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?
From Andy Beasley (17:09:49) :
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.
end quote
Um, you left out the fact that the actual temperature observed is not what is reported. The temp sheets sent in only report full degrees. If it’s 85.4 real and is read as 85.5 it will be reported as 86.
Chris V. said: So , as the CO2 forcing increased from 1960 to today, what did the temeperature do? It Increased rather significantly.
end Chris V. quote.
Don’t you mean to say: It increased rather significantly from 1960 to 1998 then dropped from 1998 to 2007 then it plunged in 2008.
BTW, the 1960’s were a particularly cool time. Snowed twice in my home town in California. Something very very rarely seen. Before or since.
FWIW, I think that whatever effect CO2 might have as a GHG, it reached saturation long ago, is swamped by H20, and we need all of it we can get to hold off “The Al Gore Cold Period” that is headed our way as we enter a period of low solar output rather like that from the Dalton Minimum era. The solar system configuration now is most like it was then and the sun has shut down sunspots dramatically. 1300 w / m2 swamps 2w/m2 especially if the 2 are fictional.
L.Svalgard
IMHO, the reason the solar connection is so emphasized is that people need a simple, direct, and ‘obvious’ alternative to AGW. If you are anti-AGW and arguing against an avid AGWer, he has a clear mechanism. If your only mechanism is an appeal to unknown, random, interval, chaotic fluctuations, he eats your lunch, hence your strong support for a solar cause.
Strongly disagree .
An understandable statement from somebody who writes papers about sun but no .
“Avid AGWers” are easy to counter for the simple reason that climate “science” is not science .
A science (yes , I entirely support Popper’s definition) to be science has to make falsifiable statements .
So far I know of only 1 falsifiable statement that needed 20 years to appear (AR4) and that consists to predict a central GMT trend of 0,2 °C/decade .
Well it is currently falsified with 95 % confidence level .
Is there really a simple , direct and “obvious” AGW mechanism ?
Clearly no as shows S.McIntyre’s demand to have a comprehensive , consistent , engineering quality derivation of the relationship between GMT and CO2 concentration . 1 year after this demand has not yet been met .
The only pseudo-scientific circular argument is to say that this relationship is a result of GCM runs .
So then you can ask why should you trust unaudited runs of a large number of computer models that contradict each other . Crickets .
You can also ask why the assumption of thermodynamical equilibrium applied to highly irreversible non equilibrium processes should give relevant answers . Crickets . What would say statistical equilibrium thermodynamics about the time evolution of the Rayleigh-Benard flow ? Garbage .
You can also get more technical if you have experience with chaos dynamics and ask why there should be a specific time scale (30 years) at which fluctuations “cancel” . Crickets . Then after a while mumbling about “random processes not well understood” .
So about everything that doesn’t fit the naive thesis that GMT = a.[CO2] + b is random , preferrably “gaussian” and “cancels” ?
Not very compelling .
The only thing that the data obviously show is that those postulated random processes are apparently stronger than the postulated CO2 “signal” .
So why would it be necessary to substitute to a naive , deterministic linear relation based on CO2 and contradicting computer models another naive , deterministic relation based on the sun and contradicting computer models ?
Following the wise word of Einstein that “Everything should be made as simple as possible but not simpler .” it seems clear to me that the AGWers try to make it much simpler than necessary .
Any dissipative system supplied with energy is known to exhibit a huge amount of internal variability .
It presents an infinity of pseudo trends at all time scales but also different stable structures between which it switches . Nothing simple in that but not random either .
There are some things that can be predicted about such systems and some that cannot .
Such systems may react strongly on very weak variation of some parameters and weakly on very strong variations of other parameters .
The climate is exactly such a system as the observation of the past billion years shows and ignoring or neglecting those facts is not science .
Les Johnson,
Your post @ur momisugly20:40 raises a very good point. Chris V. attempted to refute it @ur momisugly 22:40, but his answer was much too provincial, limiting the discussion to only the U.S. It’s a big world out there, and he may be unaware that China is currently building an average of two new coal fired power plants every week, and plans to continue building at this pace until at least 2024 [source: the Economist].
Chris V’s statement that “CO2 is not the only thing that affects the climate. But increasing CO2 provides a long-term positive forcing” assumes that CO2 does, in fact, affect the climate, and that it is a positive climate forcing mechanism.
But both of these are entirely unproven assumptions, based on always-inaccurate computer models. There is no empirical evidence that CO2 is either a positive forcing agent, or that CO2 affects the climate to any measurable degree. It’s worthwhile to discuss the pros and cons of climate forcings, but it is overstepping to take for granted either one of those assumptions; both may be as wrong as the computer models that generated them.
Regarding coal use, most of us know that China uses no stack scrubbers or other pollution abatement technology. They burn the coal and the soot and fly ash are carried around the world by the wind. China already exceeds the U.S. in coal use, and they continue to steadily ramp up. Furthermore, China’s current coal consumption is significantly greater than that of the U.S. at its peak.
Those facts should be kept in mind when reading Chris V’s statement, which only refers to the U.S.:
In other words, the U.S. has cleaned up its act, while developing countries are the culprits when it comes to soot emissions [and China is only one example; India, Russia, Brazil, and a hundred smaller countries are doing the same thing].
Now that that particular argument has been disposed of, no doubt there will be another, and another, and another — all distracting us from the central issue: why is GISS manipulating, adjusting and massaging the temperature record, while refusing to disclose the raw data? If Chris V or anyone else can provide a credible answer to that question, we would be very interested in hearing it.
http://www.vermonttiger.com/content/2008/07/nasa-free-energ.html
I hope people have a look at this free energy oven by J. Peden.
It summarizes everything wrong with the atmospheric greenhouse argument in a nutshell( errr, in an oven)
hengav (00:25:44) :
What I became alarmed at were graphs like: http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/stp/GEOMAG/image/aastar07.jpg
There are three factors that contribute to the trends seen in the Figures you cite:
(1) the aa-index is too low before 1957, see http://www.leif.org/research/Analysis%20of%20K=0%20and%201%20for%20aa%20and%20NGK.pdf
(2) the sunspot number is too low before 1946, see http://www.leif.org/research/De%20maculis%20in%20Sole%20observatis.pdf
(3) the Earth’s dipole magnetic field has decreased 10% the last 150 years. This decrease enhances the effect of solar activity on the Earth.
E.M.Smith (02:59:48) :
The solar system configuration now is most like it was then and the sun has shut down sunspots dramatically. 1300 w / m2 swamps 2w/m2 especially if the 2 are fictional.
Shutting down sunspots decreases the 1300 w/m2 by 1 w/m2 and is swamped by the 1300…
TomVonk (03:50:51) :
“he eats your lunch, hence your strong support for a solar cause.”
Strongly disagree .
[…] “Avid AGWers” are easy to counter for the simple reason that climate “science” is not science .
If they are so easy to counter then why is there the debate? The issue is not whether something is science or correct, but solely what the perception is. The whole debate is pseudo-science so a pseudo mechanism [the Solar connection] is fitting.
Let’s not belabor the “cooler can’t heat warmer” point. No “direct heating” takes place of the warmer object — instead it can’t cool-off as much if something in the ambient field-of-view is warmer than that of the ambient field. In earth’s case, the ambient field is outer space at only alittle above absolute zero.
So in the case of the earth/moon, if the moon’s radiational temp is greater than the outer-space background (it is, even if it’s cooler than earth), then that reduces the radiational cooling of the earth by some amount in the direction of the moon, and earth’s temp rises (very slightly).
The same happens on earth’s surface. If anything (GHGs) make the cooling background — the night sky — alittle warmer than it would be otherwise (even if cooler than the surface itself), it will reduce the rate of cooling & the temp on the surface will rise by some amount.
Richard Sharpe (19:20:32) :
” Another one of those death spirals that has never happened. I seem to recall being told that climates were very hot in the past (many millions to hundreds of millions of years ago).”
At the end of the Permian a ‘death spiral’ happened. The largest extinction on the planet triggered off by global warming caused by increased CO2.
TomVonk (03:50:51) :
I second this post. In addition there are another three falsifiable and falsified “predictions” of the IPCC AR4 report:
1) The fingerprint of CO2 in the tropical troposphere as set out in the AR4 report is absent in the data. Here are the links
for models:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar4/wg1/ar4-wg1-chapter9.pdf
and for data:
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/GHGModsvsReality.jpg
2) The oceans are cooling instead of warming and setting off a feedback loop of greenhouse warming: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=88520025
The spin is: global warming missing heat. The truth is, nature does not follow the GCM IPCC models.
3) the specific humidity is not rising as it should in order to create the runaway feedback loop predicated in the models:
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/cgi-bin/Timeseries/timeseries.pl?ntype=1&var=Specific+Humidity+(up+to+300mb+only)&level=300&lat1=90&lat2=-90&lon1=-180&lon2=180&iseas=1&mon1=0&mon2=11&iarea=0&typeout=2&Submit=Create+Timeseries
One may have to copy and paste the links.
Leif – Chris V.
http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Nobody I know doubts this.
Climate Change 2001:
Working Group I: The Scientific Basis
Since the time of the SAR, annual land precipitation has continued to increase in the middle and high latitudes of the Northern Hemisphere (very likely to be 0.5 to 1%/decade), except over Eastern Asia. Over the sub-tropics (10°N to 30°N), land-surface rainfall has decreased on average (likely to be about 0.3%/decade), although this has shown signs of recovery in recent years. Tropical land-surface precipitation measurements indicate that precipitation likely has increased by about 0.2 to 0.3%/ decade over the 20th century, but increases are not evident over the past few decades and the amount of tropical land (versus ocean) area for the latitudes 10°N to 10°S is relatively small. Nonetheless, direct measurements of precipitation and model reanalyses of inferred precipitation indicate that rainfall has also increased over large parts of the tropical oceans. Where and when available, changes in annual streamflow often relate well to changes in total precipitation. The increases in precipitation over Northern Hemisphere mid- and high latitude land areas have a strong correlation to long-term increases in total cloud amount.
Notes on data released May 7, 2008:
The La Nina Pacific Ocean cooling event continues to push temperatures in the tropics downward, with the tropical troposphere chilling for the second consecutive month to its coolest temperature since the La Nina of 1989, according to Dr. John Christy, director of the Earth System Science Center at The University of Alabama in Huntsville
Probable few people doubt increasing vapour content in the atsmosphere. Many doubt the authors’ conclusions that increasing vapor acts as positive feedback to [CO2] increases.
Non-physicist mathematics:
More vapor = more vapor converted to more precipitation = more cooling in troposphere.
Mary Hinge said:
Got some proof of that assertion? Were you there monitoring the CO2? Or was that a WAG?
Here’s a chart showing CO2 falling during the Permian, as the temperature rises. Also note that CO2 levels during the Permian weren’t much different than today’s levels. So what, exactly, ‘triggered’ this ‘death spiral’?
Tim Clark (09:03:37) :
“http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
Nobody I know doubts this.”
Probable few people doubt increasing vapour content in the atsmosphere. Many doubt the authors’ conclusions that increasing vapor acts as positive feedback to [CO2] increases.
Non-physicist mathematics:
More vapor = more vapor converted to more precipitation = more cooling in troposphere.
If there were no CO2 at all, H20 would still be a very powerful greenhouse gas raising the Earth’s temperature by some 30 degrees. This has nothing to do with CO2.
anna v (08:36:24) :
TomVonk (03:50:51) :
I second this post. In addition there are another three falsifiable and falsified “predictions” of the IPCC AR4 report
I think both of you misunderstood my post and went off on a rail of your own. My point was that it matters not what the science is [falsifiable, etc] but what people’s misguided perception is. The pseudo-science CO2 argument is battling the pseudo-science Solar-connection argument [even though the former sometimes needs the latter] and in this pseudo-science battle the scientific ‘internal oscillation argument loses.
Tim Clark (09:03:37) :
I doubt it.
It is spin.
from your link:
Because the new precise observations agree with existing assessments of water vapor’s impact, researchers are more confident than ever in model predictions that Earth’s leading greenhouse gas will contribute to a temperature rise of a few degrees by the end of the century.
Of course water vapor is the the main greenhouse gas. Of course heat will be trapped.
What else is new.
The study does not establish the CO2 to water vapor link except by hand waving reference to computer models. ( Great is Allah and Mohamet His prophet)
The links I provided above show the oceans are cooling, and the specific humidity is dropping where it should be rising.
To borrow a phrase: I think both of you misunderstood my post and went off on a rail of your own.
Leif Svalgaard (09:29:52) :
If there were no CO2 at all, H20 would still be a very powerful greenhouse gas raising the Earth’s temperature by some 30 degrees. This has nothing to do with CO2.
I concur with the nothing part.
anna v (09:33:30) :
I doubt it.
I agree with you also Anna V.
My ranting was against the authors’ obligatory non-data verified suppositional add-add-ons that:
The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback.
Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere.
Note the word estimating!
Leif,
It is true that AGW is pseudo science, I get your point:
You are trying to explain why the contra argument is attracted by the TSI arguments.
We should not stop at making observations, we should emphasize correct science, (which you are doing for solar, btw,) on all fronts.
We have to establish the correct science, and convince as many as we can of our fellow scientists, who indifferently accept the AGW arguments, trusting on the scientific integrity of scientists of other fields. That is where the problem is, because I am sure that any scientist who makes the effort to understand what is going on with AGW , will immediately turn skeptical.
TSI is a red herring in this context.
Chris V: your
Early in the century we had lots of dirty coal, with lots of heavy metals in the emissions. Later in the century we had cleaner coal, plus other energy sources, with less heavy metals in the emissions.
Which means, early in the century, there was more aerosols, especially as there was little pollution control, during a period of increasing warmth.
As you say, coal peaked in about 1945. With this reduction in coal, comes a reduction in aerosols, especially pre-pollution control; and the temperature fell.
Chris V: your
Later in the century we had cleaner coal,
We didn’t have cleaner coal, per se. We learned to burn it cleaner, by taking the aerosols out. If we take the aerosols out, the attached heavy metals don’t make it into the wild.
As shown by the Greenland ice cores.
anna v (10:00:19) :
I get your point:
You are trying to explain why the contra argument is attracted by the TSI arguments.
and by the cosmic ray/planetary alignments/etc arguments…
Tim Clark sayeth:
So how do clouds figure into the equation, or are they unrelated to water vapor?
At some point the clouds caused by increased water vapor reflect enough sunlight that the incoming energy goes down … and then …
Chris V: http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/vapor_warming.html
This research confirms the positive water-vapor feedback, just as predicted by models.”
That’s the biggest lot of nonsense I’ve ever seen.
Let’s see now. An increase in temperature because of CO2, or other greenhouse gases, causes more water vapor, which increases the temperature, which causes more water vapor, which increases the temperature…..
The fatal flaw here is the assumption that it takes the warming from CO2, or any other greenhouse gas with the exception of water vapor to trigger the warming but, once this is done, the temperature increase from water vapor keeps the ‘spiral’ going.
How come the temperature increase from current water vapor levels (above what the temperature would be in the absence of water vapor) doesn’t by itself trigger the ‘spiral’ in the first place?
“It’s a consequence of basic physics.”
Depends on which fantasy universe you happen to occupy.
USA today and NOAA:
October was 2nd-warmest on record for globe
http://blogs.usatoday.com/weather/2008/11/october-was-2nd.html
http://www.noaanews.noaa.gov/stories2008/20081118_octobertemps.html
Even for GISS data, you have to go back to 2002 to find a colder october.
How can NOAA write as they do??????
I hope this superpe blog will check it out!
Giss data:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts.txt
I just love this site; rationality, common sense, an ability to cut through the bull shit … I just love this site!
So sez the insular hayseed.
Water vapors, carbon dioxides and other possible warming elements only indicates (GISS, HADLEY, RUSS MSU and UAH MSU Temperature/carbon charts) that temperature/climate/weather are all cyclical.
Richard Sharpe (11:16:40) :
You know, I need someone to tell me how to italcize on this blog. It is confusing to know what I’m writing and what I’ pasting. The three paragraphs:
[ The answer can be found by estimating the magnitude of water vapor feedback.
Increasing water vapor leads to warmer temperatures, which causes more water vapor to be absorbed into the air. Warming and water absorption increase in a spiraling cycle.
Water vapor feedback can also amplify the warming effect of other greenhouse gases, such that the warming brought about by increased carbon dioxide allows more water vapor to enter the atmosphere. ]
were from the article, not mine. I was stating, (apparently not coherently), that I did not agree with the article, hence the “Note the word estimating!”
Yes clouds are involved.
And someone to spell for me, as in “italicize”.