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 (13:08:17) :
To keep Chris V happy, I’m going to pick you up on this and point out that if consensus AGW theory had such an obvious flaw, we wouldn’t all be sitting around here having this argument, as it would have been spotted a very long time ago. I can’t see any logic in your quoted argument?
My mind is open. If CO2 can absorb more than 100% of the available radiation, then tell me where to find the evidence.
Consensus is a political affliction.
Personally I think AGW theory/analysis has a patchwork of flaws, small enough to be individually brushed aside/downplayed, but which collectively tend to add up/multiply in the same direction towards an exaggeration of climate sensitivity (and how much people should be “alarmed”). The devil is in the detail, and suggesting there are big obvious flaws tends to play into the hands of defenders of the consensus (IMO) [the recent lack of warming being a partial exception here]
There are many flaws, both small and large. The atmospheric greenhouse effect is but one of them. It’s also the one I’m presently curious about and if I can’t get answers on a skeptic blog, then where else?
Chris-
I think much of the disagreement about the accuracy of Hansen’s projections (modellers don’t like to call them predictions) comes from what we expect of the models.
All computer models are a simplified approximation of reality. Add to that the fact many of the inputs of future conditions (CO2, methane, volcanoes, aerosols…) are rough estimates (that may or may not pan out exactly as estimated).
Based on that, I don’t expect any model to get things exactly right. But they can significantly narrow down the range of possibilities.
There’s an old say among modellers (of climate and other things): “All models are wrong, but some are useful”.
Chris V: your There’s an old say among modellers (of climate and other things): “All models are wrong, but some are useful”.
“Models should be used, but not believed.”
That’s what we say in our business.
Now, we seem to agree on the accuracy of models in general.
Would you spend 40 trillion dollars, based on a model that is shown to be inaccurate?
Chris V.,
I also find it interesting that there is such a diversity of views on the skeptic side. However, it seems to me that it is perfectly natural.
People who prefer to think for themselves do not automatically subscribe to any one view. Because of this drive to better understand everything around them, they take nothing for granted, they see very little as settled. Hence, as you said, they have a wide diversity of views. I have a feeling that many past scientists held that mindset.
On the other hand, there are those who prefer to hold one rigid, uncompromising view. They would rather have others lay everything out for them. These people enjoy the comfort of relying on authority without question. There is something to be said for this propensity since they live their lives with no disturbances or feelings of doubt.
Both groups are necessary for the advancement of science and the human race. When either group becomes powerful enough to silence the other, we all lose. I think that is why our limited system of government has been so successful.
I hope we never become locked into a world of conformism.
I pray that the dreamers are never locked out.
Mike Bryant
Chris V.
I read your “rebuttal” to my post with some amusement.
You claim that automatic adjustment takes place over long time periods, but offer no proof to back this claim. I say CO2 is regulated rapidly, by increased vegetation for one.
Then you ask “which is it?”, apparently confident in your belief that regulation is long term. There is no contradiction in my position.
The temperature in my house oscillates around 20C as the furnace and/or AC kick in and switch off. The temperature is rarely stable at 20C, and yet I can say with confidence that my house is 20C. The oscillations may be larger and of a different period when the outside temperature is extremely high or low, but the average is still around the same.
I’m not sure which planet you are on, but on THIS planet we are being told that CO2 ALONE is causing temperature increases. Nice try on the “strawman” claim, though. Thanks for playing.
Your belief that CO2 is rising faster than, whenever, is not supported if you stop excluding major volcanic effects. Again, thanks for playing. Be sure to pick up your parting gift on the way out.
Your belief that “skeptics” hold contradictory views [snip]. Most of us (yes, a generalization) are frustrated with a dogma that states all climate variability is recent, our fault, and bad. My personal position is that climate has always been variable, tends to oscillate around relatively beneficial values, and is not affected by “us” to any significant degree.
Here is an interesting summation of the inherent problems with computer modelling:
http://www.numberwatch.co.uk/computer_modelling.htm
Gilbert (14:06:13) :
CO2 can’t absorb more than 100% of the available radiation. I would think that be obvious.
Regarding the properties of CO2, you could start with the experiments of Tyndale and Arhenius (in the 1800’s), then look at the research done by the US Air Force in the 1950’s.
The fact that CO2 absorbs and re-emits long-wave radiation has been pretty well established for well over a century now. If you’re attempting to disprove that, you’ve got a tough row to hoe!
Les Johnson (15:06:32) said:
“Would you spend 40 trillion dollars, based on a model that is shown to be inaccurate?”
Of course not. But that’s not the only evidence for AGW.
And I’d still like you to explain the W/m2 to temp conversion.
Chris,
Thanks for posting Hansen’s own graph — which actually shows only normal warming due to natural climate variability [but the red line on the exaggerated x-axis does make it scary, huh?]
Let’s compare that Hansen graph with GISS’ solar forcing graph: click
Seems the temp rise tracks solar irradiance pretty closely.
Finally, here’s the temp record that Hansen hasn’t had a chance to skew toward his putative approaching climate catastrophe: click
So who are we supposed to believe? Hansen? Or our lyin’ eyes?
Chris V: your
Of course not. But that’s not the only evidence for AGW.
Models are the only evidence for long term, harmful effects of AGW. If you have any other evidence, I would love to see it.
And I’d still like you to explain the W/m2 to temp conversion.
???
watts/m2 is equivalent energy retained, and is converted into heat, with the units being temperature anomaly.
Again, even Hanson uses the analogy of 1 watt lights per m2, being the extra retained energy.
What part of that don’t you understand?
evanjones
I understand that by using statistics one can get a number that has more precision than the original data. The problem is that when the original data is not correct, no amount of oversampling will make it correct. The reading error is plus or minus 0.5 degrees if the thermometer is in 1 degree increments. That has to be added to the instrument error. If 1 degree is assumed for instrument error (as in my original post), you can only know the temperature for any given reading within 1.5 degrees. Is this taken into account in the oversample to determine the error bands?
My questions on the calibration would be:
What is the accuracy of the instrument?
What is the acceptable range and what is the desired range when the instrument is calibrated?
How is an out of cal instrument documented (both that it is out of cal and when it was replaced or corrected)?
Do the selected instruments show a trend when they go out of cal (i.e. do they always go out of cal high, low, or at random)?
How often do the instruments need to be adjusted because they are out of cal?
How often are the instruments calibrated?
To give an example, I just reviewed an annual calibration on some of my instruments. Two of them failed calibration, one on the high end and one on the low. Since the calibration over the normal operating range was acceptable, I allowed continued use of both instruments with the caveat that calibration be reperformed every cycle (about 60 days) until the instruments are replaced. The reason that I wanted a calibration every cycle is so that I can monitor for further degradation and take action if the instruments become unusable. I suspect that the thermometers in use for the weather stations have not been calibrated since installation. That may be perfectly acceptable based on how they drift over time; but, where is it documented that it is acceptable?
Here is a study on the bedrock foundations of Greenhouse Theory:
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v3.pdf
CodeTech (15:54:12) :
I sense a lot of anger there! 😉
“You claim that automatic adjustment takes place over long time periods, but offer no proof to back this claim.”
CO2 in ice cores shows us how fast CO2 levels changed in the past, and how high they were. Changed much slower, and concentrations were much lower. If the “automatic adjustment” is fast, how come CO2 levels have risen so much in the last 50 years? Why aren’t they being “adjusted”?
“I’m not sure which planet you are on, but on THIS planet we are being told that CO2 ALONE is causing temperature increases.”
Right now, it’s the single biggest (but not the only) factor, and it’s increasing at the greatest rate. In the past, orbital forcing’s, solar changes and other things have been the big drivers.
“Your belief that CO2 is rising faster than, whenever, is not supported if you stop excluding major volcanic effects.”
Who’s excluding major volcanic effects, and from what? I have no idea what you mean here.
“Again, thanks for playing. Be sure to pick up your parting gift on the way out.”
I LOVE parting gifts!
Chris V.,
I’m hurt that you didn’t answer my comment about skeptics and warmers. 🙁
Mike Bryant
Les Johnson (17:07:41) said:
“What part of that don’t you understand?”
Maybe I’m a little dense- can you show the math?
I just don’t see how you get from W/M2 to temperature without dealing with the specific heat of the various layers of the atmosphere and oceans.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_capacity#Heat_capacity
Like I said, it seems like it would be a rather complicated calculation.
Mike Bryant (17:26:27) said:
“Chris V.,
I’m hurt that you didn’t answer my comment about skeptics and warmers. 🙁
Mike Bryant”
Nothing personal! I just have my hands full at the moment. 😉
No anger here, Chris V. Perhaps your sensor needs calibrating.
Smokey (17:06:35) said:
“Let’s compare that Hansen graph with GISS’ solar forcing graph: click”
Smokey- Before I go climbing down this particular rabbit hole 😉 can you tell me why that graph shows NEGATIVE solar forcings between 1880 and 1920?
“Finally, here’s the temp record that Hansen hasn’t had a chance to skew toward his putative approaching climate catastrophe: click”
Can you add a long-term trend line, or tell me what the long-term trends are for those graphs? (I assume that’s RSS- the trends should be on their website)
Chris V,
Thanks for the RC link. I don’t see it explicitly stating whether they took HFCs and HCFCs into account, but perhaps their impact is small.
Anyway, accepting B as the closest scenario, here’s how the graph used in many “victory celebrations” in 2005 has held up with subsequent years put in.
This year, after 10 months, the average anomaly (these are GISS station anomalies) is running about 0.5. You can see where that point will put us.
Yankee Stadium hell, I think you and Hansen would have to be in the Elysian Fields to be “in the ballpark”.
Chris V: ask Hanson. Its his example.
Les Johnson (18:24:08) :
Way back when, you said:
“If we convert watts/m2 to temperature, then the closest scenario is Scenario C.”
Then later on you said:
“ask Hanson. Its his example.”
I don’t know what Hansen said, but I am 100% sure you misunderstood it. If it were possible to calculate the non-equilibrium temperature from just the forcings, he wouldn’t need to use the model.
I’d like to be
Under the C
Chris V.:
Sure.
But that would deny you the fun of doing it yourself.
Smokey (19:21:00) :
The global long-term trend is +0.16 degrees C/decade- about the same as GISSTemp (which I think is +0.17).
Eyeballing trends can be very deceptive.
Figured out the solar graph you posted yet?
Once you gain considerable experience with complex computer systems you start to get a feel for how robust a system must be that has operated for hundreds of millions of years if not billions of years.
Richard, that’s a very astute observation. However, I’d add that people react to the failure of complex models to accurately replicate reality by making the models more complex. And that is the solution you imply.
This is invariably the wrong answer and the solution lies in scrapping their model and finding a simpler one that better reflects reality. And note that is also the scientific method.
BTW, the models are wrong because they incorporate the forcings model (theory) for which there is no empiricial support.