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
OK i’ve looked into this a bit more just now.
Your original statement said:
“Chris V. (08:29:23) :
Katherine (06:13:00) :
I think that if you look into it, you will see that that Hansen’s “B” scenario is closest to the actual CO2 increase.”
I’m not sure this is correct. See e.g.
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/cfc_ha45.gif
from
http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=2621
which suggests that there was “no material difference between Scenario A and Scenario B concentrations” [of CO2]
[Note, as I said before, emissions appear to have grown at BAU, if not higher (in the last decade), while I understand the magnitude of ocean sinks has been progressively revised upwards, though I accept this is a somewhat different point of course]
The main difference between projections A and B appears to have been the projected volcanic forcings in ~1995 and ~2015. If you consider the following:
http://www.climateaudit.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/hansen11.gif
you will see that temperatures in the B scenario should have come very close to those of A from ~2007 onwards, i.e. 12 years after the projected volcano.
The projection of a volcano (of ~Chichon magnitude) was correct, though of course the actual year was 1991 (Pinatubo). Therefore by the same logic, B scenario temperatures should have come close to those of A from ~2003 onwards, and until the next volcanic forcing.
Chris V: your
However, if Hansen turns out to be right, we all might feel a little different about that.
Highly unlikely, based on his 1988 predictions. Right now, only his “C” scenario temperature is within 95% confidence level, and even that is hanging on by it’s fingernails.
And that scenario assumed that massive CO2 cuts would start in 1990.
@chris V.
measured date is even below scenario C (“drastically reduce… emissions between 1990-2000”)
http://www.climate-skeptic.com/2008/06/gret-moments-in.html
Those who do will demonstrate that they are scoundrels.
Hansen was employing despicable argument tactics to try to shut down opponents to his views and prevent people from investigating his claims and arguments.
Given that spending trillions of dollars to prevent something that we have no influence over is just as wrong as failing to do something that we could have done, vigorous debate is required.
Dr Watts, fyi,
http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2008/11/james-hansen-cooking-the-nasa-books-for-climate-change/
I think this is important for all US citizens:
Nov 15, 2008 (Published at ICECAP.US
EPA and ANPR Deadline for Comments is November 28, 2008
By Joseph D’Aleo
The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.
The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency�s legal obligations in a timely manner.
Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR: Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions; How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants; Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and, scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.
EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR until November 28, 2008. See EPA ANPR for details and directions.
Earlier responses to the CCSP are supposed to be considered but it is a good idea to resubmit them to ANPR to play it safe. I have done so in two parts: Part I summarizing the 9 responses to the CCSP and a new one in Part II responding to these specific scientific questions the EPA is seeking input on:
(1). EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
(2). EPA also invites comment on the extent to which it would be appropriate to use the most recent IPCC reports, including the chapters focusing on North America, and the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program synthesis reports as scientific assessments that could serve as an important source or as the primary basis for the Agency�s issuance of �air quality criteria.�
(3). EPA requests comments as well as the adequacy of the available scientific literature [synthesis reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and various reports of the US Climate Change Science Program]
(4). The Endangerment Technical Support Document provides evidence that the U.S. and the rest of the world are experiencing effects from climate change now.
The window will close on comments November 28, 2008 and decisions will be made that we may have to live with for a long time. We can only do our best to ensure we have a say and maybe some influence on those decisions. Though the responses I sent were relatively long, they need not be. Short pithy comments that address one or more of the questions with relevant documentation to papers and peer review or just data can be just as if not more effective. Thank you for whatever you do.
Nov 15, 2008
Gore Says No to ‘Climate Czar’ Role
By Tom LoBianco and S.A. Miller, Washington Post
President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job. The Obama team declined to comment on such a post, even as environmentalists and power industry executives say it’s being widely discussed inside the transition offices as a way to spur a clean energy industry, which Mr. Obama has promised will ween the U.S. from foreign oil and create millions of “green jobs.”
Obama transition chief John Podesta promoted a similar idea earlier in his role as president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Mr. Podesta authored a white paper calling for an Energy Security Council within the White House to oversee climate change and clean energy initiatives. The czar and the council would coordinate agencies, including the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The obvious choice to lead the council is Mr. Gore, whose campaign to address climate change earned him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. But the former vice president is taking a pass. “Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government,” Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. “He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis.” Mr. Obama foreshadowed the new post on the campaign trail in April when he told a voter that Mr. Gore would be offered a special Cabinet post overseeing climate change. “Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem,” Mr. Obama said.
Al Gore appears on behalf of Barack Obama early Friday afternoon, Oct. 31, 2008, at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla.. Gore, former vice president and democratic presidential candidate in 2000, and his wife Tipper, returned to Palm Beach County, ground zero of the year 2000 election debacle. It was Gore’s first campaign event for the Obama/Biden ticket.
With Mr. Gore out of the running for an administration job, leading candidates for the post likely include former EPA chief Carol M. Browner, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names mentioned for czar or membership in the energy council include World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash, former Pennsylvania Environment Secretary Kathleen McGinty and California Air Resources Board chief Mary D. Nichols. Read more here
Patrick Henry (11:29:41) :
“Chris V,
Your claim that the last two years are “weather” rather than “climate” are absurd. Weather forecasts are good for maybe three days to a week, tops. The climate models did not predict the sharp temperature drop over the last two years, indicating that they don’t model the climate accurately.”
Just as a side note, there’s actually been some fairly accurate forecasted by these guys:
http://theweatherwiz.com/about.htm
They claim they have an %83 accuracy rate since 1978, and higher over the past decade.
Good story, too.
Jim
Chris (12:27:14) :
RealClimate has a discussion of the scenario issue:
http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/05/hansens-1988-projections/
They maintain that the actual forcings (which includes things other than just CO2) are closest to Hansen’s scenario B. Remember this wasn’t an exercise in predicting future CO2, methane, solar, volcanic, etc. forcings, but a prediction of what could happen under some hypothetical “high”, “medium” and “low” forcing scenarios.
We can argue all day about whether Hansen got it “right” or not (I think he did reasonably well).
But I would be much more interested in comparing Hansen’s predictions with the predictions made by some AGW skeptics from around the same time. That way, we could see which theory got closer to the mark.
Unfortunately, I am unaware of any long-term predictions made by the skeptical side at the time (but I do know that there were some who were still claiming that the earth was not warming at all).
John M (12:01:12) :
WRT to post-2000 trends, they are different between the various data anomaly sets.
But looking back over the last 30 or so years, I see other periods of time that had similar “lulls”, but afterward the long-term upward trend always resumed.
This latest lull MIGHT be the start of a new long-term cooling or stable trend, but I have seen nothing to make me think that it is.
I might be wrong. Time will tell.
**Also, if you think Hansen is trying to sell something, do you feel the same way about Spenser and Christy (who produce the UAH temps)? Spenser and Christy (well known AGW skeptics) are certainly as publicly vocal as Hansen.**
*Although to be fair, only one has suggested that certain individuals should be charged with crimes against humanity.*
Nor have S & C flown halfway across the world to provide a character reference for vandals…..
Chris V. (08:47:33) :
In regards to your statements about CO2, the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, and that increasing CO2 will produce warming, is accepted by virtually every scientist, including most of the AGW skeptics (Christy, Spencer, Lindzen…).
Substantiating a scientific theory requires empirical evidence, not opinion polls.
There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is even applicable to the earth’s atmosphere.
Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.
In May 2007, when that RC post was made, Hansen was pretty well on for scenario C (not so much B).
But at that point the bottom dropped out. If you show the graph a year later, you see it at well below “C level”. We are simply going to have to wait it out and at the same time get a true handle on the positive feedback loop question.
As for Climate Nuremberg, I presume the trials will be held in the courtroom right next to DDT Nuremberg? #B^1
FWIW, I think that CO2 warming is real but far past diminishing returns and without positive feedback at work, the effects of increase are minimal (and probably beneficial). Positive feedback is what the whole AGW position depends on.
Chris V: “Unfortunately, I am unaware of any long-term predictions made by the skeptical side at the time”
Skeptics do not make long-term predictions, precisely because they are skeptical of anyone’s ability to make meaningful long-term predictions.
Nov 15, 2008
EPA and ANPR Deadline for Comments is November 28, 2008
By Joseph D’Aleo
The ANPR is one of the steps EPA has taken in response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Massachusetts v. EPA. The Court found that the Clean Air Act authorizes EPA to regulate tailpipe greenhouse gas emissions if EPA determines they cause or contribute to air pollution that may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare. The ANPR reflects the complexity and magnitude of the question of whether and how greenhouse gases could be effectively controlled under the Clean Air Act.
The document summarizes much of EPA’s work and lays out concerns raised by other federal agencies during their review of this work. EPA is publishing this notice at this time because it is impossible to simultaneously address all the agencies’ issues and respond to the agency�s legal obligations in a timely manner.
Key Issues for Discussion and Comment in the ANPR: Descriptions of key provisions and programs in the CAA, and advantages and disadvantages of regulating GHGs under those provisions; How a decision to regulate GHG emissions under one section of the CAA could or would lead to regulation of GHG emissions under other sections of the Act, including sections establishing permitting requirements for major stationary sources of air pollutants; Issues relevant for Congress to consider for possible future climate legislation and the potential for overlap between future legislation and regulation under the existing CAA; and, scientific information relevant to, and the issues raised by, an endangerment analysis.
EPA will accept public comment on the ANPR until November 28, 2008. See EPA ANPR for details and directions.
Earlier responses to the CCSP are supposed to be considered but it is a good idea to resubmit them to ANPR to play it safe. I have done so in two parts: Part I summarizing the 9 responses to the CCSP and a new one in Part II responding to these specific scientific questions the EPA is seeking input on:
(1). EPA seeks comment on the best available science for purposes of the endangerment discussion, and in particular on the use of the more recent findings of the U.S. Climate Change Science Program.
(2). EPA also invites comment on the extent to which it would be appropriate to use the most recent IPCC reports, including the chapters focusing on North America, and the U.S. government Climate Change Science Program synthesis reports as scientific assessments that could serve as an important source or as the primary basis for the Agency�s issuance of �air quality criteria.�
(3). EPA requests comments as well as the adequacy of the available scientific literature [synthesis reports such as the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s Fourth Assessment Report and various reports of the US Climate Change Science Program]
(4). The Endangerment Technical Support Document provides evidence that the U.S. and the rest of the world are experiencing effects from climate change now.
The window will close on comments November 28, 2008 and decisions will be made that we may have to live with for a long time. We can only do our best to ensure we have a say and maybe some influence on those decisions. Though the responses I sent were relatively long, they need not be. Short pithy comments that address one or more of the questions with relevant documentation to papers and peer review or just data can be just as if not more effective. Thank you for whatever you do.
Nov 15, 2008
Gore Says No to ‘Climate Czar’ Role
By Tom LoBianco and S.A. Miller, Washington Post
President-elect Barack Obama’s transition team is flirting with creating a White House “Climate Czar,” but climate change crusader Al Gore says he doesn’t want the job. The Obama team declined to comment on such a post, even as environmentalists and power industry executives say it’s being widely discussed inside the transition offices as a way to spur a clean energy industry, which Mr. Obama has promised will ween the U.S. from foreign oil and create millions of “green jobs.”
Obama transition chief John Podesta promoted a similar idea earlier in his role as president of the Center for American Progress, a liberal Washington think tank. Mr. Podesta authored a white paper calling for an Energy Security Council within the White House to oversee climate change and clean energy initiatives. The czar and the council would coordinate agencies, including the Energy and Interior departments and the Environmental Protection Agency.
The obvious choice to lead the council is Mr. Gore, whose campaign to address climate change earned him the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize. But the former vice president is taking a pass. “Former Vice President Gore does not intend to seek or accept any formal position in government,” Gore spokeswoman Kalee Kreider said. “He feels very strong right now that the best thing for him to do is to build support for the bold changes that we have to make to solve the climate crisis.” Mr. Obama foreshadowed the new post on the campaign trail in April when he told a voter that Mr. Gore would be offered a special Cabinet post overseeing climate change. “Al Gore will be at the table and play a central part in us figuring out how we solve this problem,” Mr. Obama said.
Al Gore appears on behalf of Barack Obama early Friday afternoon, Oct. 31, 2008, at the Palm Beach County Convention Center in West Palm Beach, Fla.. Gore, former vice president and democratic presidential candidate in 2000, and his wife Tipper, returned to Palm Beach County, ground zero of the year 2000 election debacle. It was Gore’s first campaign event for the Obama/Biden ticket.
With Mr. Gore out of the running for an administration job, leading candidates for the post likely include former EPA chief Carol M. Browner, Arizona Gov. Janet Napolitano and Kansas Gov. Kathleen Sebelius. Other names mentioned for czar or membership in the energy council include World Resources Institute President Jonathan Lash, former Pennsylvania Environment Secretary Kathleen McGinty and California Air Resources Board chief Mary D. Nichols. Read more here
Chris V
I had read the RealClimate discussion, and it doesn’t change what I say (it was one of the sources I considered when putting my previous post together.) Scenarios B and C included volcanic forcings; Scenario A did not. The straight line for Scenario B in RC’s image is misleading because it presumably averages out the volcanic forcings of over the time period. Thus now, at the end of 2008, it assumes a volcanic forcing that does not exist, therefore we should be warmer under Scenario B now than implied by RC’s diagram.
In terms of predictions from “skeptics”, I imagine that those who disagreed with Hansen predicted that warming would be less. Now it increasingly is less.
Also, many “skeptics” have tended to be interested in the surface record. Well, stations from the US to Greenland and Iceland, from Western Europe to Siberia, and in other parts of the world as far as I can tell, were significantly cooler in the 80s than in the 1930s/40s. So I imagine many “skeptics” in the late 1980s were aware that a cyclical upswing was on the cards (in particular, we now know of course that the AMO turned strongly +ve into the 90s)
Gilbert (15:03:02) :
“Substantiating a scientific theory requires empirical evidence, not opinion polls.
There is no empirical evidence that the greenhouse effect is even applicable to the earth’s atmosphere.”
What type of empirical evidence are you looking for?
“Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.”
I dunno- a lot of AGW skeptics (Christy, Schwartz, Monckton) have written papers where they proposed much lower CO2 sensitivities than what many others believe. Lower, but not zero.
Re:Geraldton Airport
I suppose it depends on the time of the year it’s taken.
No it doesn’t. Grass only grows in Geraldton (and everywhere within 1,000 kilometers) when it is irrigated year round.
What has happen over the last 3 or 4 years in Western Australia is that watering grass has become un-PC. And as a result many government offices have stopped their irrigation systems,which is probably what we see on the Google satellite image. Although, extensive irrigation still continues at Perth Airport. I can’t say for Geraldton as its about 5 years since I was last there.
Annoyingly, the BoM does provide trend graphs of temperatures (or anything else) so we can’t see what effect stopping irrigation has on the temperature record.
Peter (15:24:27) :
Some skeptics claim that cosmic rays or solar activity are the big drivers of climate. Why not make some predictions? They could pick a few hypothetical scenarios for, say, various levels of solar activity (a high, a low and a middle), and predict the future temps. Then we wait and see what happens.
Ultimately, the ability to make accurate predictions is the best test of a theory, right? At least that’s what you guys all seem to be saying.
Chris (15:35:57) :
I agree that Hansen’s prediction does not perfectly match the reality. But it’s in the ballpark.
You “imagine” that the skeptics predicted less warming? I was hoping for something a little more “real”. 😉
“Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree is the “how much warming” part.
Not so. Where the skeptics and “warmers” disagree most, is the “anthropogenic” part.”
Where I disagree most is the catastrophic part. That is the part that makes governments think it is AOK to take liberties with my liberties.
This really is all academic. You can’t just pick a point in time and declare “this is the zero anomaly line”. It’s just silly. And it’s even sillier to say that anything outside that anomaly line is, well, anomalous.
Chris V: “Why not make some predictions?”
Why should we? The onus of proof is on those who propose a theory – particularly when said theory diverts huge amounts of funding away from worthwhile pursuits such as fighting disease and poverty.
I can’t seem to get anything right today.
That should have read,
Annoyingly, the BoM doesn’t provide trend graphs of temperatures.
Is this the same “Dr. Karl” of the NCDC who never an academic Ph.D.?
Yes it is.
Dr Karl’s work on TOBS is interesting, not least in that it was an exercise in saving money. Rather than going through the records and determining when Time of Observation changed at each individual site. Karl came up with a statistical estimate for all sites, which is of unknown accuracy.
Another example of climate data handling done on the cheap with unknown effects on the accuracy of the climate record. BTW, Karl is on record as saying the error in his method is about 25%, which would mean about a 15% error in the 20th century temperature change (trend).
Peter (16:05:36) said:
“Why should we? The onus of proof is on those who propose a theory – particularly when said theory diverts huge amounts of funding away from worthwhile pursuits such as fighting disease and poverty.”
Don’t mix up the theory with the political/economic/social response. Whether AGW is occurring, and how much, is one question. What (if anything) to do about it is another.
In any event, the skeptics are all proposing theories – “it’s the sun, cosmic rays, PDO, natural variability…” are all theories.
But if you feel that way, I would think that you would think it was even MORE important to prove the skeptical theories right. Providing more accurate predictions than Hansen would certainly help with that.
Chris V
“You “imagine” that the skeptics predicted less warming? I was hoping for something a little more “real”. ;)”
The “imagine” was ironic. Anyone who, at the time, to a lesser or greater extent, may have thought Hansen was exaggerating, by definition was “predicting” less warming. (I think the “s” word is less helpful than ever here.)