Waiting for HadCRUT

I’m waiting for May global land + ocean temperature data to be published from Hadley Climate Research Unit, at which time I’ll also show a comparison to GISS.

Since I did pretty well at guessing what RSS May data value would be, guessing 0.05 to -0.15°C, and having it end up at -.083°C, I’m going to put forth one for CRU.

My SWAG for HadCRUT is between +0.10 and +.0.17°C

Here is April 2008 from HadCRUT at 0.25°C

Click for a larger image

Reference: HadCRUT3 anomaly data which can be found here

description of the HadCRUT3 data file columns is here

Advertisements

84 thoughts on “Waiting for HadCRUT

  1. I’ll give it a whirl.
    It’ll be +0.17 to +0.22
    REPLY: My initial target value was 0.17 but then I considered how HadCRUT differences appear compared to GISS and made it the top end value. – Anthony

  2. I had to shake my head when I read these comments from NASA’s David Hathaway. He didn’t provide any supporting data for these conclusions:

    But these ideas aren’t yet proven, and anyway, the sun’s contribution is small compared to volcanoes, El Nino and greenhouse gases, Hathaway notes.
    Even if there were another Maunder minimum, he says, we would still suffer the effects of greenhouse gases and the Earth’s climate would remain warm. “It doesn’t overpower them at all,” Hathaway said.

    So apparently Hathaway believes that “greenhouse gases” would keep Earth warm no matter what the Sun does. I hope he is simply being “politically correct” in order to protect his career and that he doesn’t really believe that.

  3. Considering that GISS data for April when it first came out was .51 (later reduced to .41), and HadCRU was .25…I would think the author’s SWAG is a good one. No way CRU will be over .17.

  4. hadcru will come in at .25C
    REPLY: That is what is was last month, April 2008 was .25C. Are you saying no change? – Anthony

  5. Dear Crosspatch,
    I realize you were writing flippantly, but your turn of phrase drastically alters the meaning: NASA’s David Hathaway did not say that greenhouse gases would keep Earth warm “no matter what the Sun does.” He was referring quite specifically to the Sun’s output if it behaved as it did during the Maunder minimum. The range of the effects of the Sun’s changed output from such an event is known with fairly high confidence (note I wrote “the range,” not “the exact value”), as are the ranges of the effects of greenhouse gases. Knowledge of those ranges is sufficient for high confidence in his conclusion that another Maunder minimum would be buffered to a large extent by the effects of the greenhouse gases.
    Dear Jared,
    The Hathaway quote is here: http://www.livescience.com/space/080611-sunspot-activity.html

  6. Dear Tom,
    What has been buffering the effects of the greenhouse gasses for the past eight years?

  7. And I’ll throw my two cents in. I believe it will be 0.24 deg C less than the value last year and it come in at 0.134 deg C, +/- 0.01 deg C. HADCRUT3GL tracks very well with GISS at 250km radius smoothing.
    http://i25.tinypic.com/2r5zuiq.jpg
    The HADSST values have been out since June 5, but with LST bouncing all over the place, I, personally, wouldn’t try to use it.

  8. Tom,
    What I took him to be saying, and it is always possible that I interpreted it different from how it was intended, was that solar activity plays a smaller role in setting global temperature than PDO, volcanos, and greenhouse gasses.
    I disagree with that without any supporting evidence but only at an instinctive level. As the sun is the ultimate source of all energy to the planet, I find it difficult to believe that solar output could drop and yet these greenhouse gasses would keep the planet as warm. The gasses don’t GENERATE heat, they simply prevent infrared generated by solar energy warming the surface from being radiated into space. Basically, the greenhouse would have its greatest impact at night. But without the sun you don’t get the energy to generate the infrared that the greenhouse gasses would then trap.
    So, I find it difficult to understand at a very fundamental level how greenhouse gases would maintain a warm earth in the face of a reduction in solar output when the greenhouse gases are simply trapping radiated solar heat to begin with. And since water vapor is the primary GHG, and since decreased solar radiation would (I would think) reduce evaporation and heating of the ocean, his comments seem to be odd on many different levels.
    It seems to me that he has worded his comments in such a way as to appeal to a certain set of people. Or maybe better, worded them in such a way as to be careful not to raise the ire of a certain set of people. It was almost as if he was very careful not to dispel the notion that greenhouse gases are the primary source of global warming. It is as if he went out of his way to “play the game” by mentioning the requisite buzzwords.

  9. A. Fucaloro:
    All manner of things affect the Earth’s temperature, with huge random components. Nobody claims that the temperature will rise every year. The theory is all about underlying physical causes and the resulting _trends_ in effects. Look at the trends over the past 150 years, including all the little dips, flat spots, and bumps. Note that the flattish-spot over the past few years is similar to prior flattish spots, laid on top of the overall trend. It helps to use moving averages to smooth the bumps and reveal the overall trend.

  10. Tom,
    I don’t think the way crosspatch stated it changes much at all about Hathaway’s comments. Since the Maunder Minimum had a huge effect on earth’s climate and would be about the most extreme lack of sun activity recorded, Hathaway is basically saying he doesn’t think the sun’s effect on earth compares to CO2’s. These people honestly believe that CO2 is a way bigger forcing on climate than anything else, including the sun.

  11. It seems from all objective indications that the PDO has flipped. So what, if not the sun, drives the PDO?
    Does Hathaway think the PDO is driven by greenhouse gasses? Didn’t these clowns already say that AGW would prevent the PDO from flipping to cool?

  12. Tom,
    The central point has always been the extent to which geenhouse gasses affect the climate. Non-feedback calculations give a value of roughly 1 C rise for doubling pre-industrial CO2 concentrations. Unproven positive feedbacks multiply this value by as much as five. The former value does not warrant draconian public policy measures, while the latter does. “Flattish spots” as we are experiencing currently strongly suggest that the human signal, i.e. temperature rise caused the CO2 increase, is not that robust and that the former value is the more reliable one.

  13. Tom,
    Would you invest in the stock market today based on the 5-yr trend? Didn’t think so. The fact of the matter is that HADCRUT’s anamoly for May, 2008 will be similar to anamolies of the 1940’s.

  14. Crosspatch:
    In your most recent comment again there is a big consequence of your phrasing versus Hathaway’s. You wrote that you took Hathaway’s remark to mean that “solar activity” plays a smaller role…than PDO,…. But Hathaway did not mean that, nor say that, regarding solar activity in generalHe meant and said it only in regard to the particular quantitative degree of change in solar activity that would result from a Maunder minimum.
    Your instinct is absolutely correct that there exists some degree of the Sun’s lower radiance that would overwhelm the effects of greenhouse gases. The only mismatch between your instinct and Hathaway’s calculation is the degree of the change needed for that overwhelming. Hathaway (and the vast majority of climate scientists) base their estimates of the quantitative degrees of effects on decades of empirical work that goes far beyond simply looking at trends. Nothing personal, but I trust their carefully considered and empirically based calculation more than I do your instinct, with regard to how much effect a Maunder minimum would have. (I don’t trust myinstinct either. I’m only a research methodologist, statistician, and decision theorist, but those qualifications count zero regarding this particular, narrow, topic in climate science.)
    Climatologists have calculated that the Sun’s output would change by such a small amount as a result of a Maunder minimum, that the cooling effect would not outweigh the continued warming from the remaining (large) solar output being re-emitted as longwave radiation by the ground and water, and then being blocked/absorbed/re-emitted by greenhouse gases. They are not at all disagreeing that someday the Sun’s output could drop enough to result in net cooling.
    Regarding water vapor: The water vapor content of the air is not much affected by solar radiation. It is affected overwhelmingly (at a global scale) by the temperature of the air. The warmer the air, the more water vapor it holds. (Clouds are not water vapor.) That’s why water vapor in the air is an amplifying feedback: If the air warms for any reason, more water vapor accumulates there, which traps more heat, and so on. The reason air temperature is the main determinant of water vapor content, is that there are vast pools of liquid water available to go into the atmosphere as vapor if there’s room, and there are vast quantities of particles in the air available to be seeds for precipitation to take water out of the air if there’s not room. So the limiting factor is only how much room is available in the air, which is determined primarily by the air temperature.

  15. GISS anomaly for May is +0.39C (from the 1951-1980 Baseline) down from +0.52C in April so the best guess for HadCrut3 would be +0.12C (1961 to 1990 Baseline.)

  16. TSI does indeed rise and fall to a lesser extent than other measures. One of those ways is to measure the magnetic field (as in it can slip to the 50’s and rise to triple digits). Even better, just measure cosmic rays. They go up and down just like sunspot numbers. Only in reverse. And trends in cosmic rays can be seen in the shape of the rise and fall, not in overall increase from time one to time two, like the AGW’s keep harping on. Size doesn’t matter. Thickness is where its at. Time spent at cosmic maxima leads to satisfying conclusions.
    Anthony, if you print this tongue in cheek expose’ of cosmic rays, you are one cool dude.

  17. Oh, poop. Sorry for all the bold in my prior post. I failed to close a tag.
    REPLY: Worse, actually. You failed to close all of them by adding an additional open after the close…it was such a mess I just removed all HTML formatting. Sorry – Anthony

  18. What drives the PDO? ENSO.
    Based on this study, “The PDO is dependent upon ENSO on all timescales. To first order, the PDO can be considered the reddened response to both atmospheric noise and ENSO, resulting in more decadal variability than either.”
    http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
    I will never understand the “flipping” of the PDO. I do understand that El Ninos are more frequent when the PDO is positive (The reverse when it’s negative), but it’s still an SST anomaly. It acts like all others, with respect to global temperature.

  19. we would still suffer the effects of greenhouse gases and the Earth’s climate would remain warm. “It doesn’t overpower them at all
    To make sense of this statement you have to precede it by,
    If our theories are correct,
    I think the variability of year to year global temperatures is a serious problem for the Climate Forcings theory and hence the GHG warming theory.
    Essentially, these theories say the Earth warms or cools due to the net increase or decrease in the forcings, including GHGs and solar irradiance.
    The main consequence of this theory is that climate and average temperatures change slowly and steadily when forcings change steadily such as CO2, or change quickly when the forcing changes rapidly such as volcanos.
    The Forcings theory has no explanation for the current cooling and the large year to year changes, except to call it ‘weather noise’.
    Ascribing any effect to noise is sciencespeak for, ‘We don’t know the cause or it is something else we are not measuring.’

  20. Tom:
    Hathaway (and the vast majority of climate scientists) base their estimates of the quantitative degrees of effects on decades of empirical work that goes far beyond simply looking at trends.
    Then I suppose it should be easy to explain or reference why or how doubling CO2 will increase atmospheric temperature 3[+/- 1.5] C.. Please proceed.

  21. Anthony: what about a rumination, (if you’re into That sort of thing) upon global temps and crop yields. Googling that phrase gave me this article, and I have no doubt that the link between growing season length, average temp over season, precipitation, frosts etc is faithfully registered by plants.
    As opposed to fallible (gullible?) humans, plants don’t CYA, lie, prevaricate or provide half-truths. They just grow/yield, more or less according to the weather. And markets (particularly futures markets) track those yields, converted into expected order volume/price combinations.
    Oh, but don’t pick bristlecone pine nuts as one of the crops in question. That’s been done already:-)

  22. dear mr watts:
    have you seen this article in new york times (revkin’s blog)http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/most-experts-foresee-a-repeat-at-least-of-2007-arctic-ice-loss/ ??????
    i think thar mr.revkin is losing “neutrality”. am i wrong???
    i will aprreciate your answer. thank you in advance.

  23. Actually the non feedback modified CO2 climate sensitivity for a doubling of CO2 from 260 to 520 ppm is more like .5 C/ 1 F, not 1 C. The ‘unproven’ feedbacks are more rightly described as ‘disproven’. Additionally, the effects of clouds are treated as a positive feedback, when they are almost certainly negative.

  24. Philip_B wrote:
    The Forcings theory has no explanation for the current cooling and the large year to year changes, except to call it ‘weather noise’.
    Ascribing any effect to noise is sciencespeak for, ‘We don’t know the cause or it is something else we are not measuring.’

    Yes, “noise” is any effect that is irrelevant to the signal you are trying to detect. The cause of some noise is known, the cause of some noise is not known. Some noise is systematic, some noise is random. There is noise in all measurements. Of everything. Everywhere. In all fields of inquiry. So what? People don’t ignore an upward trend in their average body weight just because their weight fluctuates day to day.
    Perhaps what you’re trying to say is that the size of the noise (the variation around the trend in the average) relative to the signal (the upward trend in the average) is too large in this particular case of climate change, to be in your personal comfort level for decision making. That’s absolutely, perfectly fair. Nobody can (legitimately) argue with you about your personal standards for evidence, any more than they can argue with your personal preference for, say, pilsner over imperial stout.
    My personal standards for evidence are such that I think the noise in the climate data is small enough relative to the signal (the long term upward trend) for me to strongly believe the signal exists. I’m helped toward that decision by familiarity with the statistical methods that climatologists use to filter out the noise and to quantify the probability of the signal existing. But no statistical methods can trump anyone’s personal preferences for strength of evidence. So you and I will just have to recognize that our standards differ. (At least in the case of climate change. I prefer imperial stout over pilsner; maybe our preferences coincide in that arena.)

  25. Here’s the empirical calculation for the effect of doubling CO2 from 260 (pre-industrial) to 520 ppm using the IPCC methodology, ΔF = αln(C/Co) where C and Co are the current and pre-industrial concentrations of CO2, respectively and α = 5.35. ΔF = 5.35ln(520/260). So Calculating you arrive at a value of 3.7 watts/m^2 which, using a hueristic of ΔF of 1 Wm-2 ≈ 0.22 °C, translates to a temp rise of around .81C for a doubling of CO2. Interesting that because of the logrithmic nature of CO2 effects, to get another .81C rise in temp from CO2 we”d have to raise the CO2 level to over 1000ppm.
    Many argue that this overstates the effects so use the Stefan-Boltzmann constant, G = σ(Ts4 – Te4) = σTs4 – OLR = 390.11 – 239.76 = 150.35 Wm-2, Constant, Ts = 288 K, Te = 255 K and OLR signifies Outgoing Longwave Radiation. This yields a warming of .18C/Wm-2.
    You can calculate it several different ways and if you average the results (not sure of the validity of that methodology) you end up a with a figure of around .5C for a doubling of atmospheric CO2. (some of the above gratefully taken from http://www.junkscience.com)

  26. One must remember that the majority of the Alarmists believe the LIA was a short term regional event and not global. Most Alarmists, despite the problems with MBH9X, believe results of the flawed reconstruction. I would not be surprised if Hathaway used lowball figures for the LIA. Hence, he could say in all good conscience that the Maunder or Dalton Minimums had very little effect on global temperatures.

  27. People don’t ignore an upward trend in their average body weight just because their weight fluctuates day to day.
    Likewise, they don’t explain their wt. gain by the fact that they started taking 10-> 20 calories/day worth of vitamins part way through their wt. gain.
    And they don’t use poorly functioning scales, or reports from poorly functioning scales, then keep adjusting them so it only looks like they’ve gained weight, while resisting the efforts of anyone beyond their own very small “wt. gain” group to check their data, while also demanding that everyone else should really lose weight by progressively starving themselves – that, or else turn over a lot of money to someone else.

  28. Tom,
    Hathaway is, as far as I know, a specialist on solar physics, he is not a climatologist. I am not going to assume he has done a lot of calculation of any sort on climate impact of changes in solar radiation. It is most plausible in my mind that he would leave that to the climatologists.
    Any statement he makes regarding climate is, I believe, going to be more personal opinion than reflection of actual climate research on his part. He is an astrophysicist not a climatologist.

  29. Bill,
    I’ve read about this computation any number of places. What I haven’t seen is any kind of data on exactly how far along the log scale we are in relation to how much value the current CO2 doubling should have. I always see bald statements that this is what it is.
    I have seen a couple of denialist presentations that put us much further along. They claim that the CO2 is saturated already and it has little additional effect.
    Can you, or anyone else, help me out with that??

  30. Tom…. You said this to Crosspatch…..
    [ “Nothing personal, but I trust their carefully considered and empirically based calculation more than I do your instinct, with regard to how much effect a Maunder minimum would have.”]
    So since you have great consideration for the methods used in determining the existence of AGW…
    You would then be quite willing to take on board the fact that they now have a huge problem with the Hypothesis of AGW.
    Namely that the Tropical Troposphere is not warming in accordance to the Climate computer models predictions.
    Radiosonde data apparently shows zero warming. That data stretches back to the 1930’s…..
    Satellite data apparently shows a 0.2 degree C warming. That data stretches back to the 1970’s….
    Climate models predict that with an increase of 100ppm over fifty years a warming of 1.5 degrees C should occur in the Tropical Troposphere, 10 km above the equator at the 200 hPa boundary….. That Warming has not occurred.
    So the Reality of Observation = 0 to 0.2 degrees C
    Climate computer models = 1.5 degrees C
    It would seem that the AGW hypothesis is severely flawed… in the very least.
    I would say completely Buggered myself….

  31. That should have read….. “that with an increase of 100ppm of CO2 over fifty years”….

  32. Tom, You clearly don’t understand the concept of weather noise. Nor are your personal preferences in beer and issues relevant. It occurred to me that this might be very subtle irony, but I doubt it.
    Look at the graph at the top of this page.
    The Forcings theory says a steady increase in a forcing produces a steady increase in temperature. CO2 is steadily increasing, while monthly and annual temperatures go up and down by large amounts.
    It’s clear that the Earth’s climate doesn’t conform to the Forcings theory over periods of months to say a decade. Something else must drive temperatures over periods up to a decade and the evidence that forcings including CO2 drive temperatures over longer time periods is flimsy to say the least.

  33. But….everybody in the AGW camp is acting as though higher CO2 levels were a historically unprecedented event when, in fact, higher CO2 levels are normal as compared to our currently CO2 impoverished era.

  34. “Signs of the current, new solar cycle (which actually overlaps with the last cycle) showed up in November 2006, and its first sunspots were seen in January of this year, and again in April, Hathaway said. So already that rules out another Maunder minimum, Hathaway says, since this solar cycle has already begun producing spots, even if there haven’t been many of them yet.
    This cycle is just simply “off to a slow start,” Hathaway said.”
    What Hathaway conveniently ignores is the fact that SC23 isn’t done with yet, and exposes either his ignorance of or disingenousness regarding the fact that solar cycles overlap. When he says the fact that the first SC24 spots in January “rules out another Maunder”, this shows me he is simply ignorant, and what he has to say should be ignored. His position on GHG’s shows a distinct bias for the “consensus”, and indicates he is not interested in the vast amount of science disproving that “consensus.

  35. Ok here is my new guess.
    hadcrut will be .19C
    also, on a lighter note. Anthony, if you named one of kids “guess”
    can you imagine the confusion.
    stranger: whats your name?
    kid: guess!
    stranger: no, whats your name?
    kid: correct!
    who is on first

  36. From a peer reviewed paper refuting the UN/IPCC:
    “The fact that an almost linear change has been progressing, without a distinct change of slope, from as early as 1800 or even earlier (about 1660, even before the Industrial Revolution), suggests that the linear change is natural change. As shown at the top diagram of Figure 1, a rapid increase of CO2 began only after 1940. As far as the gradient of the linear change is concerned, it can roughly be estimated to be about 0.5°C/100 years based on Figures 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7. It is very interesting to recognize that this gradient is almost comparable with the IPCC’s estimate of 0.6°C/100 years.” [authors’ emphasis]
    In other words, the Earth has been warming at essentially the same rate since well before the Industrial Revolution. That fact alone destroys the claim that human activity has any measurable effect on the climate.
    When a hypothesis [in this case, AGW] has been decisively falsified, then that hypothesis is no good, and must be entirely rejected. As Einstein said in response to a letter signed by 100 scientists who claimed that his theory of relativity was wrong: ”To defeat relativity one did not need the word of 100 scientists, just one fact.”
    The fact that the planet has been warming at the same rate over the past 100 years, at the same rate that it has since the 1600’s, is an astonishingly effective falsification of anthropogenic global warming. The AGW hypothesis will never recover from that fact alone.
    source:
    http://www.iarc.uaf.edu/highlights/2007/akasofu_3_07/Earth_recovering_from_LIA.pdf

  37. Tom (18:01:50) wrote
    quote The reason air temperature is the main determinant of water vapor content, is that there are vast pools of liquid water available to go into the atmosphere as vapor if there’s room, and there are vast quantities of particles in the air available to be seeds for precipitation to take water out of the air if there’s not room. So the limiting factor is only how much room is available in the air, which is determined primarily by the air temperature. unquote
    Up to a point. I am continually amazed by the treatment of low level oceanic clouds in the great climate game. A clear ocean has an albedo of effectively zero. Draw across that clear ocean a thin layer of stratus (and about thirty percent of the ocean has stratus over it) and its albedo is over 50. Half the incident radiation is now reflected back into space — depending on your calculation of the average wattage of sunlight at the surface that will be a change of many tens of watts/m^2. Incidentally, reducing the stratus cover by 1% would equal or exceed the CO2 forcing for the whole of the 20th century. Conversely, of course, increasing it by the same amount would offset the AGW contribution — this is the basis of the proposal by Latham and Salter with their hygroscopic-nuclei-producing trimarans.
    Other things being equal, more water vapour will lead to more low-level clouds. Only if there is a paucity of cloud condensation nuclei (CCNs) will the clouds fail to form and thus not reflect back the incoming radiation in a perfect illustration of negative feedback in action. All things are not equal: large areas of the ocean lack CCNs — Google NASA ship tracks to see the result of adding a few billion nuclei to these areas. Then look at
    http://www.treehugger.com/files/2008/03/a_picture_is_wo_14.php
    — those black areas are places where fewer CCNs are pushed out by plankton. It’s not surprising that the world is warming with the low level cloud cover being modulated by such large changes.
    I leave it to the intelligent reader to think of a way we might have modulated CCN production and thus the oceanic strato-cumulus cloud cover over the last hundred years, thus causing all the warming that we have seen to date. I am watching the latest paper of the SST corrections with bated breath — I’d hate them to explain away the kreigesmarine effect, that great surge of temperature during WWII. I’m hoping they’ve just lumped it in with the ENSOs, which it obviously isn’t.
    JF

  38. ” have seen a couple of denialist presentations that put us much further along. They claim that the CO2 is saturated already and it has little additional effect”
    Kuhnkat,
    The effects of CO2 on trapping low level heat is not a linear function, but an inverse log function -the greatest temp increases occur early on. There’s a law of diminishing returns as CO2 increases. The increase in temperature due to GHGs is greater when the concentration goes from 200 to 400pm than when it goes from 400 to 800ppm. Professor Lindzen pointed this out years ago, and since has been banished from polite company.

  39. I truly wish the science community would present other measures of the sun’s effects other than TSI in their models. Ozone measures, cosmic rays, anything that fluctuates to a greater degree than TSI and both physically and chemically has the potential to affect climate to a greater degree. I also truly wish we could compare apples to apples in terms of graphs. We are usually presented with just a small piece of the CO2 graph and a small piece of the temp graph. If you expand both out, the shape and extent of the rise we see right now has been duplicated several times in history. It’s like a blow-out of a small city taken from a satellite view of Earth. I want to see the “Earth” view of CO2 and temp, not the “stairsteps to heaven” graphs we see all the time. We can’t see the forest for the trees.
    If climate modelers were really worth their salt, they would prepare several models from several theories: CO2 forcing, TSI forcing, ozone forcing, cloud forcing, etc, etc, etc, and then follow the ones that produce better results. It would be politically wiser as well. The smart person puts a hedge on their bet.

  40. J. Hansford wrote that the tropical troposphere is not warming in accordance with climate model predictions, and that is a severe flaw in the AGW hypothesis.
    We’re back in the realm of statistics: Prediction at large scale (e.g., global average temperature) can be accurate despite less accurate prediction at any few given areas in a smaller scale (e.g., tropical troposphere temperatures).
    Poor prediction of tropical troposphere temperatures is a “severe flaw” in the models only for people who are concerned mostly about that particular level of accuracy in tropical troposphere temperatures. But for folks who care more about the global average temperature, what matters is the accuracy of the global average temperature.
    There is a thorough and lively discussion of tropical troposphere prediction accuracy here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/tropical-tropopshere-ii/

  41. Tom,
    The “hot-spot” in the tropical tropesphere is suppose to be the hallmark signature of AGW. The IPCC literature was fairly clear about this. If GHGs are causing AGW then there should be a very obvious hot-spot in the upper tropical tropeshere. Most Alarmists ignore this problem, and have now formally declared that this signature may not be apparent in the “raw” data, but can be construed from calculations of the thermal wind. In all, Gavin Schmidt would like this whole issue to go away. Remember, if the data doesn’t fit the models, change the data.

  42. Pingback: Temperature Stock Report « Watts Up With That?

  43. Tom,
    Regarding this statement:
    “People don’t ignore an upward trend in their average body weight just because their weight fluctuates day to day.”
    The upward trend in body weight is a summation of the “noise” in the system. If you want to maintain your body weight, you can’t see a 5 lb increase as noise, and just ignore it. It is the same in the atmosphere. The noise are clues to the summation of all the factors that are causing the temperture at a moment in time, yet we want to discard it, when it does not fit into our preconceived notions of what it should be.
    It is much easier to reach a conclusion if we can pick and choose which things are signal, and which are noise. But it usually does not result in a correct conclusion, unless the noise ends up cancelling out, instead of contributing to the signal.

  44. Ralph S,
    While Akosofu’s paper is interesting, it has not been published in a peer reviewed journal that I can tell.

  45. Tom: There is a thorough and lively discussion of tropical troposphere prediction accuracy here:
    Tom, we already know the Models’ prediction accuracy is very bad. Nuancing, as in playing with the meaning of “consistent with” or saying the Models don’t really “forcast”, or shifting place and timeline goalposts, or “correcting” data, won’t cure it. Actually employing the Scientific Method is the only way out.

  46. Philip_B wrote: The Forcings theory says a steady increase in a forcing produces a steady increase in temperature. CO2 is steadily increasing, while monthly and annual temperatures go up and down by large amounts.
    Philip, “the Forcings theory” does not in fact claim to include all factors affecting temperature. It does not claim to predict temperature with absolute accuracy at the scale of month, year, or even decade. The theorists do not claim that measured global temperature always will increase smoothly even when the models’ predictions are of smooth increases merely because the models do not include random factors.
    Instead, the theories and associated models predict there will be a long-term upward trend in temperature that will exist in conjunction with other variations in temperature–both random variations and non-random variations. The theories don’t specify what those other variations are, but that in no way means that the theories claim the absence of other variations.
    So empirically confirming the theory does not require that temperature precisely match the predictions no matter how short a timescale you choose. Instead, confirming the theory is done in the same way as confirming the predictions of any theory in any scientific field: By judging whether the prediction is met “well enough” when noise is filtered out. There are some statistical tools to help make that judgment, but ultimately the judgment comes down to personal standards of evidence. Personal standards of evidence always take into account an assortment of factors, such as the presence of converging lines of evidence (e.g., whether there is a physical, causal, explanation for the predicted effect; whether the effect was predicted before the observations were made, or was theorized while looking at the observations; whether the predictions are based on models of physical processes or are purely statistical fitting to observations).
    Perhaps part of the confusion in our conversation is that you think random variations always are uniform–that every random increase will be followed shortly by an equally large random decrease. That is not what “random” means. Instead, a uniform random distribution is uniform only in “the long run,” where there is no absolute definition of how long “the long run” is. There are quite precise and formal definitions of “the long run” in terms of probabilities, though. That’s a topic addressed by the field of inferential statistics.

  47. Tom…. Your response of my response.
    [“We’re back in the realm of statistics: Prediction at large scale (e.g., global average temperature) can be accurate despite less accurate prediction at any few given areas in a smaller scale (e.g., tropical troposphere temperatures).”]
    Righhhht!…. So now large scale dubious and adjusted surface temp data is more acceptable, whilst modern Radiosonde and Satellite data is not?
    Also… The AGW proponents can’t have it bothways and allways…. The scattering of Bristle cone pines that Manne used for his temp proxies would come under the title of ” a few given areas” then…. ‘eh?
    Look, the thing is they are being tested on their own statements…. They said that TT temp would rise as CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere rose and in accordance with their Climate computer predictions….. Now that they are found wanting. They wish to change the goal posts.
    This happened also with Manne’s Hockey stick. It also happened when CO2 was found to lag Temperature rise in the ice core records.
    There comes a time when they must admit that the AGW hypothesis, as it stands, needs rejecting and climate processes and driving influences reevaluating….
    Obviously humans have an impact on environments…. It is the significance of that which is to be determined…. And that would seem to be relatively benign, when that system is the global Climate. CO2 will effect plants well and climate insignificantly.
    We should be rejoicing….. not weeping.

  48. Tom, you forgot to add the most important personal standard of evidence for AGWers: if the end result fits or at least doesn’t contradict the AGW hypothesis then it is accepted as further proof, and if not, then it is conveniently downplayed or ignored.

  49. Cripes Tom, talk about circular reasoning. “look at the warming trend since the Mauder Minimum and since we know that the sun had no impact on the cooling then you can clearly see that the sun has no effect on temperatures.”
    “Just go to RealClimate and it will all be explained to you.” What a pantload. For one thing, RealClimate moderates comments prior to their appearing, and so there can be no such thing as a “lively debate” there any more than such a debate was likely in the “Supreme Soviet.”
    The reason the troposphere temp is so important is that it is a prediction of alarmists like Gavin at RealClimate. If it is missing, then either the theory is wrong about how AGW works, or the warming is from other causes.

  50. Or are you saying, Tom, that it is impossible for the warming to have been from other sources, and therefore, despite the fact that the troposphere warming is an order of magnitude below preditions, the theory is still right. On account of “data matching the theory is only important to skeptics,” to paraphrase your response.
    I can wait five years and see what happens to temps. I don’t think that the level of fear whipped up by the alarmists can wait five years for global warming to restart.

  51. By the way, if that warming trend hadn’t appeared at the end of the LIA, Europe and North America would be coping with glaciation, and probably mass starvation right now, if not reduced to post apocolyptic bands of hunter gathering.

  52. Yorick, don’t use quote marks to enclose words I did not write. You may paraphrase as long as you leave out the quote marks.

  53. There are some statistical tools to help make that judgment, but ultimately the judgment comes down to personal standards of evidence.
    Wrong. Unless the judgments you are talking about are “ultimate” only in the sense advocated by the niche philosophy of Subjectivism. Iow, applying your logic, there are no objective standards. Again, only by accepting and following the practices involved with the Scientific Method are we all going to best get through the unavoidable interaction we have with the real world.

  54. Oh, oh, oh, J. Peden….
    Up to now I have refrained from making snide remarks, but my parting remark on this blog will be: Capitalizing “Scientific Method” doesn’t mean you understand it.
    Reply: Keep it civil folks~jeez

  55. “So the limiting factor is only how much room is available in the air, which is determined primarily by the air temperature.”
    Let me see if I’ve got this right then… The higher the air temperature, the more the evaporation so the more water vapor there is, and the higher the temperature, the more water vapor the air can hold so the less precipitation there is, relatively, all things being equal, and the more water vapor, the more UV absorption and so the higher the temperature, the higher the temperature, the more the water vapor and so on…
    I would suggest that the very fact we’re around to discuss this very strongly suggests that things simply don’t happen that way, and that there must be very large negative feedback mechanisms at play.
    When the day comes that the AGW scientists make all of their data, methodology, algorithms, source code etc freely and publicly available for independent scrutiny – when that day comes then I’ll be more inclined to listen to what they say with less of a pinch of salt.
    OTOH, if they’re right then I would suggest that we can meet all our energy needs by simply building some high glass towers, pump them full of CO2 and water vapor, and just sit back and watch the turbines spin. 😉

  56. With the Hadcrut SST in at .221 it would be unusual ( not impossible) for Hadcrut 3 to be lower than that so I forecast it to be .280.

  57. I am going to miss Tom. I had no idea what the RealClimate postion was, nor had I any idea of the contents of the IPCC report until he came here and quoted them for us. Boy, that changes everything.

  58. “So apparently Hathaway believes that “greenhouse gases” would keep Earth warm no matter what the Sun does. I hope he is simply being “politically correct” in order to protect his career and that he doesn’t really believe that.”
    Hathaway is a NASA solar phycisist and he is now on his fourth guess as to when Solar Cycle 24 will start. He originally claimed that SC 24 would be the biggest in 400 years. Now that it won’t even get started, the odds of that look longer and longer. I wouldn’t give his predictions much credit.

  59. KuhnKat (23:10:48) pondered:
    “I’ve read about this computation [logarithm-based] any number of places. What I haven’t seen is any kind of data on exactly how far along the log scale we are in relation to how much value the current CO2 doubling should have. I always see bald statements that this is what it is.
    I have seen a couple of denialist presentations that put us much further along. They claim that the CO2 is saturated already and it has little additional effect.
    Can you, or anyone else, help me out with that??”
    I haven’t seen anyone answer this, so I’ll jump in despite not being completely comfortable with it.
    The equation you’ve seen is merely an approximation, I suspect someone looked at some experimental data and said, “Gee, that’s pretty close to a logarithmic relationship.” The equation doesn’t fit well for very low or very high CO2 concentrations.
    It all comes from the main window in the spectrum that CO2 blocks – there’s enough CO2 in the atmosphere to block nearly everything in the window, so adding CO2 just affects the edges. Before the window saturated, somewhere in the first 100 ppm of CO2, I believe, then small changes affected absorption over the entire window. Those days are long gone, and may never have existed.
    This is the key thing that convinced me that CO2 can’t explain all the warming. Well, that and Joe D’Aleo’s correlation between ocean currents and temperature.
    I have more description and line art at http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html

  60. Clarifying question: When the Earth warms, which I believe it has (and is cooling a bit now) even though the data may have questionable components to it, what part of the warmth comes from a still hot-core warm planet Earth and what part comes from the Sun’s warmth being held in under a blanket? Someone somewhere had this data.
    Second question: Do any of the models have a cooling scenario or is that simply discarded as an impossibility? The blanket consists of several insulating components, all of which can break down under the right circumstances. If GW modeling is Science, it certainly seems blind to all other possiblities. At the very least, shouldn’t they try to incorporate cooling into the computer model, instead of just suspending the model till it stops cooling?

  61. Your blog’s homepage shows postings up to June 10th. I can only find the newer posts by opening the bees and sunspots post and finding the Next Article link to get the newer articles one at a time. Opera 9.5, IE7, and firefox 3 were tested. — John M Reynolds
    REPLY: I’ve seen that with some connections, it may be an upstream cache issue, there is nothing I can do about it.

  62. Although I am not sufficiently knowledgeable to fully understand the details of the paper this is exactly the scenario I found when I started using an existing elastoplastic strain calculation with indeterminate bend rates on a relatively modern computer. I found several problems with transition points and end conditions which cast doubt on the whole theory.
    However when I went back to the original work I found that several third order variables had been omitted to simplify the calculation on the grounds that they had no real effect in the range of results which were then being considered.
    It was only when these variables were reinstated that the results started to match the theory over the extended range of parameters.
    If, as seems reasonable, the boundary conditions for CO2 warming were simplified to make the calculation easier for the range of condition then being considered then using the same formulae when going well outside the original assumed parameters could well be a serious error.

  63. Mike Bryant issues a challenge to all climate models…
    Please publish Earth’s monthly temperatures for the next twelve months. This should be no problem whatsoever since one hundred years is well within possibility.
    Mike Bryant

  64. Steve Stip:

    is this article true?

    True in what respect?
    That the equations being used are incorrect or that Miskolczi re-derived the solution?
    One of the tricks I learned long ago that helps when dealing with complex problems is “follow the energy.” There’s obviously something wrong with the “runaway GHG” scenario. Physical systems don’t usually do that — if only because it normally requires a release of internal energy. I can’t envision a scenario where an opaque gas could release internal energy without transforming itself chemically.
    I say “obviously” because … well … it doesn’t happen. The temperature is stable. I don’t buy the “tipping point” logic for even a second. It’s not like the atmosphere is similar to a ball about to fall off the edge of a cliff where downward energy suddenly “appears” in the form of gravity. Nor is it like a chemical explosive that experiences sudden energy release after passing a threshold.
    The dropping-off-a-cliff scenario is not completely out of the picture, though. It is possible that whatever negative feedback system that is currently operating to keep temperature in check could become overwhelmed. Still, the handwaving postulation of atmospheric “tipping point” is a guess. The proponents certainly can’t say what that feedback currently is let alone how much it can take before breakdown.

  65. OldJim,
    Thanks, I wish I had paid more attention in differential equations.
    In the days before computers, I reckon it made sense to simplify equations but with computers what need is there for that anymore?

  66. Steve Stip (07:34:47) :
    “In the days before computers, I reckon it made sense to simplify equations but with computers what need is there for that anymore?”
    It’s not so much simplifying equations, but solving them. For example, if you know that acceleration is force / mass, then you can derive velocity and position given the initial values. One way is to derive the solution by integrating acceleration wrt time once for velocity and again for position. The other way is to let the computer do it with small steps in time. The differential equation is simple, a = f / m. The solution is more complex, s = s0 + (v0 x t) + (a x t^2)/2, where s0 and v0 are the initial position and velocity. (And things are more complex is acceleration isn’t constant.)
    The advantage of the calculus solution is better understanding and having a new equation that can be readily applied. The disadvantage is that it doesn’t take much of a system that is described by a set of differential equations that cannot be solved. Then there’s really no choice these days other than letting the computer chew.
    Checking one’s work, be it a suspension bridge or spacecraft heat shield or planet is never easy, but it is important.
    While Miskolczi’s paper is very important, the feedback factor used in the models to try to handle the effect of more water vapor as the atmosphere warms appears to provide an even bigger error in the models.
    Sidebar:
    Any chaotic system doesn’t have a single equation that describes how it behaves. The best know and one of the first documented is the Lorenz attractor that takes three simple equations that describe atmospheric convection. I assume some variant of them are in weather prediction models, possibly not in climate models.
    At any rate, no solutions, the best we can hope for are good answers. We have a ways to go.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorenz_attractor

  67. DAV,
    I meant, are the equations used false or not complete? What is the basis for the AGW claim if they use the wrong equations in their models?
    Yes, predicting the past is easy, a neural net could learn to do that.
    Also, the highest temperature I can imagine the earth reaching would be if it were painted black. How hot is that?

  68. DAV,
    My assertion about neural nets was rash. Still, in my experience, a simulation can be tweaked to give the “correct” results.

  69. Ric Werme (08:51:41) :
    Yes, you are speaking of the difference between the analytic approach and the iterative approach (made practical by computers). I always appreciate a math lesson though, particularly by a good teacher.
    “At any rate, no solutions, the best we can hope for are good answers. We have a ways to go.” <—- humility, the secret of greatness
    Thanks.

Comments are closed.