea the the WMO directs climate research funding is absurd. And the CRU does not control the IPCC. I’m afraid you all are going down the conspiracy theory path.
The IPCC reports give extensive discussion of the hydrologic (water) cycle.
Fair enough. Now about Steve Mosher knowing that this article is about “climate reconstruction” not comparing temperature series. Which part of climate reconstruction is GISS or HADCRUD? Dr. Ball listed them as examples in divergence where they supposedly present the same results albeit calculated differently.
Human cause of climate change was identified in 1850? Do tell? What’s with all of the funding nowadays if they already knew it back in 1850. And that first prediction that CO2 would raise temps back in 1890s; exactly how much did they predict the temperature to rise? Per ppm molecule of CO2? Or would you prefer to relabel these as postulates, not predictions?
Now about Dr. Tim Ball’s article above regarding climate reconstructions…?
Good article Dr. Ball!
It’s interesting how all of the weaknesses ascribing temperature influences to chronologies ignore previous works rather than build upon them. First they start with the assumption that all chronologies are temperature specific and all temps are CO2 caused… Where lies natural temperatures minus man’s influences? No one knows, especially not the CAGW believers as they’re too busy demonizing CO2.
I’ve always wondered about the tree ring studies and how they are supposed to be a proxy for temperature when trees obviously will respond to changes in precipitation and CO2 concentration – probably more than temperature.
Has the MET reproduced the missing weather station data yet?
We were told it would take up to 3 years from early 2010 when the british authorities acknowledged that yes the CRU had lost or destroyed the data they had been entrusted with.
Without that data every claim of knowledge of climates past, made by these people is unsubstantiated noise.
Having fumbled my way thro the Harry Read Me, and from reports of others far less rusty in old codes, has the CRU ever explained what data sets they used? Or how they reached the conclusions they made?
How can any proxy “temperature” sets be said to correlate with past temperatures,when these past temperatures are still non-reproducible?
Probably best to sit on the sidelines when your host reads the “riot act”.
Does QBO stand for “Quasi-biennial oscillation”? I can’t see it defined in the article.
When the snipe hunt costs hundreds of billions of dollars per year it’s time to actually determine if the snipe actually exists. But wait, that leads to yet more boondoggle, government-paid research!
I’m still reading. Compelled to say… And there are unknown knowns, the things we think we know, but actually don’t. If you lie to yourself, you can produce lots of these. Aren’t we discussing a great collective lie, and a great crumbling example of an unknown known?
Still curious why we don’t see anything put out that references the CRN for data since it would require no adjustment.
Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period…”
=========================================================================
I have to agree with Steven on this. No where does Dr. Ball indicate that he has adjusted the anomalies from the different sources to same base period in his table under “(i) data limitations”. As far as I can tell from a quick check of the data listings, he hasn’t adjusted them.
The base periods for three of the sources are:
UAH – 1981 to 2010
GISS – 1951 to 1980
hadCRUT4 – 1961 to 1990
This comparing of anomalies using different base periods seems to be a common error by many here at WUWT.
The anomalies are calculated by subtracting the temperature from the average temperature over the base period. Thus, to compare the temperatures from different organizations, the anomalies must be brought to a common base period, and that base period should be stated with the data or graph.
I am pleased to see a global warmists (like Steven Mosher) actually read this web site. Most warmists won’t even read anything that doesn’t fit their argument. It is only through the knowledge and understanding that we will be able to get through their (his) thick heads that they have backed the wrong side. To me the most important thing to highlight in the article is not that the impact of water on the climate system has been excluded from models but that the answer to the climate question was predetermined and assumed and all the science is manipulated to fit that answer. Science surely is about using data and information to determine an answer not using an answer to determine what the data and information is. That is why warmists end up with using different facts because they have to adapt the facts to achieve the predetermined answers that they have (wrongly) presumed.
Be thankful that Steve Mosher has read this web site because whilst his natural bias currently precludes him from seeing the truth he will eventually see the light. If all people ( not just all warmists, including the large number not committed ) then we would have no issues , the warmists case would collapse. It has been ignorance and the ability of friendly media that has been able to keep the warmists propaganda going when the empirical evidence is so contrary.
>>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set climate research back thirty years, mostly by focusing world attention on CO2 and higher temperature. It was a classic misdirection that required planning. The IPCC was created for this purpose…<<
Can anyone tell who is or was the mastermind behind this scam?
There must be a name or names!
Mosher is an old hippy with old hippy contrarian views but who has nothing of substance to say but says it often. And as you have all probably observed, this last he does well. Nobody says less better than Mosh when he’s wound up. Mosh is in that crowd that is famous for being famous. Nothing personal to his credit to draw on, his accolades fall from his always being in the right place with platitudes fit for a king and meant for a dunce. But platitudes they are. His contribution to climate science is quite alike that of the contribution of the weasel to the hen house. His role is only to steal the buzz, to hush what everyone else is talking about.
Mr Ball seems to be entirely missing the point that if it rains a lot but the sun don’t shine then the crops won’t grow.
In other words, every single cropping farmer knows more about this sort of stuff than Mr Ball.
“Gross misuse of tree rings” Ah yes, Dendrocriminology.
Perhaps Wigley should be prosecuted for scientific fraud.
At the end of the day, this is all about having pre-determined conclusions that you need to ‘prove’ in your models or ‘research’.
So if the data won’t support the required conclusions, then you change the data – GISS is a classic example of this, or you interpret the data by using extreme bias on some parts of the data – Mann et alia.
I cannot understand why anyone would feel the need to have a hissy fit over any of the contents of this reasonable and rationally argued article.
Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.
Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850
Steven, you are fast becoming the resident looney. A fall from intelligence such as yours I have never witnessed.
“The human cause of climate change was NOT IDENTIFIED in 1850. It was postulated. If you remember all IPCC reports focus on the AGW since the 1950s.
Get a grip man. !!!!
While I do agree with most of what Dr. Ball has written (precipitation is not temperature, even if somewhat related), I have strong objections against the following alinea:
The amount of CO2 in the ice crystals varies with the temperature of the water droplet and raindrop, just as seawater CO2 capacity varies. This means glacier meltwater has a higher concentration of CO2 and as it trickles down through the ice layers modifies the ice bubbles as Jaworowski explained in his presentation to the US Senate Committee
That may be right for the edge of icefields, where temperatures are around freezing: melting in summer and freezing in winter. That is very seldom for coastal ice cores in Antarctica (one remelt layer in 70 years for the Siple Dome ice core at average -21°C) and non-existing for the high altitude inland ice cores like Vostok and Dome C at -40°C).
Even in the Vostok ice core there are microspots of liquid water, but only where contamination (dust) is incorporated in the ice layers. That doesn’t influence the CO2 levels to any detectable extent, neither influences the temperature proxy (dD or d18O) measured in the ice water molecules).
That is far from the objections that the late Jaworowski proposed (in 1992), but which were largely refuted by the work done by Etheridge e.a. on three Law Dome ice cores (in 1996). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
The fact that the late Jaworowski still used the same refuted arguments years later in his 2004 letter to the US Senate Committee doesn’t plead for his knowledge after 1992…
Moreover, what closed the door for me is that he insisted that CO2 can migrate from inside the ice core bubble air at 180-300 ppmv to the outside air at 360-380 ppmv at measuring time through cracks in the ice caused by drilling and relaxation. That is physically impossible, it is the reverse. If there is any migration it is always from higher levels to lower levels…
So, let the late Jaworowski rest in peace, together with his ideas about CO2 in ice cores. His ideas were already completely outdated the moment that he wrote his letter to the US Senate Committee.
For more knowledge about ice core measurements, see:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf
the gas distribution models are confirmed by the distribution of the 14CO2 spike from the atomic bomb tests 1950-1960:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96GL03156/abstract
Be thankful that Steve Mosher has read this web site because whilst his natural bias currently precludes him from seeing the truth he will eventually see the light.
David, Mosher moved from the light to the dark during a period of several months some tears ago. He won’t be coming back.
You may have noted that the most fervent islamist terrorists are the recently converted.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:17 am
Are you assuming a constant, non-changing mix of air in the ice bubbles?
Non Nomen says:
December 27, 2013 at 11:55 pm
>>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set climate research back thirty years, mostly by focusing world attention on CO2 and higher temperature. It was a classic misdirection that required planning. The IPCC was created for this purpose…<<
Can anyone tell who is or was the mastermind behind this scam?
There must be a name or names!
————————————————————————————————————————-
Non Nomen, I reccommend you check out Sir Maurice Strong, ex-Canadian oil billionaire and founder of the UN IPCC. He's been a VERY naughty boy!
Stephen Richards says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:23 am
Are you assuming a constant, non-changing mix of air in the ice bubbles?
Once the bubbles are closed, there is no measurable change in composition. That can be seen in the fact that CO2 “closely” (with a lag of 800 to several thousands of years) follows temperature changes with the same ratio over 800,000 years (at about 8 ppmv/°C).
If there was substantial migration, the ratio between CO2 peaks and temperature peaks would fade over time for each interglacial 100 kyr back in time, which is not the case.
There were attempts to calculate the theoretical migration speed from the extra CO2 levels in the vicinity of remelt layers at the relative “warm” Siple Dome ice core, but even these give very low migration speeds: a worsening of the resolution from 20 to 22 years at low depth (2.74 kyr old) to 40 years at full depth (70 kyr old):
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3773250
In Antarctica, it takes about 30 years for solid glacial ice to form. This ice does seem to then faithfully record the CO2 levels of the period thirty years previous.
But this process does not work at Greenland. Ever see the CO2 or CH4 numbers from Greenland? They are available but have not been published and are never used. The scientists just gave up due to the random results.
So the reliability of ice core gas measurements does seem to depend on local conditions.
@Mosher:
Robert W Wood in 1909 proved the GH effect of Arthenius 1896 was a failure.
Steve Mosher: …. giss and uah measure fundamentally different things …
Well yes they do, but you would not know that by looking at the GISS world temperature maps. In fact the UAH is probably the more accurate and that shows trends that could be described as being with normal distributions.
The problem with GISS is that it is adjusted and the results of Climategate meant that no body trusts these scientists ‘fudge factors’ and all – we will not forget, ever. To consider that at one point I was taken in by all this BS when it was called ‘Global Warming’ but thanks to exposes like the great global warming swindle and FOIA’s climate gate I know the real truth as do millions of others.
Steve, why do they keep having to change the name of this, Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Weather Weirding? eh ?
These agencies reference their anomalies to different baselines. GISS 1951-1980, HadCRUT 1961-1990. So to compare the anomalies directly is like comparing apples with pears; it is not a valid comparison.
Yet why is it, when Steve Mosher points out this obvious truth, that he gets so much vitriol?
Papers, articles and comments should be judged objectively, on their merits, and not on the basis of whether the comment is on my side or not. The latter approach serves only to make the warmists appear to be the reasonable side.
Very distressing.
MikeB says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:44 am
How can two major agencies HadCRUT and GISS produce such different results?
These agencies reference their anomalies to different baselines. GISS 1951-1980, HadCRUT 1961-1990. So to compare the anomalies directly is like comparing apples with pears; it is not a valid comparison.
—————————————-
Would it not be a fairly easy job to normalise the baselines and make an apples -> apples analysis.
I agree with MikeB on this one. The periods to which the anomalies relate should have been stated – these were my thoughts as soon as I saw the table. However, it’s not unusual for this important point to be missed from what I’ve seen of climate data.
MikeB says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:44 am
“These agencies reference their anomalies to different baselines. GISS 1951-1980, HadCRUT 1961-1990. So to compare the anomalies directly is like comparing apples with pears; it is not a valid comparison.”
But it is valid to compare the trend in their anomalies (which is what is normally done so as to remove the difference I the baselines).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/plot/uah/trend/plot/gistemp/from:1979/plot/gistemp/from:1979/trend
“How can two major agencies HadCRUT and GISS produce such different results”
Quite easily Mr Ball as:
The addendum below that table reads…..
[Remember all four sets are based on different base periods, so the absolute numbers are not directly comparable]
Baselines are actually:
HadCRUT4 = 1961
GISTemp = 1951
UAH = 1978
RSS is 1979
Now using: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/
For plotting out the trend line for the above data bases over the baseline period 1981 to 2011 – I find that over the period 2002-2011 the rise in temp along the trendline is:
HadCRUT4 = 0.15C
RSS = 0.13C
GISTemp = 0.15C
UAH = 0.14C
(estimated by eye/ruler from plots)
Not much difference there is there?
“GISS and UAH differ by 0.36°C, which is enormous in nine years. Compare it to the 0.6°C increase over 140 years, a change the 2001 IPCC claimed was dramatic and unnatural”
Well it would be enormous – as there is 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS!
So my estimation of the difference between the data bases turns out to be 0.02C!
As for the monthly variability, different algorithms are used, and there are differences in coverage of the Arctic.
Now draw a trend line through each plot on this graph:
http://bobtisdale.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/figure-6a.png
Are they significantly different?
Also you state an increase in global temp of 0.6C in 140 years
This graph:
Shows 0.8C
Using your apples and bananas comparative technique – actually so does the CET:
http://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs/hadcet/graphs/HadCETn_graph_ylybars_uptodate.gif
So it turns out we need to compare 0.02C against a global rise of 0.8C!
And not, as you assert 0.36C against 0.6C
Dr. Ball: Stalactites (ceiling) and stalagmites (ground) are another example of precipitation created features claimed to represent temperature. …..Growth of both features is a direct result of changes in precipitation at the surface.
I would think that degree of precipitation is directly related to the nearby ocean evaporation, or to the SST, but also depends on the land topography. Good example of this is a Northwest Scotland Stalagmite Rainfall Reconstruction ( C.Proctor, A. Baker et al )
with the mountain ranges directly exposed to moist westerly Atlantic winds.
If so, such reconstruction would be relative good guide to the N. Atlantic’s SST variability – the AMO. When the data is plotted the ‘AMO’ type oscillations are clearly visible, with warmer periods exhibiting higher degree of rainfall.
Reconstruction of the AMO based on the sunspot cycle and the decadal geomagnetic variability is compared to the Stalagmite Rainfall Reconstruction and results are shown here:
http://www.vukcevic.talktalk.net/AMO-R2.htm
Agreement between two reconstructions for the period 1700-1800, Maunder to Dalton minima is remarkable. However correlation breaks down around 1815 possibly due to the two major volcanic eruptions Mayon 1814 and Tambora 1815.
Two check accuracy of the AMO solar-geomagnetic reconstruction for this period another proxy was required, and it was found in the Summer NAO reconstruction by C. Foland (shown in the second graph).
From the above it can be concluded that:
Agreement between the stalagmite rainfall and the solar-geomagnetic reconstructions of the AMO is direct and indisputable evidence of the sunspot cycle and climate link.
Talking of HadCRUT didn’t *all* raw data get lost in office moves in the mid 1990’s (Climategate) an only “adjusted” data exists? If that is true then any output from HadCRUT is worthless.
MikeB says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:44 am
How can two major agencies HadCRUT and GISS produce such different results?
These agencies reference their anomalies to different baselines. GISS 1951-1980, HadCRUT 1961-1990. So to compare the anomalies directly is like comparing apples with pears; it is not a valid comparison.
Yet why is it, when Steve Mosher points out this obvious truth, that he gets so much vitriol?
Papers, articles and comments should be judged objectively, on their merits, and not on the basis of whether the comment is on my side or not. The latter approach serves only to make the warmists appear to be the reasonable side.
Very distressing.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yes, it is Mike – and self destructive too.
You have to make your criticisms from fair ground – and this plainly is not –
(considering ONLY the global temp data analysis).
I actually researched/composed my above response before reading the comments, as I found it blatantly incorrect analysis.
If people can’t see the obvious misstruth construed by Mr Ball then … well.
@Mosh,
Of all proponents of cAGW I have found you to be the most reasonable. Recently in the Monckton thread I posted about inconsistencies, in the various models put forward by cAGW proponents, I’d like to get your take.
We are told that GHE and lapse rate effect has raised the temperature of the earth by 33C with GHE causing about 10 degrees of that atmospheric blanketing effect, but we know also that CO2 is 85 % energy saturated. So it seems to me we can construct a simple GHE temperature VS energy intercepted relationship. 10/85 = 0.117 degrees rise per percent outbound energy intercepted by CO2, not accounting for non carbon related GHGs like ozone.
Given there remains 15 % of the original energy passed through the CO2 stop band, and the IPCC claims 3 degrees per CO2 doubling, then I conclude for a saturated atmosphere, let’s say 100% CO2 or 13 doublings the IPCC claim a temperature rise of 26 – 58 degrees for a CO2 atmosphere ( Based on a range of 2 degrees to 4.5 deg per doubling ). This equates to up to 58/15 or 3.9 degrees temperature rise per percent energy intercepted.
Rate estimated from blackbody rise – 0.117 deg per percent IR intercepted
IPCC science – up to 3.9 deg per percent IR intercepted
Noone on the other side of the debate has explained this away in any way that is physically credible. How do you explain this discrepency?
Steven Mosher says:December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850…”
Ah, the 1850s! The good old days, of “bad air”!
I miss the miasma theory, everything was simpler. Epidemics were due to rotting organic matter (CO2?). Cholera and Black Death were caused by the noxious form of “night air”!
“Fear of miasma registered in many early nineteenth century warnings concerning what was termed “unhealthy fog”. The presence of fog strongly indicated the presence of miasma. The miasmas behaved like smoke or mist, blown with air currents, wafted by winds. It did not simply travel on air, it changed the air through which it propagated. The atmosphere was infected by miasma, as diseased people were. Many believed miasma was magical, and was able to change the properties of the air and atmosphere completely.” Miasma Theory
Strangely, the 1850s echo the present, where AGW dominates politics, like miasma theory during the cholera outbreaks, overshadowed the theory that cholera was spread through water!
As to “the human cause of climate change”, that is a big mouthful of oxymoronic assertion! ; -)
Climateace:
You need to come to Scotland.
We have plenty of things here which will grow, and indeed mature, without sunshine, so long as it rains, and it certainly does plenty of that.
Very few that grow without daylight, though.
michael hart says:
December 27, 2013 at 8:29 pm
“Does QBO stand for “Quasi-biennial oscillation”? I can’t see it defined in the article.”
Yes
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/279.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBO
Ah, the QBO causes sudden stratospheric warmings, and it is hypothesized it’s caused by gravity waves (good luck with that one)…
A very realistic view on past climate (i.e. temperature, moisture, sea level etc.) is given in IPPC 1990 wg1-First Assessment Report (start reading at page 201). There you find a MWP 1 °C warmer than today, an even warmer period about 5 to 6 thousand years ago (mid Holocene), and even the last interglacial period 100 thousand years ago (Eemian interglacial optimum) was warmer than today.
Some citations:
– “This period of widespread warmth is notable in that there is no evidence that it was accompanied by an increase of greenhouse gases.”
– “In a few regions, alpine glaciers advanced down-valley even further than during the last glaciation.”
– “Thus some of the global warming since 1850 could be a recovery from the Little Ice Age rather than a direct result of human activities. So it is important to recognize that natural variations of climate are appreciable and will modulate any future changes induced by man.”
– …
They changed or abandoned these very well known facts in their later reports, without justification, using manipulated data; and that is they have to be blamed for, that they really believe that such repugnancy is ignored by ingenious people – besides MSM and politicians.
DirkH says:
December 28, 2013 at 4:14 am
michael hart says:
December 27, 2013 at 8:29 pm
“Does QBO stand for “Quasi-biennial oscillation”? I can’t see it defined in the article.”
Yes
http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/279.htm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QBO
Ah, the QBO causes sudden stratospheric warmings, and it is hypothesized it’s caused by gravity waves (good luck with that one)…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No it doesn’t Dirk – but it can inhibit/encourage them.
This year the QBO is westerly, though prob slowly decreasing as we end winter.
In westerly years SSW’s are less common than in E’ly ones.
Think of it as westerly momentum of the atmosphere. As the Strat vortex over the NP is a westerly then a subtracting momentum of an E’ly in the Equatorial zone is much better than an adding one as a SSW warms out and disrupts the vortex producing a net E’ly – which in turn causes a down-welling to the Trop of E’lies which reflect in a –AO (HP) dominating the Arctic. It’s this that diverges cold air further south than usual. But at the same time the Arctic will become warmer than usual.
[Note to all: Often, the fewer the abbreviations, the more clear the writing. Mod]
Bill Illis says:
December 28, 2013 at 2:12 am
So the reliability of ice core gas measurements does seem to depend on local conditions.
In all ice cores some sea salt dust is found. That are mainly chlorides, sulphates and carbonates. The latter don’t interfere with the measurements of CO2, as long as no acids are present. That is the case for Antarctic cores, but a huge problem for Greenland ice cores where frequent highly acidic dust from Icelandic volcanoes is present in the ice. That gives more CO2 as well as in situ over the years as during measurement time, especially with the older method of melting all ice and measuring CO2 under vacuum from the liquid: the longer it is melted, the more CO2 can be measured…
[All the above is the quote from Illis? Mod]
Paul Homewood did state that “Remember all four sets are based on different base periods, so the absolute numbers are not directly comparable]” so Mosher’s point that “Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.” must be partially correct. On the other hand both measure atmospheric temperatures so they are not “fundamentally different things”. Steven Mosher is good at criticising and sometimes he is right. There is no need to be “aggressive” towards him. It is good when he and others can point out inconsistencies and factual errors. I would agree that often he is rather cryptic and mostly I disagree with him as I cannot “buy” CAGW.
Just to confirm John Peter’s point, each of the four datasets use different baselines, against which they calculate their anomalies, so it is not the absolute numbers which are comparable but the change in them over time.
For the record:
RSS – 1979-98
UAH – 1981-2010
HADCRUT – 1961-90
GISS – 1951-80
Perhaps it would be helpful if they were all to adopt the same baseline, logically 1981-2010.
It is easy to see why GISS and Hadcrut are reluctant though, as that would drastically reduce the anomalies.
As an example of the divergence, since 1979, NCDC temperature for the CONUS has increased by 0.95C more than RSS show (and 0.82C more than UAH).
http://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/rss-ncdc-temperatures-diverging-for-conus/
They may be measuring slightly different things, but should the variation be so great (and consistent – this is part of a long term trend).
Bear in mind that the UK Met Office say:
Changes in temperature observed in surface data records are corroborated by records of temperatures in the troposphere recorded by satellites
And they have the barefaced cheek to call US ‘deniers’..!
Perhaps some of the interesting questions concerning snow accumulation are around the quantitative distribution of depressions hitting the mountain ranges from which direction and how that changes during different climate cycles.
If you look at the European Alps, for example, you will see that, if the Atlantic Depressions track further south and then attack the Alps from the SW to S, then the huge snowfalls are in southern France, in Italy, from Zermatt up to Andermatt and across to St Moritz and in Ticino in Switzerland and in the Southern valleys of Western Austria (from the South), and in the central French Alps, the Rhone valley the Rhein valley (from the SW). If, however, the depressions approach from the North to NW, then the snow goes to the northern French alps, the Berner Oberland and the northern Swiss Alps; to Tirol. If the wind comes in from the east to north-east, however, Eastern Austria will get huge falls of snow when the rest of the Alps may remain relatively dry.
The other major variable is at which point in the winter the snow falls. Most cognoscenti are aware that snow falling before the middle of January is the snow which forms the lasting base at lower altitudes, whereas up on the Glaciers, it is probably up to the end of February that the productive snowfall for ice creation occurs.
This is just one small region of europe, which shows how complex the whole system must be in actuality.
Although I have not read any formal papers on the matter, it appears to me from 30 years of observation that the PDO/AMO cycles affect the ratio of early-late season snowfall and that the warm PDO may predicate more snow to the northern Alps whereas the cool PDO may point to greater snow coming from more southerly directions. It would be a valuable study to carry out if data for enough years exist (probably 50 – 60 years minimum at around 40 suitably located stations would be a good initial trial dataset).
Solar events also affect such matters greatly, in particular affecting the major storms which can have significant effects on building high-level ice.
Finally, cloudiness in summer is likely to reduce the melt rates, which points to studies on cloudiness over decades to centuries as being significant in the long-term ice balance.
Craig Hamilton says: @ December 27, 2013 at 5:08 pm
…. It seems impossible to disentangle the effects of this CO2 enrichment from those of higher temperatures. In the latter part of the century, tree growth diverged from both, suggesting that some limit had been reached and trees were no longer starving for CO2.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
You bring up a good point. We know trees were limited during glaciation due to CO2 starvation. SEE: Carbon starvation in glacial trees recovered from the La Brea tar pits, southern California. (Elevation = 164feet (50 m) for La Brea Tar Pits)
The oxygen and carbon dioxide compensation points of C3 plants is a paper that gets into the balancing act between CO2 and O2. Oxygen inhibits photosynthesis so both have to be taken into account.
Variation in the kcat of Rubisco in C3 and C4 plants and some implications for photosynthetic performance at high and low temperature is a paper looking at CO2 and temperature and its effects on photosynthesis. Different plants have different ranges of temperatures they like. Bermuda grass likes the hot weather from June to mid September around here. Abruzzi Rye can not stand temperatures over 90F but stays green with temps in the 20F range. This is the basis of the Koppen system but of course water is critical as Dr. Ball mentions.
Another paper looks at the competition between C3 and C4 plants: Effects of climate and atmospheric CO2 partial pressure on the global distribution of C4 grasses: present, past, and future
Then there is elevation since we are talking trees at treeline in the mountains.
From Keith some years ago here at WUWT said:
This paper Availability of Carbon Dioxide for Photosynthesis at High Altitudes: Theoretical Considerations argues
(I wonder why that physics doesn’t work on humans with altitude sickness?)
This paper is not theoretical but looks at actual evidence:
And so does this paper:
Lots of different factors effect the growth of plants and just saying it is temperature is idiotic.
Non Nomen
Start your research with Maurice Strong and then trace connections backwards and forward from there. The network grows quickly.
Thanks. The wrongdoer Maurice Strong is known to me. Besides him, Brundtland is another source of suspicion. But ideas do not fall out of the sky and the ‘Brundtland Report’ has no clear evidence pointing towards fallacy. Something must have happened behind the scene and I want to trace the guys responsible for that crap. Tar and feather….
Felix says: @ December 27, 2013 at 8:01 pm
…. I’m afraid you all are going down the conspiracy theory path.
The IPCC reports give extensive discussion of the hydrologic (water) cycle.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
The problem is they model water as a FEEDBACK of CO2 so the climate response in their models for CO2 is actually CO2 + H2O. As Dr. Ball says WATER not insignificant CO2 is a major factor in the climate.
Very good summary article.
I’ve long sense figured out (based on my own calculations) that AGW projections (and particularly CAGW projections) represent the outcome of poor scientific methods (at best) — a house of cards — many of tissue paper.
However, I was only aware of a couple ways precipitation could confuse the issue still further — now, I’m aware of more — now, more of the cards are made of tissue paper. In my mind, they have long sense fallen into a tattered pile.
climateace says: @ December 28, 2013 at 12:05 am
Mr Ball seems to be entirely missing the point that if it rains a lot but the sun don’t shine then the crops won’t grow.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And if it doesn’t rain all your crops shrivel up and die. You need several factors rain, sunshine, a suitable temperature range AND the correct nutrients INCLUDING CO2. Dr. Ball is not missing the point, idiots that think ONLY temperature effects tree ring growth are.
That’s “since” in the statement above.
On the argument about anomalies – I go with John Kehr Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly
Go read the rest of the article to see what he is talking about.
“Many Climate Reconstructions Incorrectly Attributed to Temperature Change”
“…but they exacerbated it by ignoring, downgrading or misusing variables. Most important and critical was water in all its forms and functions.”
Maybe the variable of the temperature does not always apply,–>with latant heat the ‘humid air’ parcel can vary in ‘heat’ content without changing the temperature…?
IMO also some of the other variables are/are not temperature dependant or they are like the Thermosphere where individual(?) molecules ,gases etc…can be excited by the suns rays but not transfer heat to the lower levels of atmosphere(?)
Just some questions/thoughts(however disjointed ,deal with it) on a cool (30°F outside) saturday morning…
Thanks for the interesting posts,postings,stories,essays,articles,papers,links and comments.
ps-i also think that there is a missing negative sign and that’s why in the long run things tend to be cold(glaciation/ice ages)
Genghis says:
December 27, 2013 at 6:01 pm
“Water in all its forms is obviously the most important climate factor.
The dry lapse rate is 9.8 C/km. The moist lapse rate is 5 C/km. What that means is that a moist atmosphere is warmer than a dry atmosphere. Increased levels of CO2 tend to increase the lapse rate thereby cooling the atmosphere, relative to a moist atmosphere.”
but we have to be sure to keep things straight. If the temperature in the radiating region at 10 km altitude is -50 deg C, than for a moist lapse rate of 5 C/km the surface would be at -50 + 5 * 10 = 0 C. For a dry lapse rate of 9.8 C the surface would be -50 + 9.8 * 10 = 48 C. So moisture in the atmosphere tends to warm the surface and it is the overwhelming effect, not CO2. Fortunately, since the oceans provide an inexhaustible supply of water and the mass of inert gas in the atmosphere is fixed, the carrying capacity of the atmosphere for water vapor is also approximately constant overall, although the convection cells do introduce day-to-day and seasonal variability.
Mosher you must admit that the linear rate of warming has yet to prove robust against independent variables such as data set and end points. This is because the data is too noisy for robust outcomes and statements and far exceeds the buried artificial OLS statistic. In classical statistical analysis climate OLS is a garbage number thrown out by even a high school level statistics teacher. And you are fully aware of that. I dare you to say otherwise.
That and the ignored issue with tree ring temperature proxies that caused the ‘hide the decline’ ‘trick’ of note fame. They weren’t hiding a decline in temperatures, they were hiding the divergence between observed temperature and tree ring growth from 1960 onwards. Tree ring growth indicated that temperatures were falling rather than rising, so the good Dr appended the actual temps form ~ 1960 onwards to the tree ring proxies from thee prior 1000 years or so, of course he neglected to note this in any of his explanatory information.
The fact that current tree ring growth does not correlate with current temperatures calls intoo question the entire field of dendrochronology. If they aren’t a good proxy for current temps, why should they be considered a good proxy for past temps.
To put it in human terms if I were to calculate an ordinary least squares rate of improvement in oral reading rate based on a data string identical to global temperature and say to a parent that their child was improving at such a rate, I would be committing fraud. The spread of noisy data points from the artificial predicted rate would preclude me from saying such nonsense.
Unfortunately there are pockets of educational institutions that do it anyway, not from malice but from not understanding proper use and the limits of statistical analysts. Would this be the case with you?
“analysis”. I hate iPad autocorrect.
I said:
pochas says:
December 28, 2013 at 7:06 am
“moisture in the atmosphere tends to warm the surface” and this is backwards. The effect of moisture in the atmosphere is to cool the surface relative to the radiating region.”
Pamela Gray says: December 28, 2013 at 7:08 am
Pamela, I am not fully aware of that. And, although your comment was not addressed directly to me, are you able to explain why?
Pochas, glad you corrected that.
But note the bigger issue.
Humid air cools at the moist rate when rising and then after condensation out of the water vapour it descends and warms at the faster dry rate.
Consider the effect of that descending warm air on surface temperatures globally when at any given moment 50% of the atmosphere is rising and 50% is falling.
A major omission in the global energy budget.
Gail Combs says: December 28, 2013 at 6:33 am
Lots of different factors effect the growth of plants and just saying it is temperature is idiotic.
Correct, here is an example from my experience:
I have some land in the county of Kent, England. Woodland part is populated mainly by silver birch species. Flat part of the land was totally devastated by hurricane in October 1987, while part which is in a valley section did survive intact. Now 26 years later some of the newly grown saplings in the clearances have caught up with much older trees from the valley part, only two hundred meters apart. If two were to be used in some future dendrology study they would give totally different growth rate.
Non Nomen says:
December 28, 2013 at 7:19 am
Check for the “Bilderberg group”. That are the powerful guys behind the curtains for several decades now. Here a good oversight:
http://bilderberg.org/bilder.htm
The connection between the Bilderberg group and Maurice Strong is via David Rockefeller as described here:
http://oathkeepers.org/oath/2012/05/25/henry-lamb-on-maurice-strong_un_bilderberg_agenda-21/
Non Nomen says:
December 28, 2013 at 7:19 am
Thanks. The wrongdoer Maurice Strong is known to me….. Something must have happened behind the scene and I want to trace the guys responsible for that crap. Tar and feather
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Your getting into ‘Conspiracy Theory’ country of course. That said; you might look into these 737 people who “accumulate 80% of the control over the value of all are transnational corporations”: The Network of Global Corporate Control and cross check against the 1001 club who funded World Wildlife Federation.
The groups are pretty incestuous with the same names cropping up in group after group.
1001 Club Incomplete membership list continually updated. Also see: At The Hand Of Man – The White Man’s Game – Prince Bernhard and the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) pp. 66-71
Also checkout THIRD WORLD TRAVELER
There are several pitfalls of OLS (and many other linear statistics) that when applied, can often reveal non-robust issues with your conclusions. The following article is easy to read for most of us here and explains some of the limitations when applied to noisy data replete with many independent variables such as we see in temperature products. The artificial nature of temperature products means that there are many independent variables to deal with, often to the point of making linear measures inappropriate.
http://www.arsa-conf.com/archive/?vid=1&aid=3&kid=60101-220&q=f1
MikeB, if your comment and question relates to educational data, the noisier the data spread the less reliable your prediction of future improvement will be. Why? It is often the case that noisy data has elements in it that you did not intend to measure. And these variables are often independent of your treatment.
if the data doesn’t warm adjust it so it does. These have been going on for both GISS and HADCRUT with the difference between revisions examples of them.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend
The cooling from HADCRUT3 to HADCRUT4 reduced to almost flat yet again.
USA temperatures from GISS 1999.
http://www.john-daly.com/usa-1999.gif
Notice how 1930s and 1940s temperatures were warmer than the 1990s for the USA.
Global temperatures from GISS 1999/2000
http://www.john-daly.com/giss2000.gif
A link to temperatures in regions all over the world up to 2003 using GISS.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm
A detailed look into surface temperatures.
http://www.john-daly.com/ges/surftmp/surftemp.htm
Vukcevic, not necessarily. Young and old trees can have similar growth differences during the same period of time if exposed to the same conditions. Good conditions can allow young trees to grow well relative to their own history. Those same good conditions can allow old trees to grow well relative to their own history.
Pamela Gray @ vukcevic
Good conditions can allow young trees to grow well relative to their own history. Those same good conditions can allow old trees to grow well relative to their own history.
I wish I understood what you meant to say. Oh, forget it..
Gail Combs says:
December 28, 2013 at 7:04 am
“On the argument about anomalies – I go with John Kehr Misunderstanding of the Global Temperature Anomaly.”
=========================================================================
Gail, thanks for reference. I did read the rest of the article, but I’m not sure that everyone will. Since the monthly anomalies are followed closely here, I think everyone should understand what they are.
The reference implies, but does not actually say so in as many words, that the anomaly for a given calendar month (say January) is calculated by subtracting that month’s global temperature from a 30 year average of that specific calendar month temperatures (e.g. all the January temperatures from 1981 to 2010), not all the monthly temperatures for 30 years. Of course, that is the way it has to be, otherwise in the NH, January anomalies would always be lower than June anomalies. I never gave the actual meaning much thought. Thanks for the comment.
Notice the difference between HADCRUT3 and HADCRUT4 for the massive peak around 2008.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:2001/trend/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2001/trend
The difference between the two was supposedly to include more Arctic data above 80N. So how can 0.43 percent of the planet surface above 82.5N warm up the global mean by nearly 0.25c?
if the areas used was 2% of the planet it would take an anomaly 12.5c above the HADCRUT3 data to match this 0.25c positive anomaly globally. This gives scientific evidence that HADCRUT4 was adjusted not just for Arctic temperatures, but also to show less warming changing data elsewhere.
Typo in post above should read around 2007.
Typo 2 – to show less COOLING changing data elsewhere.
Pamela Gray
Sorry, I did miss your elaboration whilst posting my question. The fact that data is noisy does not preclude using OLS, it just means that the resulting straight line fit may not be ‘statistically significant’. This would be the case with any trend over the last decade or so; I am not aware of anyone saying differently.
Even if the data points were completely random, the OLS technique would still produce a trend line and that trend line would of course be meaningless. So it is always important to retain some common sense and not be blinded by science or maths.
On the other hand, I would expect the rising trend throughout the 20th century to have some validity.
Any method which fits a straight line to a number of data points relies on the underlying assumption that the trend is in fact linear. If it is not, the technique is not valid. In respect of global temperature, it is questionable whether it is valid ( one camp says that CO2 induced warming increases logarithmically and so should slow down and the other camp says it should accelerate away) – but it may be of some indicative use in some circumstances.
We are only using one dependent variable here – temperature ( although it is affected by many different things).
Thanks for the link, it is a very nice summary.
vukcevic says: @ December 28, 2013 at 8:44 am
I think Pam may be referring to this study:
NOTE: I skipped the Abstract because it seems to say what Pam was saying which contridicts the body of the text.
There also seems to be a genetic component (or environmental or CO2?) At least I think that is what they are saying.
Vuc, you said, “If two were to be used in some future dendrology study they would give totally different growth rate.” My prediction is that they would be very similar if the conditions were the same. Each tree is measured for growth rate relative to itself in order to compensate for independent variables such as tree age. Your only other choice is to measure only trees of the same age with the same number of growth rings under the same conditions.
Gail, you are correct. Growth rate must be anomalized by species and age, and sometimes within the individual tree. Else your growth rate treemometer will be useless (or in some cases used to prove your biased opinion). It can be done, but only if you know what you are doing. Mann, not so much (or maybe he did).
Gail, interesting genetic comment and I am curious about one thing. Did they mean that trees that began their growth at the same time but had different life spans showed fast growth if they survived longer, and slower growth if they didn’t?
Ms Gray
Point I was making is: younger trees are growing in a clearance with unobstructed sunlight, while the older are to large extent obstructed by the neighbouring once. Once the hurricane generating clearance is reasteblished to a mature woodland growth will slow down due the light share with neighbours. From that point onwards both trees (older and newer) will presumably grow at same rate, but their dendrology record for 1987-2013 will be different.
MikeB, validity for what? A rise in anthropogenic CO2 or natural conditions? Many climate scientists seem to think that the global temperature anomaly linear trend is a measure of CO2 warming. But I find this argument ill supported by such a measure. Why? Too many dependent and independent variables and way too much noise. It is an inappropriately applied statistical measure and those that use it are either unaware of these limitations or they are disregarding them. Either case is unimaginable (and impeachable in my opinion) carelessness in the face of IPCC’s expensive and likely useless societal recommendations.
vukcevic says:
December 28, 2013 at 7:58 am
“Now 26 years later some of the newly grown saplings in the clearances have caught up with much older trees from the valley part, only two hundred meters apart. If two were to be used in some future dendrology study they would give totally different growth rate.”
But in Dendrochronology what is compared is relative thicknesses of growth rings not absolute thicknesses. A pattern emerges of good/bad growing years that can be transferred to trees that grew in other regions and overlapped in time.
Pamela Gray says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:31 am
Gail, interesting genetic comment and I am curious about one thing. Did they mean that trees that began their growth at the same time but had different life spans showed fast growth if they survived longer, and slower growth if they didn’t?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Pam, I had a devil of a time trying to figure out what they were saying. The genetic comment was based on my looking at the growth rate of my sheep and goats in which there is certainly a genetic component as well as a nutritional component.
The URL: http://treephys.oxfordjournals.org/content/29/11/1317.long
vukcevic says: @ December 28, 2013 at 7:58 am
“Now 26 years later some of the newly grown saplings in the clearances have caught up with much older trees from the valley part, only two hundred meters apart. If two were to be used in some future dendrology study they would give totally different growth rate.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>
TB says: @ December 28, 2013 at 9:50 am
But in Dendrochronology what is compared is relative thicknesses of growth rings not absolute thicknesses. A pattern emerges of good/bad growing years that can be transferred to trees that grew in other regions and overlapped in time.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
So how about looking at two different trees in vukcevic’s valley. Both start growing from seed in the same year. One is in the cleared area and not competing for water, nutrients and sunlight with older trees. The second is under the mature forest canopy. Now compare those two trees 150 years later when both areas have been mature forests for say 100 years.
The one in the cleared area is not going to have the same pattern of tree rings as the one under the canopy for the first 10 to 20 years.
…something about trees,carbon,latent and sensible ….heat.
How about : that ‘missing heat’ that some are looking for, is the variable of life itself.
IOW,the latant heat or ‘carbon'(?) locked into plants and other biologics?
Forget temperature, just measure the quantity/quality of the ‘life’ on the planet…..WUWT!?
Thanks
Gail Combs says:
December 28, 2013 at 7:04 am
Well, I read the rest of the article and still don’t know what he is talking about.
But it was difficult because when someone says “Anomaly has no place on this chart because this shows the actual temperature of the Earth” I am immediately alerted to the fact that I may be reading rubbish. No one knows the precise temperature of the Earth! Unless you have thermometers covering every square inch, which we don’t, how are you going to measure it? Anomalies are used for good reason and when people don’t know that reason, and imply that it is some sort of trick to make things look warmer, I lose the will to keep reading.
Does the author, as ‘Old Engineer’ suggests, think that February anomalies are just relative to other Februaries? If that is what he thinks, he should say so.
What do you think, Gail?
TB says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:50 am
A pattern emerges of good/bad growing years that can be transferred to trees that grew in other regions and overlapped in time.
Steven Mosher and Zeke H do that with the thermometer records, but punters on this blog don’t take them very seriously.
FerdiEgb says:
December 28, 2013 at 4:48 am
So the reliability of ice core gas measurements does seem to depend on local conditions.
[All the above is the quote from Illis? Mod]
Sorry Mod, forgot the “/” in the closing tag after the one sentence quote from Bill Illis…
MikeB says: @ December 28, 2013 at 10:28 am
… Does the author, as ‘Old Engineer’ suggests, think that February anomalies are just relative to other Februaries? If that is what he thinks, he should say so.
What do you think, Gail?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I think he is talking about the uneven distribution of heat between the the Northern and Southern Hemispheres just as he showed on the graph he was talking about.
Sorry you can not understand graphs, My Bad.
Vuk, please take a statistics class. You’ld better start at the high school level.
I think Dr. Ball’s point is that the established organizations looking into climate change use statistical tricks to make their points. If the interest was understanding the climate then things would be done within understood or agreed upon definitions and methods. When talking about things like temperature they would use the necessary caveats. But they don’t they just say this is the “anomaly of global temp” which is pretty much not true since there are massive holes in the data and the adjustments made to compensate for outliers are all buried where the sun don’t shine. So yes, temperature products should be the same from the same data. but they are not which leaves plenty of room to wiggle around and claim things that are not true in the sense of being statistically significant.
v/r,
David Riser
In agriculture field plots, measurement data, OLS and anomaly data works quite well because variables are very well controlled. It is even fair to say that precipitation dendrochronology has been extensively and reliably studied and limitations well-defined. Climate scientists whose background does not include graduate courses in forestry and statistics choose to ignore this treasure trove of knowledge and misapply this information into temperature reconstructions.
Statistics are a necessary part of good research. The trick is to not keep the baby in the bath water nor through it all out.
Pamela Gray says:
December 28, 2013 at 11:03 am
Vuk, please take a statistics class. You’ld better start at the high school level.
Ms Gray
Again, I wish I knew what you were referring to, don’t think going back to school at any level it would help, as your you idol and mentor Dr. S observes and endlessly repeats “Vuk is incapable of learning”. I have no habit or intention of getting into slugging match with a lady, so I’ll end wishing you a happy and prosperous new year.
I must agree, the IPCC has succeeded beyond their wildest dreams.
We are arguing how many angels, when discussing Climatology.
Terms of reference are important, without agreed defined terms, discussion becomes noise.
Global Average Temperature? Which one?
Anomalies? From which reference? Why that particular reference?
Past temperature reconstructions? With which assumptions? To what accuracy? With which error bars?
What data?
The writing of John Daly, pretty much summed up the team effort, small wonder they seemed to rejoice at news of his passing.
Yet this pathetic exaggeration of confidence, the perceived warming of this last 60 years and the accusation of the magic gas.
A UN organisation claiming to know that the planet has warmed by an amount less than the noise inherent in the known data(weather stations1850 – 1990s)with a nonsolution that defies all common sense, lasts over 30 years while lying louder and faster every year.
Then there are the people who claim the increased accuracy of the satellite era, is adequate to establish trends.As with the argo buoy network, time will tell, but the best we can say is do not know, insufficient data, as yet.
The orchestration of F.U.D climatology has been an amazingly long-lived farce.
Is there intelligent life on earth?
Put a sock in it Mosher. Dr. Ball knows how to put temperature series on a common base period. He has a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences for goodness sake. Surely the data have already been corrected for the base period, and Dr. Ball is showing the remaining discrepancy. Keep in mind too the surface numbers have been adjusted and re-jiggered so many times, it’s hard to draw an accurate conclusion.
Pamela Gray says: @ December 28, 2013 at 11:11 am
…Climate scientists whose background does not include graduate courses in forestry and statistics choose to ignore this treasure trove of knowledge and misapply this information into temperature reconstructions….
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
This is one of the things I noticed back in college. Something well understood by those taking physics or chemistry could be a complete mystery to a biologist or geologist. This is the great thing about WUWT, the cross fertilization between many disciplines. It is a real shame when ego gets in the way of that cross fertilization.
Gail Combs says:
December 28, 2013 at 10:11 am
“So how about looking at two different trees in vukcevic’s valley. Both start growing from seed in the same year. One is in the cleared area and not competing for water, nutrients and sunlight with older trees. The second is under the mature forest canopy. Now compare those two trees 150 years later when both areas have been mature forests for say 100 years.
The one in the cleared area is not going to have the same pattern of tree rings as the one under the canopy for the first 10 to 20 years.”
You still miss the point:
Yes, the two trees being compared are in different ecosystems BUT they are both under the influence of the same WEATHER during any particular growth year. (More important than exact location)
Therefore the effects of the growing conditions due the weather are reflected in BOTH trees irrespective of their different ecosystems.
Many years of growth may be needed to match different trees but it’s like a fingerprint and the pattern of overlying weather affecting both trees will be recognised in the pattern of growth.
JJ says:
December 28, 2013 at 12:22 pm
Put a sock in it Mosher. Dr. Ball knows how to put temperature series on a common base period. He has a Ph.D. in Environmental Sciences for goodness sake. Surely the data have already been corrected for the base period, and Dr. Ball is showing the remaining discrepancy. Keep in mind too the surface numbers have been adjusted and re-jiggered so many times, it’s hard to draw an accurate conclusion.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I suspect you are correct. He does know how “to put temperature series on a common base period”.
And no, they haven’t been corrected to the base period – that exercise is down to the user of the data NOT the data compilers. And Mr Ball knows that.
The question then must be: Why didn’t he correct to the base period under study?
Ms Combs
You are right there about cross-fertilisation, while I am writing this I am listening to Nobel geneticist Paul Nurse, he is very good on his subject, but I wish he would keep out of climate change.
Dr. Tim: There was endless fun made of Rumsfeld’s quote (knowns, etc.), but he was and is correct. I remember hearing the same thing from a Quebec engineer (in French, “Les inconnues…) and didn’t think more of it at the time. The logic of it is obvious. Well, at least for some people.
Gail Combs said @ December 28, 2013 at 10:11 am
My tree-growing experience outside of a small apple orchard is mainly with Tasmanian Bluegum (E. globulus) and Blackwood (Acacia melanoxylon). While there might be some knind of a relationship between the trees in your gedanken experiment, I suspect it would be impossible to determine. Eucalypt leaves decomposition products include a herbicide that inhibits growth of nearby trees. Acacias fix nitrogen from the atmosphere that can stimulate growth of nearby trees. Grasses and other low-growing herbs compete with trees for nutrients and water. They are absent in the forest. Trees continually vary genetically from branch to branch presumably evolved as a response to pestilence and disease. You will often notice pests or disease attacking only one branch.
And as Tom Wigley pointed out in one of the Climategate emails, there’s always the effect of reindeer shit. Too many variables many of unknown value…
The Pompous Git says: @ December 28, 2013 at 4:17 pm
My experience is with Sweet Gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) It doesn’t like shady areas but will take over a pasture before you know it. In five to ten years it will get to the point you would never know it had been cleared land. The dividing line between my cleared pasture (abandoned 8 yrs ago) and the existing woods next door is barely discernible. Darn things will grow several feet in the first few years in rich bottom land IF they are in full sun. Young trees in the woods stay dwarfed and grow slowly.
Sweet gum is the reason I have goats. They keep my active pastures clean.
As far as using sweet gum for firewood, this comment sums it up: “I can’t imagine trying to split wood that is like a “a roll of bailing wire.””
“the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850” – Mosh
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In fact, the human cause of “climate change” was identified much earlier, by James Sprenger and Henry Kramer in 1486:
” Hopefully Mosh will weigh in here with his report once he’s recovered from the trip.”
He never did recover.
RACookPE1978 says:
December 27, 2013 at 6:27 pm
For the first part, you had a very convoluted way of saying you agree with me.
As for the last paragraph, the comment was interesting however it would have been more suited to my own article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/22/hadcrut4-is-from-venus-giss-is-from-mars-now-includes-november-data/
I plotted the last 4 years of both GISS and HadCRUT4 not expecting to find anything of significance, but was surprised to see that for 3 out of the last 4 years, the July numbers are very close but there is a huge gap in other months. Perhaps the Julys in one base period were indeed very different than in another base period relative to the March or September values.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010
Thank you very much for this insight!
Thank you for compliment.
From that article: (But specifically referring to the graph immediately following this sentence)
Now, look again at your graph, but see how every temperature plot (on a month-to-month level) follows a near-constant offset from each other. You’ve plotted the “zero slope” averages on that graph, but – if you were to “normalize” each of the different temperature curves so that every “slope” is displayed on top of each other, the individual temperature curves would also lay very, very closely on top of each other.
RACookPE1978 says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:14 pm
the individual temperature curves would also lay very, very closely on top of each other
I agree, which is why I originally said above:
“The actual difference in trend between GISS and UAH is extremely small”
Gail Combs
Well, that is the one thing he doesn’t mention and if he did it would have been irrelevant to the point about anomalies.
Since you recommended the linked article I assumed you may have understood some of it.
Rather than cutting and pasting what you don’t understand, it may raise the level of discussion if you were more selective. Try to understand some of it.
I prefer quality to sheer volume of garbage.
Pamela Gray says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:40 am
The validity refers to the trend line that would show an increase in temperature during the 20th century. It says nothing about the cause of that increase. Given that you accept the temperature measurements it indicates that there was a statistically significant temperature increase, albeit of a fraction of a degree. That is all.
Whether such an increase is due to rising CO2 or something else can not be determined from a simple plot of temperature against time.
Of course GISS and UAH are measuring different components/areas, such that any comparison needs to be made with extreme caution. However, that said, 2 points arise:
1. where is the warming that GISS measures going if it does not go into the atmosphere being measured by UAH?
2. why should the ground (near ground – weather station height) warm at a greater rate than the mid atmosphere being measured by UAH?
Does the divergence shed any light on the cause of the warming being measured? For example,
(i) if the ground surface is warming faster than the atmosphere, does this suggest changes in solar (by which I include changes in cloudiness and transparency of the atmosphere) is the more significant cause?
(ii) if warming is the result of GHGs, would one expect to see first a warming of the atmosphere which warmer atmosphere then leads to warming of the ground surface?
Just
TB,
Umm, sorry but a tree growing in a forest, is growing in a microclimate, nothing like the tree growing in the clearing, also as the forest grows up around the sapling in the clearing, competition means its growth rate will decline presenting as a cooling climate while the tree growing in the forest will have a different growth pattern entirely steadier, more likely
Dr. Ball has rightly been criticised for failing to recognise that the differences in anomalies are due to different baselines. Anthony should also admit oversight in going ahead and authorising this post. He of all people should know that correction for baseline should be made, having been caught out on this in the past on this subject (e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies/).
Unfortunately, he has chosen to spend his time on making a personal attack on Steve Mosher when the latter has pointed this error out.
NOt WUWT’s finest hour.
Well the lot of you beating up Dr. Ball for the work done by Paul Homewood, should read the work done by Paul Homewood. No the baselines were not adjusted, but the comparison is valid. Read Mr. Homewood’s work before you shoot off your mouth!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/global-temperature-updates-2012/
Usually if your going to criticize you make sure you know what you are criticizing and if the work or table is referenced to someone else’s work you should review that work before making a bunch of silly statements!
v/r,
David Riser
@David Riser, I share your concern, there is an element of tribalism on this post.
Mosher has become a person to ignore, his posts have become quite strange and pointless.
The high level of snark directed at Dr Ball, for his perceived failure to discriminate between the anomalies, is mooted by the link, to Paul Homewood directly under the posted numbers.
Attack the man, never mind the message?
The focus on Russian warm anomalies: did we not learn that Soviet-Russian allocated oil/heating supplies based on expected and experienced winter temperatures, so that temperatures were always estimated/fudged DOWN? When the Union and its systems fell down, there was no incentive to cool things, so temperature readings popped up to match reality. So a comparison of today’s temps vs 30-year old temps will always show today to be warmer?
For a while we read on WUWT of the disagreement between local governmental records, like those of Iceland, with the GISS records. Did that disconnect ever go away or, in the way of all Big Lies, just disappear from the public awareness?
David Riser and john robertson
I’m sorry, but WHAT? From the linked post by Mr. Homewood
“[Remember all four sets are based on different base periods, so the absolute numbers are not directly comparable]”
So Paul Homewood himself said you shouldn’t directly compare the different sets, which is what We’ve been complaining that Dr. Ball has done.
“Usually if your going to criticize you make sure you know what you are criticizing ” Indeed.
@schitzree,I’m sorry but What?
Anomalies are unfit for the purpose.
The example offered by Dr Ball, is directly linked to Paul Homewood’s work.
Every reader is capable of clicking on said link and drawing their own conclusions.
That these imaginary variations have such different “bases” and return diverging value,while pretending to measure the same thing, is the point .
Never mind that the trend is either less than the inherent noise in the measurements over the longer term (1850-2012), or lacks sufficient duration to have much meaning(1979-present).
Given the thrust of this post, I felt that Dr Balls use of this example, fit perfectly, with the way the IPCC, misrepresents the available information.
TB
“Well it would be enormous – as there is 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS!”
Actually there may be 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS but not when calculating the base lines of these two series. Both contain 30 years data although the periods only overlap by 20 years. Also the average “anomaly” derived by Dr. Ball compares the same 10 year period (2002-11), not longer term periods, for both series. Hence reference to GISS’s extra 27 years of data is spurious.
If the two series, which both measure the increase of temperature, are compatible it would appear that, using elementary group theory (probably so elementary as to be incorrect), the period 1981-1990 was 0.08C warmer than the period 1951-60. Hence an increase of .027C per decade which would equate to 0.267C per century. Or 0.37C over 140 years, which does not fit in well with either Dr. Ball’s reference to the IPCC’s 0.6C or to TB’s estimated 0.8C.
But, of course, it is nonsense to extract a long term trend over any period as short as thirty years let alone ten years. The hockey playing climate scientists may “discover” this in another 13 years, if current global temperatures do not warm up soon.
schitzree,
Dr. Ball and Mr. Homewood were not talking about a straight comparison of absolute numbers, the table compares monthly difference, trend and annual variation, all based on the same data supposedly and all different, which you would understand if you read the article and actually looked at what is in the table!
v/r,
David Riser
Solomon Green says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:47 am
TB
“Well it would be enormous – as there is 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS!”
Actually there may be 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS but not when calculating the base lines of these two series. Both contain 30 years data although the periods only overlap by 20 years. Also the average “anomaly” derived by Dr. Ball compares the same 10 year period (2002-11), not longer term periods, for both series. Hence reference to GISS’s extra 27 years of data is spurious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Solomon:
With the above then all I can say is you don’t understand statistical technique.
The point is, if you don’t align all data for comparison at the same start date then you end up calculating a slope on the trend line that is not comparable.
As there is variability in the data, where a trend line is drawn from/to makes a large difference to it’s slope.
The data Mr Ball drew comparison from were not drawn starting at 2002. They were drawn from their start dates. Ie GISS=1951, Hadcrut 1961, UAH 1978, RSS 1979.
I chose to base them at 1981.
Try it for yourself in the way I outlined in the OP.
Also from Mr Homewood himself:
“Just to confirm John Peter’s point, each of the four datasets use different baselines, against which they calculate their anomalies, so it is not the absolute numbers which are comparable but the change in them over time.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“If the two series, which both measure the increase of temperature, are compatible it would appear that, using elementary group theory (probably so elementary as to be incorrect), the period 1981-1990 was 0.08C warmer than the period 1951-60. Hence an increase of .027C per decade which would equate to 0.267C per century. Or 0.37C over 140 years, which does not fit in well with either Dr. Ball’s reference to the IPCC’s 0.6C or to TB’s estimated 0.8C.”
Look at the graph I link and place a transparent ruler on it to do a simple division of area and you will find ~0.8C.
It is also the accepted rise according to the IPCC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“But, of course, it is nonsense to extract a long term trend over any period as short as thirty years let alone ten years. The hockey playing climate scientists may “discover” this in another 13 years, if current global temperatures do not warm up soon.”
No, 30 years is OK – that should allow natural climate cycles such as ENSO/PDO to play out.
Which is the major reason we have a “pause” currently. However some find it convenient to omit the oceans in this equation. Convenient, as it contains >90% of the climates heat energy.
Ocean temps are rising – very, v, slowly yes, but due the enormous heat capacity of them, a 0.06C rise (as is measured in the deep ocean) would translate to a 60C rise in the atmosphere (1000x the mass). This is of course only hypothetical as it would be impossible. While ever ocean temps are rising then the atmosphere’s rising temp cannot be coming from the oceans (unless we have sea/floor heating on an enormous scale) as the oceans would cool by passing on stored energy into the atmosphere.
BTW: the pause has not lasted 17 years. The last big El Nino was 1998 (which would make 15 years BTW), but on the GISS data base 2005 was warmer – that makes 8 years.
TB says:
December 29, 2013 at 2:20 pm
No, 30 years is OK – that should allow natural climate cycles such as ENSO/PDO to play out.
ENSO will play out but PDO, NAO and a few others have cycles of 60-80 years. That is what may have influenced the leveling/cooling 1945-1975, the warming 1976-2000 and the current stall. Probably not by coincidence on the rythm of the PDO…
MikeB says: @ December 29, 2013 at 1:57 am
Gail Combs…
Rather than cutting and pasting what you don’t understand, it may raise the level of discussion if you were more selective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I do not give links and quotes. _Jim jumps down my throat every single time so take your complains up with him.
………
To me it is obvious what John Kehr was talking about, the in-balance between hemispheres.
As far as temperature goes it is an rotten method for measuring energy in the first place. Also anomalies to two decimal points is deceptive since the actual sample size is ONE and the readings are often truncated (not even rounded) to the whole number. That is just the tip of the iceberg when it come to the surface temperature dataset(s) and it’s problems.
In other words the data is junk!
john robertson says:
Yes, and what many of us have concluded is that Dr. Ball was wrong to make the comparison, just as Mr. Homewood said.
I hope that’s not the point, because it’s wrong. They don’t measure the same thing, pretend or otherwise. HADCRUT4 and GISS measure surface temperature, while UAH and RSS measure lower troposphere. while they both are part of the atmosphere they are very diferent things.
So the choice of a Base Period is arbitrary. That doesn’t mean you can just ignore it. The choice of useing Fahrenheit or Celcius is arbitrary too, but you can’t just compare temperatures in one to the other.
I REALLY hope I’m misreading that last sentance, becouse it SOUNDS like you’r saying since the IPCC and alarmists lie and misrepresent, so can we.
David Riser says:
Alright, first I’ve obviously already read the article and looked at the table, So every time you make a snide comment to do so you just end up looking like an ass.
Second, While Mr. Homewood isn’t makeing a straight comparison of absolute numbers, Dr. Ball clearly is.
Dr. Ball
And no, Dr. Ball linking to an article that says you shouldn’t do what he just did doesn’t make it alright. And I have no idea where you get that GISS and UAH is based on the same data. one’s weather station data and the other is satellite. They use different methods to measure different things. You can’t just compare one to the other, as Mr. Homewood said in the quote I posted above.
Many times I replaced emails with Professor Jaworowski.
To the last moment of his life, Professor Jaworowski claimed that ice cores do not tell of truth about past concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (especially the interpretation of research results is incorrect). Comments – analyses Ferdinand Engelbeen – according to Professor Jaworowski , are mainly the result of a misunderstanding of Professor Jaworowski arguments.
I (at the beginning) also recall yet another process (not mentioned here), which may have effect on the CO2 content of the “geological” air in the bubbles in ice cores.
Raymond, (2008), (http://www.springerlink.com/index/lk62448r21983n06.pdf):
“Here we describe such a protein from one of the Vostok ice core …”
“Triple junctions, where the boundaries of three ice crystal grains meet, are considered especially important as microbial refugia because of their greater liquid volume and tendency to accumulate ions and nutrients excluded from the ice …”
Ferdinand Engelbeen, should also to compare these graphs:
(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/images/romanovsky_fig3.gif),
(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/land-permafrost-siberia-sml.jpg),
(http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/Pelejero-et-al-2005-small.gif),
(http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/Wei-et-al-2009-small.gif),
and … (http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2back1826-1960eorevk.jpg).
Please look at the years c. 1940 to 1960 – very interesting similarities, is not it?
It looks significantly otherwise (at the time – c. 1940 to 1960) than here (http://cmi.princeton.edu/images/annual_reports/2010/figure-22.jpg) when we have to use (mainly – among others) data from ice cores: for estimation of natural – terrestrial sources of CO2.
Conclusion: natural sources (their rise in the XX-th century) have a significant (perhaps even decisive) contribution to present unbalanced carbon in the atmosphere – not anthropogenic CO2.
Need to once again to analyze data from ice cores, because it on them (mainly) based on the theory of AGW.
P.S. I also recommend: (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/#comment-43813) – this discussion is still valid.
On the other hand, especially for Ferdinand Engelbeen, I recommend this sequence of this citations:
Siani et al., 2013. (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131108/ncomms3758/full/ncomms3758.html): “These results, along with records of foraminifera benthic–planktic 14C age and δ13C difference, provide evidence for three periods of enhanced upwelling in the Southern Ocean during the last deglaciation, supporting the hypothesis that Southern Ocean upwelling contributed to the deglacial rise in atmospheric CO2.”
Basak et al., 2010. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n11/full/ngeo987.html): “During the last deglaciation, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose at the same time that the Δ14C of that CO2 fell.”
Commenting on their work: Wind-Driven Upwelling in the Southern Ocean and the Deglacial Rise in Atmospheric CO2, (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5920/1443.abstract)Anderson et al. 2009.,( http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2397) the authors write:
“The faster the ocean turns over, the more deep water rises to the surface to release CO2,” said lead author Robert Anderson, a geochemist at Lamont-Doherty. “It’s this rate of overturning that regulates CO2 in the atmosphere.” In the last 40 years, the winds have shifted south much as they did 17,000 years ago [!], said Anderson.”
Mayr et al., 2013. (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/41/8/831.abstract): “… phenomenon with CO2 release from the deep ocean.” “This is in agreement with an increase in zonal wind strength extending to the southern mid-latitudes …”
Varma et al., 2011. (http://www.clim-past.net/7/339/2011/cp-7-339-2011.html):
‘Variations in their intensity and latitudinal position have been suggested to exert a strong influence on the CO2 budget in the Southern Ocean, thus making them a potential factor affecting the global climate.” “Taken together, the proxy and model results suggest that centennial-scale periods of lower (higher) solar activity caused equatorward (southward) shifts of the annual mean SWW.”
Varma et al. 2012. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053403/abstract): “The SWW shift is more intense and robust for the simulation with varying stratospheric ozone, suggesting an important influence of solar-induced stratospheric ozone variations on mid-latitude troposphere dynamics.”
Jiao et al., 2013., Why productive upwelling areas are often sources rather than sinks of CO2 ? (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/13399/2013/bgd-10-13399-2013-print.pdf): “Marine upwelling regions are known to be productive in carbon fixation and thus thought to be sinks of CO2, whereas many upwelling areas in the ocean are actually sources rather than sinks of CO2.” “On top of that, microbial respiration could be stimulated and accelerated …”
To this I will add terrestrial source – Zimov, 2005. (http://forms.mbl.edu/sjp/pdf/readings/zimov_permafrost2005.pdf): “The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C).” “About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed …” “… it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon …” (latest research claim that it may be up to two times more). So, as in the twentieth century: (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Fig.2loss-of-permafrost.png – SKS-J.C., are not happy when I quote – in this context, their graph).
TB
I see the last row of Dr. Ball’s table as being averages not trends. Each shows the average anomaly over a period of ten years from a baseline which has been calculated over a period of thirty years. These baselines are not trends but are themselves averages. Incidentally, they are not points, nor are they affected in any way by the measurements outside the thirty year period over which each has been produced. If the baselines were identical the anomalies should be identical. As you have pointed out the baselines are not identical because they cover different thirty year periods. But on the assumption that they measure the same quantity, the data upon which each baseline is calculated should be identical for twenty years and the only differences should arise from the difference between the first ten and the last ten of the total forty year period.
Since the average temperature over the ten year period 2002-2011 must be identical (or should be, if the measuring systems were trustworthy – which, of course, they are not) then the fact that the anomalies differ can only be due to differences in the baselines. But since 20 years of each baseline overlaps, the only difference in the anomalies must lie in the difference between the average temperatures over the periods 1951-1960 and 1981-1990. Again that assumes that the two measuring systems are producing identical or near identical results (which we are entitled to assume although we know that they do not).
Hence, tongue in cheek, the difference that Dr. Ball has arrived at of 0.08C in the two measurements must be due to an increase in average temperature of that amount as between the periods 1951-1960 and 1981-1990. But, since the two series produce different raw data and are probably adjusted using different techniques, all the above shows is that until the five major sources can agree on the data and the manner in which they adjust that data they are not really fit for purpose.
I stand corrected as to the period for which no statistical warming has been seen. I have taken my period starting in 1997 and not 1998 and ending in 2013. That makes seventeen years but starting in 1998 and ending in 2012 does make fifteen years hence the difference between us.
As for thirty years sufficing, try looking at HADCRUT 4 data for the period 1880 -2009. I think that you will agree that based on those thirty years the twentieth century was heading towards a mini ice-age. Indeed that is what climate scientists were still telling us in the 1970s, based on the immediate previous thirty year period. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling]
PS I gave up statistics after my master’s in math, because I became convinced that there was too much concentration on technique and too little on the derivation and analysis of the raw data before processing began, so you are absolutely correct in stating that “you don’t understand statistical technique”.
We may beg to differ but I wish you and yours a happy new year and I hope that you are correct in your prognosis that the earth will continue to warm a little, it is freezing here.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm
TB says:
December 29, 2013 at 2:20 pm
No, 30 years is OK – that should allow natural climate cycles such as ENSO/PDO to play out.
ENSO will play out but PDO, NAO and a few others have cycles of 60-80 years. That is what may have influenced the leveling/cooling 1945-1975, the warming 1976-2000 and the current stall. Probably not by coincidence on the rythm of the PDO…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ferdinand – we are both wrong to a degree…
PDO…
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
“The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of change in the Pacific Ocean’s climate. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a “warm”, or “positive”, phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a “cool” or “negative” phase, the opposite pattern occurs. It shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years.”
NAO is the quantification of the pressure differential in the N Atlantic. Determined between the Azores and Iceland. Most of the time it is +ve ( LP in N Atlantic). When –ve LP is to the S and HP in the Iceland region. It’s not a cycle but an index.
However there is one cycle that is longer then 30 years – the AMO (Atlantic Multidecade Oscillation)
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
“There is no demonstrated predictability for when the AMO will switch, in any deterministic sense. >snip<……
Assuming that the AMO continues with its quasi-cycle of roughly 70 years, the peak of the current warm phase would be expected in c. 2020 or based on its 50–90 year quasi-cycle, between 2000 and 2040 (after peaks in c. 1880 and c. 1950)
I don’t know of any other (internal) cycles that are beyond 30 years however.
Solar yes.
Solomon Green says:
December 31, 2013 at 11:47 am
“As for thirty years sufficing, try looking at HADCRUT 4 data for the period 1880 -2009. I think that you will agree that based on those thirty years the twentieth century was heading towards a mini ice-age. Indeed that is what climate scientists were still telling us in the 1970s, based on the immediate previous thirty year period. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling]”
Please don’t mistake media hype for consensus science. (it makes a good news story – I remember it well)
From: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
“The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating
warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.”
As to the variation seen in the Hadcrut4 data – I see a steady rise from the early 1900’s interrupted only during the “Global Dimming” period spanning the 1960’s to 80’s exacerbated by Pinatubo.
“Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.
Variable aerosol concentration is not a cycle, rather a chaotic response to human, and occasionally natural occurrences. Via increased albedo.
And the Milankovitch cycles tell us we were not “heading for an IA”…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/insolation-at-65-north.jpg
Insolation at 65 deg N is increasing and the SH is receiving ~8% more than the NH