Reposted from Jennifer Marohasy’s website.
THERE are four official global temperature data sets and there has been much debate and discussion as to which best represents change in global temperature.
Tom Quirk has analysed variations within and between these data sets and concludes there is 1. Substantial general agreement between the data sets, 2. Substantial short-term variation in global temperature in all data sets and 3. No data set shows a significant measurable rise in global temperature over the twelve year period since 1997.
Global Temperature Revisited
Article by Tom Quirk
One of the most vexing things about climate change is the endless debate about temperatures. Did they rise, did they fall or were they pushed? At times it seems like a Monty Python sketch of either the Dead Parrot or the 5 or 10 Minute Argument.
However it is possible to see some of the issues by looking at the four temperature series that are advanced from:
GISS – Goddard Institute for Space Studies and home of James Hansen,
Hadley Centre – British Meteorological Office research centre
UAH – The University of Alabama, Huntsville, home of Roy Spencer with his colleagues including John Christy of NASA and
RSS – Remote Sensing Systems in Santa Rosa, California, a company supported by NASA for the analysis of satellite data.
The first two groups use ground based data where possible with a degree of commonality. However since 70% of the surface of the earth is ocean and it is not monitored in a detailed manner, various procedures with possibly heroic assumptions and computer modelling, are followed to fill the ocean gap.
The last two groups use satellite data to probe the atmosphere and with the exception of the Polar Regions which are less than 10% of the globe, they get comprehensive coverage.
One question is of course are the two groups measuring the same temperature? After all the satellite looks down through the atmosphere, while the ground stations are exactly that.
There is an important distinction to be made between measuring the temperature and measuring the change in the temperature. Since the interest is in changing temperatures then what is called the global temperature anomaly is the starting point. The issue of measuring absolute temperatures should be put to one side.
Data from 1997 to 2009 was drawn from the four group websites on the 28 April 2009. When data for 1997 to early 2008 was compared to data acquired in early 2008 differences were found as shown in the first table.
This is evidence of substantial reprocessing and re-evaluation of data. This is not unusual with complicated analysis systems but there is so much interest in the results that adjustments are regarded with great suspicion. This is the fault of those publishing the temperature data as they fail to make the point that monthly and even yearly measurements are about weather and not climate.
The latest series of temperature anomalies are shown in the graph where the monthly data has been averaged into quarters. All statistical analysis that follows is on the monthly data unless stated otherwise.
From inspection, there is substantial agreement over the years 1997 to 2008. This can be statistically measured through correlations. This is a measure of how closely related the series may be. A value of 0 implies independent series while a value of 1 implies complete agreement. The correlation in turn indicates the degree of commonality in the comparison.
This is remarkable agreement given the two very different techniques used.
It is important to note that the two satellite analysis groups draw measurements from the same satellites. So the differences in temperatures are a result of analysis procedures that are not simple. In fact corrections to the data have been the subject of exchanges between the two groups.
The ground based measurements also have a common data base but it is clear and acknowledged that the two groups have different analysis procedures. While the satellite analysis procedures have converged to reduce their differences over the last thirty years, this has not been the case for the ground based procedures.
It is also clear looking at the measurements that there are substantial short-term, say less than 2 years, variations over the period 1997 to 2009. In fact, while the overall monthly variations show a scatter with standard deviation of 0.20C, the month to month variations are 0.10C. This is a measure of features that are clear in the data. The short run sequences of temperature movement are a reflection of variability in the atmosphere from events such as El Ninos (1997-98) and La Ninas.
Looking for a simple trend by fitting curves through a highly variable series is both a problem and a courageous exercise. The results on an annual rather than a monthly basis are given in the third table. The problem of dealing with real short term variations was resolved by ignoring them. 
So for twelve years there has been a rise 0.10C with a 140% error, in other words, no significant measureable temperature rise. You can play with the data. If you omit 1998 then you can double the change. But 1998 was an El Nino year followed in 1999 by a La Nina. If we omit both years then the results are unchanged.
However the lesson from this is to look at the detail.
There is so much variability within the 12 year period that seeking a trend that might raise the temperature by 20C over 100 years would not be detectable. On the other hand there are clearly fluctuations on a monthly and yearly scale that will have nothing to do with the predicted effects of anthropogenic CO2.
The twelve year temperature changes from the data of the four analysis centres reveal some possible differences. Since there is a high degree of commonality amongst the results, any differences may be systematic. Both the GISS and Hadley series show a larger temperature increase then the satellite measurements. This may be due to urban heat island effects.
Finally, if you are looking for temperature increases from CO2 in the atmosphere, then you should choose the satellite approach of measuring temperatures in the atmosphere!
Short term, less than thirty years, temperature series are not the place to seek evidence of human induced global warming.
**************************
Tom Quirk lives in Melbourne, Australia.
To read more from Dr Quirk click here http://jennifermarohasy.com/blog/author/tom-quirk/
The photograph is from Anthony Watt’s website that details his program of photographically surveying every one of the 1221 USHCN weather stations in the USA which are used as a “high quality network” to determine near surface temperature trends in the USA, read more here http://wattsupwiththat.com/test/
Smokey said
“Concerning cherry-picking, you’re one of the true world leaders in that regard. When have you ever posted anything but what fits your AGW agenda? You need to read Feynman on what makes a good scientist:”
Smokey, please read and comment on my 14 15 19 when I suggest that Joel, Mary or RW be invited to put a guest article here if Anthony was willing.
It would be interesting to read their viewpoint as a complete narrative that we could critique, rather than just read a series of comments from them.
Tonyb
Joel
I said
“Are you seriously saying a group of objective authors, seeking to present a well balanced argument, found only around 15/20% of the cooling papers, when statistically it should have been at least double or triple that number? In doing that is it really correct to say that they are presenting ‘a persuasive and well-supported arguement?”
I was asking you to comment on the statistics taken at the time from a poll of scientists that suggests there are a lot more global cooling stories out there than have been found, and that those doing the finding were not that motivated to look that hard.
Tonyb
Can we PLEASE be done with peer review? I have been there done that. I know the score. Number of citations matter, funding matters, and “I’ll scratch your back, if you scratch mine” IS the tapestry of getting papers into journals. If, as part of a research center, you have tried to, as a card carrying researcher, get your paper published in any refereed journal, you have insight. The rest of the comments placing peer review on a pedestal are armchair quarterbacking and terribly naive. The true researchers tend to be singular voices crying in the wilderness and are paid little heed till the autumn of life is upon them.
Right at this very moment in Australia (Canberra) is a Senate committee hearing on Carbon Capture(the Senate here is modelled on the US Senate).I really makes my blood boil,as the Public Service is getting down to procedure with the assumption that the science is settled. The committee is stacked with pro-warmers and of course the PS has to toe the line. Our independent Senator Barnaby Joyce just got hot under the collar trying to get an extension of time to press his alternate viewpoint and, guess what ! a coffee break was called. I have been on many committees like this and I am familiar with this tactic.
It is early in the day,stay tuned.
Our articulate climate adviser, economist Professor Garnaut has just confirmed that whether or not Australia has an emission trading scheme,our C02 output will make no difference to the world’s C02 level ‘but politically it will make a big difference’.That is what the game is all about.
Bankruptcy through symbolism.
TonyB (17:12:57),
Yes, I would love to read a proper submission by any advocate of the CO2=AGW=runaway global warming hypothesis [which, if shown to be true, is the only legitimate reason to spend enormous amounts of taxpayer capital to combat].
The problem has always been that the AGW people prefer to criticize from the sidelines. Like Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, Monbiot, Pachauri, Suzuki and the IPCC, they will not stand up and take a stated position, and then debate it and defend it from being torn down and falsified by skeptics — which is precisely the duty of skeptics, according to the scientific method.
Well known proponents of AGW, like those named above, hide out from debates held in front of a public audience in a moderated, televised and neutral public venue such as a major university.
The couple of such debates that have been held were all won by the skeptics’ side. Furthermore, the skeptics went into the debates facing an audience that was initially predisposed to agree with AGW [Recall that Gavin Schmidt blamed his debate loss on the fact that Christopher Monckton is taller than him — even though the debate was held with everyone seated.]
So yes, I would certainly like to see Joel or Mary Hinge or RW or Flanagan or any other proponent of the “CO2 will cause runaway global warming” hypothesis write an article, then defend it from falsification. But I’m not holding my CO2-saturated breath.
John M. says:
I don’t know if scientists wrote in or not but I know that Stephen Schneider, who is the scientist most often accused of jumping from global cooling to global warming, wrote a scathing book review of the “pro-cooling” book “The Weather Conspiracy” in 1977 in Nature (http://stephenschneider.stanford.edu/Publications/PDF_Papers/Schneider1977.pdf), saying in part:
John M. says:
Actually, there is some discussion of that in the Peterson et al. paper and there has been plenty of discussion by scientists of problems even with the modern journalism and also of some scientist’s own roles in this…In fact, some of this discussion has been over at RealClimate. (In particular, they were critical of the overemphasis in the press releases and subsequent press coverage of the climateprediction.net study on the most extreme high end climate sensitivities that they got in some of their runs.)
Pamela Gray says:
I have published ~30 peer-reviewed papers and have refereed over 80 papers, so I am not “armchair quarterbacking”. And, I don’t claim that peer-review is perfect (hell…I couldn’t possibly believe that after Gerlich and Tscheuschner got their screed published in a somewhat obscure but not entirely unrespectable physics journal). I merely think that it is a good filter for reducing the signal-to-noise ratio. (And, yes, there were a few cases where I got something rejected from a peer reviewed journal…and at least one where I think the rejection was unfair…but again the fact that the process is not 100% perfect in keeping junk out or letting good stuff in does not mean that it is useless.)
And, frankly, for every one person who is an unrecognized genius ahead of his time, there are about 1000 who are just plain crackpots. It amuses me when some of the people seem to believe that they might be the next Galileo or Wegener or Einstein or whoever (and, frankly, some of these comparisons apparently also involve somewhat of a misreading of history).
TonyB says:
Well, even if you are correct, that hardly proves your point of a consensus on cooling. You seem to want to argue that because one poll found a pretty even split while Peterson et al’s numbers of peer-reviewed papers were more lopsided in the global warming direction then perhaps the truth is that things were really lopsided in the global cooling direction?!?!
There are lots of reasons why the poll results could be somewhat different. For example, the poll might have been taken of a broader community of scientists in climate or related fields than those actually publishing in the peer-reviewed journals on the subject. The poll only captured a particular point in time while the survey of the peer-reviewed journals effectively integrated over a longer period. Furthermore, I think the 15-20% number you quote is only those that they categorized as “global cooling”; there were also a bunch that were categorized as neutral.
George E. Smith says:
No…It is not that simple. The CO2 and the water vapor absorb different wavelengths. Yes, there are some overlaps but there are also places where CO2 absorbs significantly where water vapor does not. The radiative transfer calculations have been done and I have seen no serious challenges to them. Both Roy Spencer and Richard Lindzen agree that the CO2 radiative forcing is somewhere around 4 W/m^2. The remaining point of contention is just in regards to feedbacks.
Well, over the history of the earth, there have been supervolcanoes, asteroid strikes, major extinctions and other catastrophes. Compared to that, a few terrorists flying a few planes into buildings is hardly something to get yourself concerned about, is it? Come on George, you can be more logical than this! The point is that we are changing the climate (and the ocean chemistry) at rates that are quite rapid…and these will likely have serious affects both on human civilization and on ecosystems that are already stressed by other things such as pollution, over-fishing, and habitat fragmentation. There are a wide range of levels of CO2 (and sea levels) that are compatible with life of some sort on this planet but the level that we and the other species are currently adapted to is the one that has been maintained pretty constantly for about ten thousand years…and we have already taken CO2 to levels not seen in 750,000 years and likely not seen in many millions of years.
Do you really believe that climate scientists don’t include clouds in the models? If you do, you know way less about the models than I think you do.
And, by the way, the projections for future temperature rises are not just based on the computer models that represent our best understanding of the climate system. They are based on the basic physics of the greenhouse effect and some of the most basic feedbacks involving water vapor and ice- albedo. And, they are based on looking at how the climate system has responded to past perturbations, ranging from the ice age – interglacial cycles to the eruption of Mt Pinatubo.
As for talk about the sky falling, I noticed how all of a sudden cutting back on CO2 emissions means “bringing the whole of civilisation to a crashing halt.” What is that prediction based on? I have to concede that it isn’t based on modeling because, despite the problems with economics modeling (which are more severe than climate modeling), I don’t think there is any modeling that shows that. It is based on absolutely no evidence whatsoever, which I suppose makes it superior in your view?
Please note that the actual “per-person/per year” cost of the democrat/socailist/liberal/AGW pro-tax legislation would be $3800.00 dollars/year/person.
Not 800.00.
Not 2100.00
The $2100.00 “cost” was based on an “assumed” pro-AGW cap-and-tax “benefit” (carefully/cleverly not named or identified) of some unknown type of 1700.00 per year, from a baseline of 3600.00. More conservative estimates have been as much as 4800.00 or more.
Note that Pelosi’s (democrat socialist/liberal leader of the US House) oil and energy policies of 2007 and 2008 led directly to the 4.00 and 5.00 dollar per gallon cost of energy that created today’s recession, and of course, the resulting November 2008 election of another socialist/liberal/democrat.
And THOSE oil and energy policies were directed INTENDED TO RAISE PRICESas the liberals focused on global warming to justify their anti-energy policies. Thus, the assumed 3800.00 cost per person are ignoring the overall economic depression as a household loses 10,000.00 to 15,000 of spending money each year.
For nothing.
There is certainly a lot of cherry-picking going on.
Look at this statement for instance.
///No data set shows a significant measurable rise in global temperature over the twelve year period since 1997.///
Now can anyone explain to me why a twelve year period was chosen other than because it gave an answer that tried to prove a biased viewpoint?
Why not ten years? Why not twenty years? Why twelve? Well the only answer is because of the exceptionally hot year of 1998, which is always chosen by disingenuous people to make it look like warming ended after 1998. But nearly every year (if not every one) after 1997 has been warmer than the average for the previous 100 years. Why was this not mentioned? Why hide the truth if your case is valid?
And note I said 100 hundred years – not 97 or 99 or 101.
Mike Bryant (17:02:10) :
I guess that since climate is so much simpler than medicine, climatologists can project outcomes a hundred years hence with no problem. Maybe climatologists should be governed by a state board that collects license fees and makes them take continuing education. Then the climatologists could stay up to date just like cosmetologists do
————
Yep. Since I’ve become interested in this AGW caper of late, and have been interested in the human genetics and biochemistry of asthma and COPD/emphysema for well over a decade, I was actually struck (from my own personal observations) that the complexities might be within the same order of magnitude, at least.
So, to try to predict where the treatment of respiratory disease will be in 100 years, would be pretty silly. 10 years would be a stretch.
Most top scientists I know in my field are one or two years ahead of the published data, In AGW “research”, I get the impression that the so-called scientists have gotten so comfortable with the media bailing them out that they’re not even up on current data. They know the current data is there but, like cockroaches scurrying under the fridge, they don’t want to know.
I have yet to see a paper showing the relationship between current sea ice levels in Antarctica and carbon dioxide levels. How difficult is that for a world leader in the field ?? Or is “Ooooh, all the heat disappeared through the man-made ozone hole” it ?? Is that the world-leading lame theory ??
Or the other one “We can prove that it’s actually warming due to carbon dioxide, despite the fact that it’s cooling”. Steig et al, Nature, 2009. See that pretty red color on the front cover. It must be true.
This is garbage, and real scientists know it.
philincalifornia (14:45:56) :
Your comparison of medical science and climate science is apt. Both deal with complex systems which are generally poorly understood and overall deal with very large amounts of money. But there is an important difference. The press and the public know perfectly well that a scientifc spokesman for a multinational capitalist pharmaceutical company is probably lying for money. It hasn’t dawned on the public that a climate scientist is in much the same position, except that more money is at stake and their scientific case is much weaker. The press in the main already know that but have their own agenda,
Out of curiosity, where is this magic money that climate scientists are cashing in on? Yes, people like Gore and Hansen are probably doing rather well for themselves, but don’t you think that people like the twin nemeses Mann and Steig could make a heckuva lot more money if they put the same training and zeal into a typical industry job?
oms
No, because in private industry (except public relations) they would be fired for work which would not stand up to scrutiny.
Joel
Well thanks for agreeing me with on your last post. You said
“Well, you are correct…”
….Of course you didnt say that, I cherry picked the words. You actually said:
“Well, even if you are correct”
We all sometimes cherry pick to make up our case in major or minor ways. In the case of supposed AGW (and other serious matters) the stakes are way too high to allow that. What I am saying is that one would reasonably expect that judging by the statistics there would be more cooling papers found than have been.
That they weren’t may be because of poor archiving, lack of industry in writing papers by cooling scientists or lots of other perfectly valid reasons including the reasons you give-perhaps the evidence wasn’t there in the first place. However a major reason for the statistically dubious bias in numbers could be that the non objective people looking for evidence were looking much harder in one direction than another.
The only way it can be proven either way is for people with a somewhat more objective view of events to take a properly resourced look, or ideally use people from either side which would automatically filter and peer review the results.
Tonyb
But nearly every year (if not every one) after 1997 has been warmer than the average for the previous 100 years. Why was this not mentioned? Why hide the truth if your case is valid?
But you could have said a similar thing in 1945 about 1936, say. That is the nature of warming and cooling periods, i.e. you tend to get clusters of warmer/cooler years.
Anthony
You might have seen that I am suggesting that one of our more informed and serious minded warmists such as Joel, Mary Hinge or RW be invited to do a guest article here. My own choice would be on how doubling co2 causes a rise of up to 6.2C without the use of magic
Smokey commented
TonyB (17:12:57),
Yes, I would love to read a proper submission by any advocate of the CO2=AGW=runaway global warming hypothesis [which, if shown to be true, is the only legitimate reason to spend enormous amounts of taxpayer capital to combat]. ”
We only see fragmented posts from any of them interspersed with other comments from other posters- frequently on unrelated subjects. Consequently it would be interesting to see a properly constructed thoughtful article with a proper narrative and references that would enable the rest of us to understand their version of science and enable us to do a critique of them, instead of the other way round.
I think this is the only blog on the internet where such an event could happen and where both sides would treat each other with reasonable respect.
Tonyb
Tony B: “It is certainly untrue to rewrite history and claim global cooling was a myth.”
Hi Tony. Just happened to be passing by. In reply to your contention above I’ll do some recycling myself: “I didn’t say that “global cooling was a myth”. The report I referred to is headed: “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus”.
The important word is “consensus”. I am not arguing that the 1970s claim of global cooling is a myth; rather that the claim of a global cooling consensus among scientists back then is a myth.
The Connolly paper argues that at the time scientific views on cooling/warming were still fluid, and further that cooling papers were in the minority. Maybe they’re wrong, but the evidence they cite of the numbers of cooling versus warming papers supports their argument.
Brendan H
I’m not sure you saw all the previous recycling of this thread in which I posted our comments from several months ago-see, I do hang on your every word 🙂
The summary is as I gave it to Joel. It sums up that on the figures you gave it would reasonably be expected that there are more cooling papers out there to be found but those doing the searching had no reason to look that hard. But we all placed lots of caveats on it-they may or may not be out there.
I am quite happy to do a joint research study with you if you can find some serious funding that will keep us going for a few years 🙂
All the best
Tonyb
Robert A Cook PE:
It is hard to note when you have left out any cite to peer-reviewed literature that states that, let alone evidence that this number is representative of what such studies find. Apparently, many people who call themselves “skeptics” are willing to believe any economic “sky-is-falling” claims on the basis of no evidence whatsoever.
There is a reason why in science the debate occurs in the peer-reviewed literature and not before the general public. In fact, “evolution skeptics” also do quite well in public debates. In a battle between the definitiveness and simplicity of good public relations and the complexity and uncertainty of good science, public relations will tend to win over science.
Joel Shore:
“…we have already taken CO2 to levels not seen in 750,000 years and likely not seen in many millions of years.”
Yet the planet continues to cool: click
Rising CO2 levels can be disregarded as a significant source of warming. The planet is telling us quite clearly that, with regard to temperature, CO2 doesn’t matter; it’s an effect, not a cause.
TonyB is right: Joel should write an article for posting here. Let’s see if the CO2=AGW/runaway global warming hypothesis can withstand scrutiny. I fully support such an article, and although I can not speak for Anthony, I suspect that he would be willing to post a well written article.
Skeptics post articles here almost every day. Why are the warmists so afraid to take a stand? Always taking pot shots from the sidelines gets tiresome, even when the pot shots are consistently refuted.
If they think they’ve got a solid case, they should defend their runaway global warming position. Maybe that’s why they don’t take a stand.
As far as I know, Anthony has had an open invitation here for a long time for anyone who wants to post their perspective. I imagine it would need to be well thought out and written, but I don’t think that would be a problem for Joel.
TonyB, Smokey, and Jeff: Thanks. I will give your suggestion some thought.
There are a few things that make me hesitant though. One is that I don’t see that I have much to add to the expositions that are already out there, particularly at the level that can be effectively summarized in one or a few posts. There is a reason why the IPCC reports run thousands of pages (with summaries that are shorter but still not that short). That is why I find it most useful to comment on things people say here that I believe are misunderstanding the consensus AGW scientific viewpoint. It is much easier to comment on specific things that I believe are mistakes or misunderstandings than write something that tries to anticipate all of them in advance.
A second point is that it is a considerable time commitment, not only the initial post but also the follow-up discussion. (Since the audience here is overwhelmingly “skeptics”, posts by “skeptics” do get met with some questions and challenges but a lot of the comments are simply congratulatory or agreeing with the original post. That is not likely to be the case with a post by someone like myself. Heck, even a single comment that I make here often provokes such a deluge of responses which I then feel compelled to respond to that I seem to wear out my welcome with people like Smokey and Anthony.)
“”” Joel Shore (12:07:13) :
TonyB, Smokey, and Jeff: Thanks. I will give your suggestion some thought.
There are a few things that make me hesitant though. One is that I don’t see that I have much to add to the expositions that are already out there, particularly at the level that can be effectively summarized in one or a few posts. There is a reason why the IPCC reports run thousands of pages (with summaries that are shorter but still not that short). That is why I find it most useful to comment on things people say here that I believe are misunderstanding the consensus AGW scientific viewpoint. “””
Well there’s an Oxymoron if I ever saw one:- “the concensus AGW scientific viewpoint ”
I thought the scientific viewpoint was about proof; not concensus. Popularity contests are run by concensus, not scientific debates.
And you are obviously not aware of the very large body of scientific declaration of various levels of skepticism of the IPCC AGW viewpoint, including from many formerly part of the IPCCpanels.
There clearly is no concensus that “the science is settled”; which goes along with the absence of any scientific observations linking CO2 to subsequent global temperature rise.
The IPCC AGW viewpoint is at the present time sustained only by computer models, and models that don’t even model what the earth itself is modelling including cloud variations.