Blink comparator of GISS USA temperature anomaly – h/t to Zapruder
The last time I checked, the earth does not retroactively change it’s near surface temperature.
True, all data sets go through some corrections, such as the recent change RSS made to improve the quality of the satellite record which consists of a number of satellite spliced together. However, in the case of the near surface temperature record, we have many long period stations than span the majority of the time period shown above, and they have already been adjusted for TOBS, SHAP, FILNET etc by NOAA prior to being distributed for use by organizations like GISS. These adjustments add mostly a positive bias.
In the recent data replication fiasco, GISS blames NOAA for providing flawed data rather than their failure to catch the repeated data from September to October. In that case they are correct that the issue arose with NOAA, but in business when you are the supplier of a product, most savvy businessmen take a “the buck stops here” approach when it comes to correcting a product flaw, rather than blaming the supplier. GISS provides a product for public consumption worldwide, so it seems to me that they should pony up to taking responsibility for errors that appear in their own product.
In the case above, what could be the explanation for the product changing?
Chris V
I’ve already commented on that graph. Scenarios B and C include volcanic eruptions in ~1995 and ~2015, and this is the main reason why RC’s B line diverges so much from the A line. We had a volcanic eruption in 1991, but not since. Since there is very little difference between Scenarios A and B in terms of projected CO2 levels for 2008 (perhaps you would like to quote a figure for what Scenario A projected for 2008 for CO2 in ppm? I doubt you’ll be able to show it was any more than the current level) then current forcings should be higher than RC’s straight line (which is skewed downwards by the ~2015 volcanic eruption) for Scenario B implies. And it goes without saying that recent temperatures have been way short of what Hansen predicted for such a forcing.
Note I’m not particularly having a go at Hansen. He predicted that the world would get warmer, and he was correct. I think a better line of argument for you would be that Hansen’s model used a climate sensitivity of 4C for a doubling of CO2, as I understand it. So using the lower sensitivity of the current model of 2.7C as I understand it (at least for “fast feedbacks”) his predictions match observed temperatures more closely. Of course this would involve admitting that Hansen was at least somewhat wrong.
CodeTech (04:15:22) said:
“I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas. One of the ways that “alarmists” attempt to discredit “skeptics” is by characterizing us all as not even “believing” the basic science.”
Some certainly do not believe it; maybe some readers will respond as to whether they believe it or not.
“CO2 is not some rare non-biodegradable chemical that never existed naturally on the planet until the advent of humans. CO2 is created and absorbed (sourced and sinked, if you prefer) on a massive scale every day. Increases in CO2 are AUTOMATICALLY countered by increases in CO2 uptake, whether that is via land plants or oceanic life, or the oceans themselves. CO2 is an automatically regulated trace gas. Volcanic CO2 creation alone dwarfs anything we create, and that is randomly variable.”
The “automatic countering” takes place over geologic timescales, not human lifetimes. CO2 levels in the atmosphere are increasing at much faster rates than any time in the last 600,000 years.
“There is no one factor driving climate. Cosmic rays, greenhouse gases, Solar input, planetary and galactic orbits all probably have some input. The concept of a stable climate in the past that we have upset is beyond ludicrous. The sheer hubris is, I don’t know, stunning? We humans simply have not even remotely approached the point where we are making significant changes to climate, only microclimate.”
These are strawmen. No scientist says that one factor drives climate. But at different times, some are more important than others.
No scientist has ever said that climate was stable in the past (I know you’ve heard of ice ages).
“I predict that ALL long term climate predictions are absolute trash. The planet is a self-regulating machine. Increase temperature here, and something over there changes to counter it. Decrease this gas and some other mechanism increases it. Just because we don’t understand all of the mechanisms involved does not in any remote way suggest that they don’t exist. This planet has been uncontrolled and unmonitored for billions of years, and the worst that has happened is a few ice ages.”
Which is it? Is the planet a self-regulating machine, or is “the concept of a stable climate in the past” ludicrous?
“Yeah, that’s why I’m a skeptic, and why I have descended to outright mocking alarmists. The entire concept is so ridiculous that the only logical conclusion is that alarmists are in it for something. I have little question that the prominent names in the alarmist camp are rubbing their hands with glee, profiting like mad, and laughing at all the idiots out there who believe what they must surely KNOW to be a lie.”
I don’t go in for these “world-wide conspiracy theories” myself. To be honest, I find them to be a bit nutty.
Measurementsover the last 50 years:
1- sea ice increased, which was related to thermal dilatation
2- surface and tropospheric temps increased
3- stratospheric temps decreased
4- the average surface pH of oceans decreased
5- air concentrations of CO2 increased
so what?
Chris V: If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.
You know, where there were massive CO2 cuts starting in 2000.
So, temperature is tracking the best case mitigation scenario, when no mitigation has actually been applied.
How accurate is that?
I have just replied to Anthony as follows:
Thanks for response. The only reason why I addressed you as ‘Doctor’ was that one of my emailers had just described you as such and I thought I must have missed something! I have always called you Mr in my many laudatory references to your wonderful blog in my Sunday Telegraph column, as I did again today. I did refer to the expert readers of WUWT and CA as playing a key part in exposing that crucial error in the GISS data, but the point is that you and Steve Mcintyre make that kind of thing possible by providiing a nexus, not only thrrough your own admirable postings but by enabling others to chip in with their own expert comments, thus building up an ever wider and deeper understandng of this all-important issue….
Thanks again for the fantastic job you are doing and for putting me straight on that ‘doctorate’. When global sanity finally prevails, you’ll eventually be showered with them!.
best wishes
PS My article today has attracted a record heap of comments from readers, almost all supportive.
“Oldjim (09:23:38) :
@Katherine
i used this link for the data on CO2 annual increase http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/ which give these values for annualised mean growth rate from Mauna Loa – I don’t see a progressively faster rise in CO2 levels……”
Do the math. E.g.
1988-1995: 1.3 ppm/yr
1995-2002: 1.8 ppm/yr
2002-2007: 2.1 ppm/yr
ftp://ftp.cmdl.noaa.gov/ccg/co2/trends/co2_annmean_mlo.txt
John M (09:49:44) said:
Can you provide a link to the actual analysis at RC?
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
Bruce (22:44:14) :
Nevermind, I googled it. The correct word to use in your sentence is “whom”.
Perhaps you also should have someone proofread your comments before you push the submit button. I thought I could trust you.
Thanks,
Mike Bryant
Chris V
“Looking at the posts in this thread, It looks to me like Gilbert (and maybe JimB?) don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nobody’s ganging up on them. 😉
But now I’m curious. Maybe we can do an informal poll here-
Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e., absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation)?”
A more appropriate question would be, how big is the greenhouse effect of doubling CO2, and no one in the world has a clear answer. Note the words I’ve changed to capitals in the following wiki extract:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
In the absence of the greenhouse effect AND AN ATMOSPHERE, the Earth’s average surface temperature[7] of 14°C (57°F) COULD be as low as -18°C (–0.4°F), the black body temperature of the Earth[8][9][10].
Anthropogenic global warming (AGW), a recent warming of the Earth’s lower atmosphere as evidenced by the global mean temperature anomaly trend [11], is BELIEVED to be the result of an “enhanced greenhouse effect” mainly due to human-produced increased concentrations of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere[12] and changes in the use of land[13].
Chris (09:54:08) :
Hansen gave three very simple hypothetical scenarios- basically had the forcings varying linearly with time. Obviously (from the graph I posted) the forcings didn’t actually increase in a linear fashion (they varied up and down) or finish exactly on any of his scenarios. So just from that, it would be surprising to see Hansen get it exactly right. Then throw in the odd volcano (completely unpredictable), a relatively primitive climate model…
Based on all that, I still think his results were in the ballpark. But my local ballpark (Yankee Stadium) might be bigger than yours (Fenway, or a little-league field?). 😉
Les Johnson (10:25:57) said:
“Chris V: If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.”
??? I don’t understand what you’re saying.
Chris V.:
You are trying to frame the argument your way. The point I made was that Hansen made multiple predictions. Picking the least inaccurate prediction means nothing.
You can have the last word on the subject of Hansen’s predictions. There’s no convincing anyone who accepts this.
I mentioned some time back on another thread on this blog that the Government in New Zealand was going to pass a Carbon Trading Scheme based on the global warming scam.
They did in their last dying days and rushed the scam through the house under urgency but we have a new Government since last week and they look set to “review” the nonsense:
http://darrenrickard.blogspot.com/2008/11/emissions-trading-review-first-step.html
It is good news for New Zealand-I want it chucked out completely because clearly it is based on a fraud. Perhaps now we can lead the world back to sanity.
Cheers from New Zealand, leader in the anti climate change movement !
“Oldjim (09:23:38)”
To be fair, I’ve just realised:
1981-1988: 1.6 ppm/yr
OK let’s take 1968-1988, and 1988-2007
1968-1988: 1.4 ppm/yr
1988-2007: 1.7 ppm/yr
Not such an acceleration looked at this way, but an acceleration nonetheless.
Actually, scrub all the previous discussion. I’ve just found the actual projected figures for CO2 for 2007, courtesy of a link at CA. They were 390.5 ppm under Scenario A, and 389.4 ppm under Scenario B. (And 369.5 for Scenario C)
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2611
So I accept I was wrong re: CO2 levels – both Scenario A and B have them slightly higher, contrary to what I thought (Also it seems methane levels have undershot projections by ~10% in the last few years)
However, this does illustrate even more the importance of the volcanic forcings, given GHG projections were so similar for the two Scenarios.
Chris V. (09:28:32) :
“I doubt many people question the greenhouse effect, or even whether or not CO2 is a greenhouse gas.”
Looking at the posts in this thread, It looks to me like Gilbert (and maybe JimB?) don’t accept that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but nobody’s ganging up on them. 😉
Please don’t put words in my mouth. CO2 is a greenhouse gas. It does absorb reflected radiation. I am curious about the mechanism involved when the CO2 cools. I’m simply trying to figure out whether or not the claimed mechanism involved is based on assumption or empirical evidence. If you know the answer, then point me in the right direction.
But now I’m curious. Maybe we can do an informal poll here-
Do you agree that CO2 is a greenhouse gas (i.e., absorbs and re-emits long wave radiation)?
It probably doesn’t matter since the CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. That point has likely been exceeded as evidenced by the lack of predicted warming in the tropical troposphere.
Chris V; your
I don’t understand what you’re saying.
The Hanson chart you gave for forcing, had the y-axis in watts/m2. This can be converted to temperature.
The temperature record (UAH, RSS, Hadley or even GISS) all more closely match the “C” scenario, than any other scenario.
And the “C” scenario assumed massive cuts starting in 2000. There has been no significant GHG cuts, but the forcing matches best with the best case scenario?
Chris,
Regarding your question about whether CO2 is a greenhouse gas, I think it is just about universally accepted that it is a minor greenhouse gas. But its effect is so small that for all practical purposes it can be ignored.
The real question should be: how much of an effect does increasing CO2 by X amount have on the planet’s temperature?
CO2 has a negligible effect, smaller than almost any other climate forcing, all of which overwhelm the tiny effect from CO2. Otherwise, the steady increase in carbon dioxide would produce a steady increase in the planet’s temperature. That has not happened. In fact, the planet is cooling.
Furthermore, the effect of CO2 is too small to be measured; it’s down into in the background noise.
Conclusion: since carbon dioxide has such a minuscule effect, there is no credible rationale for truly stupid, and extremely expensive ideas like “carbon” sequestration. The money would be better spent almost anywhere else. Ideally, the money would be left in the pockets of taxpayers. But that would defeat the whole purpose of climate alarmism.
Those promoting their ever-morphing catastrophic AGW/CO2/runaway global warming hypothesis continue to produce new, and always changing, un-falsifiable “reasons” that the planet is cooling as CO2 rises. That is not science; that is malarkey.
Chris
But graphing the figures doesn’t show a progressively faster rise for the last 10 years – at least not to my eyes http://www.holtlane.plus.com/images/co2levels.jpg
However the original point I was making was that scenario B assumed a constant increase in CO2 levels compared to 1986 – 1988 (assumed)
The average annual increase 1986-1988 was 1.97ppm and from 1989-2007 was 1.70ppm. Even taking from 2002-2007 2.1 ppm per year isn’t significantly higher than that for 1986-88.
Chris V
“Based on all that, I still think his results were in the ballpark. But my local ballpark (Yankee Stadium) might be bigger than yours (Fenway, or a little-league field?). 😉
OK put it another way, even by his “own” graph, the warming from 1988 to the present (20 years) was no more than ~0.25C
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A2.lrg.gif
[note 5-year mean won’t get above +0.55C once 2008 is included]
Well, on that graph, the warming from 1976 to 1988 (12 years) had been 0.25C. So was it really so inspired in 1988 to project that the recent trend might continue for the next 2 decades, and is it really so impressive to find that in fact the trend did continue, but at a slower pace (despite no more volcanic forcing in 20 years than 1976 to 1988 had in 12 years?)
Gilbert
“It probably doesn’t matter since the CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. That point has likely been exceeded as evidenced by the lack of predicted warming in the tropical troposphere.”
To keep Chris V happy, I’m going to pick you up on this and point out that if consensus AGW theory had such an obvious flaw, we wouldn’t all be sitting around here having this argument, as it would have been spotted a very long time ago. I can’t see any logic in your quoted argument?
Personally I think AGW theory/analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside/downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up/multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be “alarmed”). The devil is in the detail, and suggesting there are big obvious flaws tends to play into the hands of defenders of the consensus (IMO) [the recent lack of warming being a partial exception here]
For those of you who think that Hansen got it completely wrong, rather than “in the ballpark” (like me), look at it this way:
If you were standing back there in 1988 (not knowing what was driving climate, and with no reason to assume that the most recent trend would continue) and were asked to predict what the earths temperature might look like in 20 years, how would you do it?
I would look back at the historical temperature record, and see how climate had changed over previous 20-year periods. Looking at the temp records, there are 20-year periods were temps declined by half a degree or so, and 20-year periods where temps rose half a degree or so. So I would say “temps in 20 years will probably be somewhere between half a degree higher and half a degree lower than today”.
Now, compare that possible range of future temps with what Hansen projected, and what actually happened. Hansen was very much “in the ballpark”.
Les Johnson (12:32:53) :
How do you convert W/m2 to temperature? Temperature of what? (Remember, GISSTemp, UAH, etc. plot air temp ANOMALIES for a slice of the atmosphere). Are you taking into account heating of the oceans, density changes with altitude in the atmosphere…?
The conversion sounds pretty complicated; maybe I’m missing something…?
Chris V: Ballpark? Perhaps the ballpark off ramp. Or maybe the ballpark parking lot. He is only close to the best case, high GHG cuts, temperature scenario. And no real cuts have been made.
You want to spend 40 trillion dollars on such a poor estimation?
I don’t. And if Hanson ever actually gets inside the ball park, he had better be pointing to which field he is hitting to, and actually hits it, before I would be willing to spend 40 trillion dollars.
Chris (13:08:17) said:
“To keep Chris V happy…”
Thank you. 😉
One thing I find funny about the AGW debate is that it always falls down to the warmers vs the skeptics, like there are just 2 sides, with 2 opposing theories.
In reality there is a huge diversity of opinion within the skeptic side, like: it’s cooling; it’s warming (but not as much as GISSTemp says); whatever the temperature is doing, it’s caused by cosmic rays, or PDO, or sunspots, or recovery from the LIA…; CO2 is a greenhouse gas (but the feedbacks are negative); CO2 is not a greenhouse gas…..
Some of the skeptics I’ve seen even hold multiple, contradictory views (although they don’t seem to understand it).
A lot of the disagreements between the skeptics are as big, or bigger than, their disagreement with the warmers!
Chris V: Temperature and watts/m2 are both measures of energy.
Hanson himself has used the analogy of ‘X’ number of 1 watt lights per m2, over the earth’s surface.