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?
There is a story about GISS data from Brazil on icecap.us
“Nov 17, 2008
October’s Temperature Discrepencies
By Eugenio Hackbart, METSUL “
I am not a regular poster here but all those issues have been already considered in depth at http://www.climateaudit.org/phpBB3/viewforum.php?f=4 dedicated to climate physics only .
I do not know where this Chris V is coming from but he obviously hasn’t got a clue about the issues .
So only fast and for those who want to fill in the details , check the above link :
1) The fact that any gas molecule abosrbs and emits in infrared (the homonuclear too but much less) is a trivial fact .
2) The above fact has nothing but REALLY nothing to do with a greenhouse which only works because it suppresses convection . Also trivial . The atmosphere and oceans have nothing in common with a greenhouse .
3) Under the assumption of radiative equilibrium , it can be shown that the surface temperature of a planet would slightly and non linearily increase with the concentration of IR active gases (primarily H2O) if and only if radiation was the only mean for energy transfer . The real atmosphere is neither in radiative equilibrium nor has it only radiation available for energy transfer .
Convection and conduction cannot be neglected like it is done in all radiation transfer models .
4) There is no derivation of “the radiative forcing” and indeed cannot be for the reason mentionned in 3) above . The house number of 2 W/m² that is thrown around is an average result of computer models that suppose radiative equilibrium and neglect convection (the models are generally fed by a standard lapse rate profile) .
You should have noticed that the warmer ChrisV evaded the question about the proof of the 2W/m² . For good reason – the question cannot be answered in another way than saying “the models with unrealistic assumptions and tuned to the bone say so .”
4) Even admitting that the impact of IR active gases could be summed up in some average number of x W/m² with x being in the range of extremely small to very small , it is not possible to provide the derivation from this number to the average global temperature . This relationship is obviously non linear and unknown . It is again models (GCM) who give a range of temperature variation .
It is those same models who can’t get even the sign of variations right at regional levels and have a cloudiness dispersion of 50 % .
So inputting a wrong number in a wrong model should only be qualified of waste of time .
5) It is on the basis of the wrong models that has been established the temperature trend of 0.2 ° C / decade (IPCC report) . This number is a PREDICTION and the first falsifiable one one dared by IPCC in 20 years .
The real trend over the first decade 2000 – 2008 falsifies the models with a confidence level of 95 % .
Or in other words , the probability that the models are right AND the real observed temperatures do what they did because of bad luck is 5 % .
6) The climate system is a chaotic system .
The property of a chaotic system is that it is not predictible and doesn’t follow statistical laws .
Another property is that it generally stays in a bounded volume of the phase space (called attractor) what explains why through billions of years despite the large variations of all parameters on all time scales (from hours to million of years) , the system always stayed in a quasi stable state . It never got lower than a mild relatively short ice age and never higher than a tropical climate .
Last property is that it presents pseudo trends on all time scales . By taking any time scale you will detect a trend . However if you are ignorant about the true nature of the system and go to stupidly extrapolate the trend from short time series to long time scales , the system will always punish you by showing an opposite trend when the observation time increases .
Leif,
“Ron de Haan (17:51:50) :
The changes in climate are due to the activity of the sun and variations in cloud cover.
The sun doesn’t vary enough for this and the observed variations of cloud cover and albedo do not match the solar cycle. It is not good strategy to combat AGW with something equally flimsy”.
Leif,
David Archibald makes use of this theory and so does Patrick Moore, Richard Linzen, Jan Weize, Nir Shariv, Ian Clark, Tim Patterson and Svendsmark, see video on the gore lied website. What about the graph (Weize and Shariv) over a 5 million year time line showing a relationship between temperature and cosmic rays?
Patterson makes a fairly hard case!
Maybe we are focusing too much on a relative small band of differences in temperature trying to generate proof for a mechanism that can not be measured globaly within a such a narrow band?
Linzen makes the remark that if we would check a patients health by measuring the body temperature by 1/00 of a degree Celcius the whole world would declare us mad. The same is the case for our environment.
The 0.6 degree rise of temp on the NH until 1998 is a relative factor if you take the variations in climate station measurements into account.
Are people worried about nothing? Should this be the response to the AGW hysteria?
kurt, I have enjoyed your and smokey’s discussion. You state in your 18:10 post that a log curve eventually goes infinite, true, although the reponse needn’t be, see my crude example here: http://i35.tinypic.com/fc0eua.jpg
While CO2 concentration might approach infinity, the temperature response can go flat (effectively)
Chris V.
the last ice age, global temps were only 5 degrees cooler than today, so 3 degrees is a very big change.
http://www.geocraft.com/WVFossils/last_400k_yrs.html
1. Try 8c cooler.
2. during previous interglacials temperatures spiked 2-3c higher than the current interglacial.
3. we appear to have had the most stable interglacial period going back 400k years.
Leif,
Is NASA changing the ocean temperature data as well?????????????????
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/cloud-cover-albedo-and-temperature.html
Kurt says:
So, it seems to me that the amount of energy absorbed by CO2 in the bands that can be absorbed by CO2 (ie, some fraction of the total outgoing energy) is proportional to the fraction of CO2 in the atmosphere, unless you can somehow magically push all that CO2 into a thin shell that no photon of the required frequency can avoid.
Leif,
Is NASA changing the ocean temp data also??????????????
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2008/11/cloud-cover-albedo-and-temperature.html
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
Speaking of CO2, does anyone here know if the PPMs of CO2 are are stratified because it is heavier than air?
The NCDC has not updated this page even though it was supposed to have been updated yesterday the 17th:
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/2008/oct/global.html#introduction
When it does update, i bet the spin will make you dizzy.
I guess those guys are spinning themselves into a tizzy with the recent challenges.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/11/10/more-flubs-at-the-top-of-the-climate-food-chain-this-time-ncdcs-karl/
Les Johnson (22:15:25) :
“That means that at the present rate of atmospheric CO2 increases, we will see a doubling in a little over 100 years.”
Doubling relative to todays levels, or relative to preindustrial levels? I was referring to pre-industrial levels.
I’ve seen several projections that give 560 ppm CO2 (that’s double the pre-industrial level) by 2070.
Mike Bryant: your
So are you saying the greenhouse effect is a misnomer?
It is, when applied to the atmosphere. (my apologies if the following is already known to you)
A green house works by decreasing turbulence. So called Green House Gases work by absorbing then re-emitting IR.
To show the difference, studies by the University of Alaska, used IR transparent polyethylene, and IR opaque glass, for green houses.
They found no significant difference in the temperatures in the green houses, which indicates that depressing turbulence is the major factor in heat retention in a green house, and not IR retention. Thus, a so called “Green House” gas, is the misnomer.
Inhibiting turbulence, increases IR radiation. But decreasing IR, lowers turbulence.
Increasing turbulence, reduces radiation. Increasing radiation, increases turbulence.
Which brings up one of the problems with CO2. It can actually have a direct net negative forcing, depending on the atmospheric lapse rate (or, the temperature gradient).
All models use 6.5 deg C/1000 meters as the lapse rate. CO2 is a warming agent at 6.5 deg C/1000 meters.
Change this to 6.4, and there is no net effect either way. Change the lapse to 6.0, and CO2 becomes a net cooling agent, through increased turbulence.
Measured lapse rates are between 4 and 10 deg C/1000 meters.
Les Johnson (22:36:03) :
“Are you confusing casuality with causation?”
I am not confusing correlation with causation; just noticing that the temp increase is consistent with what we would expect CO2 to do.
Ron de Haan (08:18:09) :
David Archibald makes use of this theory
Hardly a recommendation 🙂
so does Patrick Moore, Richard Linzen, Jan Weize, Nir Shariv, Ian Clark, Tim Patterson and Svendsmark,
One could make a [longer!] list of people that don’t…
What about the graph (Weize and Shariv) over a 5 million year time line showing a relationship between temperature and cosmic rays?
We can’t even measure the temperature for October, 2008, so one might be skeptical of 5 million years :-). Presumably the orbital cycles were taken out first [I haven’t seen the Figure in detail]. Presumably the cosmic ray data comes from 10Be. There is good evidence that the 10Be-record is influenced by temperature. See e.g. GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS, VOL. 35, L21812, doi:10.1029/2008GL035189, 2008
Atmospheric impact on beryllium isotopes as solar activity proxy
A. Aldahan et al., published 14 November 2008.
[1] Reconstructing solar activity variability beyond the time scale of actual measurements provides invaluable data for modeling of past and future climate change. The 10Be isotope has been a primary proxy archive of past solar activity and cosmic ray intensity, particularly for the last millennium. There is, however, a lack of direct high resolution atmospheric time series on 10Be that enable estimating atmospheric modulation on the production
signal. […] Our data indicate intrusion of stratosphere/upper troposphere air masses that can modulate the isotopes production signal, and may induce relative peaks in the natural 10Be archives (i.e., ice and sediment). The atmospheric impact on the Be-isotopes can disturb the production signals and consequently the estimate of past solar activity magnitude.
—–
And: “indications of a connection between intrusion frequency and surface air temperature at the studied latitudes. Intrusion-free periods apparently show elevated average temperatures compared to periods with frequent intrusions”
and they caution: “These effects, which alter the production signal, should be quantified or eliminated before accurate estimates of past solar irradiance variations can be made.”
So, things may not be as simple and direct as most assume.
People have tried to independently confirm the Svensmark theory:
Solar influences on cosmic rays and cloud formation: A reassessment.
Sun, Bomin; Bradley, Raymond S.
Journal of Geophysical Research (Atmospheres), Volume 107, Issue D14, pp. AAC 5-1, CiteID 4211, DOI 10.1029/2001JD000560
Publication Date: 07/2002
Abstract
Svensmark and Friis-Christensen [1997] proposed a ‘cosmic ray-cloud cover” hypothesis that cosmic ray flux, modulated by solar activity, may modify global cloud cover and thus global surface temperature by increasing the number of ions in the atmosphere, leading to enhanced condensation of water vapor and cloud droplet formation. We evaluate this idea by extending their period of study and examining long-term surface-based cloud data (from national weather services and the Global Telecommunication System) as well as newer satellite data (International Satellite Cloud Climatology Project (ISCCP) D2, 1983-1993). No meaningful relationship is found between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover over tropical and extratropical land areas back to the 1950s. The high cosmic ray-cloud cover correlation in the period 1983-1991 over the Atlantic Ocean, the only large ocean area over which the correlation is statistically significant, is greatly weakened when the extended satellite data set (1983-1993) is used. Cloud cover data from ship observations over the North Atlantic, where measurements are denser, did not show any relationship with solar activity over the period 1953-1995, though a large discrepancy exists between ISCCP D2 data and surface marine observations. Our analysis also suggests that there is not a solid relationship between cosmic ray flux and low cloudiness as proposed by Marsh and Svensmark [2000].
—-
So, I wouldn’t be so sure of such a connection.
Les Johnson
“With even more CO2 from 1998 to present, there has been a negative temperature trend for the last decade, and NO WARMING OF THE OCEANS.
It should also be remembered that there was a significant warming from 1900-1940, well before the vast majority of CO2 had been emitted”.
Les,
I just read a NASA publication about a correction of the ARGO data.
The statement is there is much MORE ocean warming?
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html
wattsupwiththat?
Chris V: your
I am not confusing correlation with causation; just noticing that the temp increase is consistent with what we would expect CO2 to do.
So the negative temperature trend since May, 1997 (UAH), is consistent with CO2 forcing?
Chris V: and the increasing temperature trend 1900-1940 is consistent with the then low values of CO2?
And the negative temperature trend 1950-1980 is consistent with the then rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 content?
Ron de Haan: your
I just read a NASA publication about a correction of the ARGO data.
The statement is there is much MORE ocean warming?
No, not quite. The ARGO data is from 2003-present. As you can see from that chart, they have a “tail” in temperature at that period.
Josh Willis, the lead author, found errors in measurements, especially in the XBT data. His fixes fit the models better, pre-ARGO, but the ARGO data still shows no warming. Previous work showed a COOLING with ARGO data.
This is Willis’s conclusion, via NASA’s web site:
With biased profiles discarded, no significant warming or cooling is observed in upper-ocean heat content between 2003 and 2006.
My emphasis.
Leif,
Thanks a lot for your extensive reply.
Is it possible to make a listing of accepted science?
It’s really difficult to get the “sound science” out of the heap of reports and publications.
There is doubt about everything, temperature data sets and lately also the ocean data sets, see revised ocean heat content
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/
http://bobtisdale.blogspot.com/2008/11/revised-ocean-heat-content.html
wattsupwiththat?
Ron: Jennifer Marohasy gives a good explanation of the ARGO changes. There is a link to NASA as well.
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/apologies-to-josh-willis-correcting-ocean-cooling-part-3/
http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/2008/11/correcting-ocean-cooling-nasa-changes-data-to-fit-the-models/
http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Features/OceanCooling/page3.php
But, again, there has not been a cooling of the oceans, as ARGOs first results suggested, but neither has there been a warming.
Chris V
As someone alluded to above, the problem with 3 degrees rise for a doubling of CO2 producing a 3 degree change is that this is a WAG from the models based on supposed large positive feedbacks. Neither the paleo record nor current work looking for this feedback support this in any way. A doubling of CO2 is unlikely, based on current data to cause temperature increase in excess of 1 degree C, most of which should have already occured. Further increases would produce smaller effects of course.
It is generally accepted that global temperatures declined from about 1940 – 1970.
However, during rampant industrialization [abetted by the incineration of numerous cities during the 1940’s due to the second world war], atmospheric carbon dioxide increased significantly.
This CO2 rise in the 1940’s is confirmed by Beck, et. al., as posted here. And carbon dioxide levels were far in excess of todays in the early 1800’s.
The consternation of the alarmists at Beck’s paper is evidence, IMHO, that Beck was accurately reporting the situation. Measurements of CO2 using the chemical method that Beck reported show that CO2 levels were in excess of 400 ppmv in the 1940’s — quite a bit higher than today’s CO2 level.
As to be expected, Beck’s peer-reviewed paper has been loudly criticized by various alarmists, but it has not been falsified [not that they haven’t tried].
The discussion on this thread and similar ones often devolves into minute nitpicking of insignificant items, rather than looking at the big picture.
Although the alarmist side constantly moves the goal posts [from runaway global warming, to drowning polar bears, to catastrophic Greenland and Antarctic melting, to rising sea levels, to disappearing sea ice, to “global cooling proves global warming”, etc., etc.], the simple fact remains that the UN/IPCC has been consistently wrong from AR-1 through AR-4, and the Gore/Hansen duo has been spectacularly wrong.
Rather than engaging in endlessly nitpicking, unproductive arguments over unknowns such as the logarithmic exponent describing the almost nonexistent/nonexistent effect of carbon dioxide on temperature, and the ‘estimate’ of CO2 sensitivity, let’s look at empirical evidence, and the big picture: CO2 is rising, and the planet’s temperature is falling. Any normal person would conclude that CO2 is not causing runaway global warming, climate catastrophe, or for that matter, any other problems.
It appears that the endless hairsplitting arguments have one main purpose: to draw attention away from the subject of the original article, which is that GISS massages and adjusts climate data, and then does everything possible to avoid publicly archiving its taxpayer-funded raw data. This is the climate we’re talking about, not nuclear warfare secrets. The raw data should be made available to any taxpayer who wants to look at it. But GISS withholds it.
The blink graph at the top of the page shows what GISS is doing to the temperature record. Maybe those who endlessly argue about anything else would like to defend the actions of GISS.
Les Johnson (12:38:36) said:
“Chris V: and the increasing temperature trend 1900-1940 is consistent with the then low values of CO2?
And the negative temperature trend 1950-1980 is consistent with the then rapidly increasing atmospheric CO2 content?”
CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. But increasing CO2 provides a long-term positive forcing; other forcings (like solar early in the century, and sulfate aerosols mid centrury) are superimposed onto that.
Wondering Aloud (15:03:45) said:
“As someone alluded to above, the problem with 3 degrees rise for a doubling of CO2 producing a 3 degree change is that this is a WAG from the models based on supposed large positive feedbacks.”
No, it is not based on the models- the sensitivity numbers come from multiple, independent analyses- paleoclimate, modern climate, and models.
The models don’t “suppose” positive feedbacks. Positive feedbacks in the models are emergent qualities- they arise out of the basic physics used by the model.
In the paleo analyses, whatever feedbacks actually occurred- positive and negative- are reflected in the temperatures.
Two entirely different methodologies yield similar results.
Chris V: your
CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. But increasing CO2 provides a long-term positive forcing; other forcings (like solar early in the century, and sulfate aerosols mid centrury) are superimposed onto that.
Nope. Aerosols were greater at the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th, according to these researchers:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080819160103.htm
In fact, they say that aerosols were 2-5 times higher.
And these researchers suggest that the effect of aerosols is not known enough to gauge the effect.
“Because of the large uncertainty we have in the radiative forcing of aerosols, there is a corresponding large uncertainty in the degree of radiative forcing overall”, Crozier said. “This introduces a large uncertainty in the degree of warming predicted by climate change models.”
http://news.usti.net/home/news/cn/?/tw.top/2/wed/dg/Uus-climatemodels.RjIW_IaB.html
So, that leaves CO2 or solar or unknown.
CO2 has been going up, and only up.
Solar effects go up and down.
Temperature has gone up and down.
hmmmmm…..