When I served on the committee that resulted in the CCSP (2006) report on reconciling the surface and tropospheric temperature trends, one of the issues I attempted to raise was a warm bias in the construction of long term surface temperature trends when near surface land minimum temperatures (and maximum temperatures when the atmospheric boundary layer remained stably stratified all day, such as in the high latitude winter) were used. This error will occur even for pristine observing sites. Tom Karl and his close associates suppressed this perspective as I document in
Pielke Sr., Roger A., 2005: Public Comment on CCSP Report “Temperature Trends in the Lower Atmosphere: Steps for Understanding and Reconciling Differences“. 88 pp including appendices.
As a result of the poor treatment by Karl as Editor of the CCSP (2006) report, I decided to invesitgate this issue, and others, in a set of peer reviewed papers with colleagues which include
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007: Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
Pielke Sr., R.A., and T. Matsui, 2005: Should light wind and windy nights have the same temperature trends at individual levels even if the boundary layer averaged heat content change is the same?Geophys. Res. Letts., 32, No. 21, L21813, 10.1029/2005GL024407.
Lin, X., R.A. Pielke Sr., K.G. Hubbard, K.C. Crawford, M. A. Shafer, and T. Matsui, 2007:An examination of 1997-2007 surface layer temperature trends at two heights in Oklahoma. Geophys. Res. Letts., 34, L24705, doi:10.1029/2007GL031652.
Fall, S., D. Niyogi, A. Gluhovsky, R. A. Pielke Sr., E. Kalnay, and G. Rochon, 2009: Impacts of land use land cover on temperature trends over the continental United States: Assessment using the North American Regional Reanalysis.Int. J. Climatol., accepted
We now have a new paper accepted which documents further a warm bias in the use of multi-decadal global surface temperature trends to assess global warming.
It is
Klotzbach, P.J., R.A. Pielke Sr., R.A. Pielke Jr., J.R. Christy, and R.T. McNider, 2009: An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere. J. Geophys. Res., in press.
Our paper is also effectively discussed in my son’s weblog
Evidence that Global Temperature Trends Have Been Overstated
The abstract of the Klotzbach et al (2009) paper reads
“This paper investigates surface and satellite temperature trends over the period from 1979-2008. Surface temperature datasets from the National Climate Data Center and the Hadley Center show larger trends over the 30-year period than the lower-tropospheric data from the University of Alabama-Huntsville and Remote Sensing Systems datasets. The differences between trends observed in the surface and lower tropospheric satellite datasets are statistically significant in most comparisons, with much greater differences over land areas than over ocean areas. These findings strongly suggest that there remain important inconsistencies between surface and satellite records.”
We tested the following two hypotheses:
1. If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends, then there should not be an increasing divergence with time between the tropospheric and surface temperature anomalies [Karl et al., 2006]. The difference between lower troposphere and surface anomalies should not be greater over land areas.
2. If there is no warm bias in the surface temperature trends then the divergence should not be larger for both maximum and minimum temperatures at high latitude land locations in the winter.
Both were falsified.
The paper has the following text
“We find that there have, in general, been larger linear trends in surface temperature datasets such as the NCDC and HadCRUTv3 surface datasets when compared with the UAH and RSS lower tropospheric datasets, especially over land areas. This variation in trends is also confirmed by the larger temperature anomalies that have been reported for near surface air temperatures (e.g., Zorita et al., 2008; Chase et al., 2006; 2008, Connolley, 2008). The differences between surface and satellite datasets tend to be largest over land areas, indicating that there may still be some contamination due to various aspects of land surface change, atmospheric aerosols and the tendency of shallow boundary layers to warm at a greater rate [Lin et al., 2007; Esau, 2008; Christy et al., 2009]. Trends in minimum temperatures in northern polar areas are statistically significantly greater than the trends in maximum temperatures over northern polar areas during the boreal winter months.
We conclude that the fact that trends in thermometer-estimated surface warming over land areas have been larger than trends in the lower troposphere estimated from satellites and radiosondes is most parsimoniously explained by the first possible explanation offered by Santer et al. [2000]. Specifically, the characteristics of the divergence across the datasets are strongly suggestive that it is an artifact resulting from the data quality of the surface, satellite and/or radiosonde observations. These findings indicate that the reconciliation of differences between surface and satellite datasets [Karl et al., 2006] has not yet occurred, and we have offered a suggested reason for the continuing lack of reconciliation.”
What our study shows is that maps prepared by NCDC, as given below, are biased presentations of the surface temperature anomalies.
BIASED NCDC MAP OF SURFACE TEMPERATURE ANOMALIES
where I wrote
Back of the Envelope Estimate of Bias in Minimum Temperature Measurements
To present a preliminary estimate, lets start with the value reported for the recent trend in the global average surface temperature. The 2007 IPCC Report presents a global average surface temperature increase of about 0.2C per decade since 1990 (see their Figure SPM.3). Their trend is derived from the average of the maximum and minimum surface temperatures; i.e.,
T(average) = [T(max) + T(min)]/2.
“From our papers (Pielke and Matsui 2005 and Lin et al. 2007), a conservative estimate of the warm bias resulting from measuring the temperature near the ground is around 0.21 C per decade (with the nightime T(min) contributing a large part of this bias) . Since land covers about 29% of the Earth’s surface (see), the warm bias due to this influence explains about 30% of the IPCC estimate of global warming. In other words, consideration of the bias in temperature would reduce the IPCC trend to about 0.14 degrees C per decade, still a warming, but not as large as indicated by the IPCC.
This is likely an underestimate, of course, as the value is not weighted for the larger bias that must occur at higher latitudes in the winter when the boundary layer is stably stratified most of the time even in the “daytime” . Moreover, the warm bias over land in the high latitudes in the winter will be even larger than at lower latitudes, as the nightime surface layer of the atmosphere is typically more stably stratified than at lower latitudes, and this magnifies the bias in the assessment of temperature trends using surface and near surface measurements. [not coincidently, this is also where the largest warming is claimed; e.g., see the map on Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth’s weblog].
Land is also a higher fraction of the Earth’s surface at middle and higher latitudes in the northern hemisphere and at the highest latitudes in the southern hemisphere (see).”
Our new paper Klotzbach et al (2009) provides evidence of the significant error in the global surface temperature trend analyses of NCDC, and well of other centers such as GISS and CRU, due to the sampling of temperatures at just one level near the surface. It is also important to recognize that this is just one error of a number that are in the NCDC, GISS and CRU data sets, as we have summarized in our paper
Pielke Sr., R.A., C. Davey, D. Niyogi, S. Fall, J. Steinweg-Woods, K. Hubbard, X. Lin, M. Cai, Y.-K. Lim, H. Li, J. Nielsen-Gammon, K. Gallo, R. Hale, R. Mahmood, S. Foster, R.T. McNider, and P. Blanken, 2007:Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 112, D24S08, doi:10.1029/2006JD008229.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Larry
It seems the BBC deliberately juxtaposed two reports to make it appear the Antarctic glacier was accelerating due to climate warming. The reporter- who had been to the area five years ago- must have known of the volcanic history AND seen the scientific report which did not even mention climate change.
Any Brits here want to complain to the BBC about this wilful manipulation of facts? If so I will lay out the sequence of events here in a more ordered fashion.
Tonyb
Allan M R MacRae (08:24:01) :
I am not questioning whether temperature has fluctuated over this period; rather I’m questioning whether Earth was actually significantly warmer in circa 2009 than circa 1900.
Since TSI [and solar activity in general] is now [and for the past decade] where it was ~110 years ago, then under the assumption that solar activity has anything to do with the climate one might surmise that there should be no difference in the part that is caused by the Sun. By the same token the rise in sea-level http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/300px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png cannot have been due to the Sun either. If the temperature now is no different than in 1900 then there is an explanation lacking for the rise of sea-level. Perhaps that didn’t rise either….
Leif Svalgaard (10:21:24) : said
” By the same token the rise in sea-level http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0f/Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png/300px-Recent_Sea_Level_Rise.png cannot have been due to the Sun either. If the temperature now is no different than in 1900 then there is an explanation lacking for the rise of sea-level. Perhaps that didn’t rise either….
I work with sea levels. There are numerous factors for changes and the base line of AD1700 (IPCC) uses heavily interpolated data from three incomplete records in Northern Europe. The 23 Records (as shown in your graph) are by no means representative or necessarily meaningful. Like temperatures, over a long period of time sea level rises and falls and to be consistent (like temperatures) needs to be always drawn from the same stations-assuming they haven’t been ‘polluted’ by local factors.
It is difficult to see any meaningful increase in sea levels (in many places) if you go back to 1850. Prof Morner has a pretty good handle on the reality and I am sure you are familiar with his work
tonyb
TonyB (12:15:16) :
It is difficult to see any meaningful increase in sea levels (in many places) if you go back to 1850.
You don’t really have to, the satellite data for the past few decades show the same order of magnitude trend. [or twice as large if memory serves…]. Actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Rising_Sea_Level.jpg
: Leif Svalgaard (12:36:23) said
“TonyB (12:15:16) :
It is difficult to see any meaningful increase in sea levels (in many places) if you go back to 1850.
You don’t really have to, the satellite data for the past few decades show the same order of magnitude trend. [or twice as large if memory serves…]. Actually: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Rising_Sea_Level.jpg ”
Sorry, obviously my post was not well phrased. Sea levels are similar to the ones appertaining in 1850 (in many places and taking like for like) Levels oscillate and as satellite data is very recent it can not show this long term variation. Satellites also have a high margin of error-it is very difficult to measure a constantly moving target!
I use 1850 as an example because a lot of Hadley data starts from then so it is useful to have a consistent base line. As you know their temperature records from then are based on only some 20 or so stations worldwide, so in answer to the question that Allan posed that you were replying to-Yes, the Earth was probably warmer in 2009 than in 1850. However, that was during the final burst of the LIA. Whether it was warmer than say the early 1800’s, the 1780’s or the early 1700’s is much more doubtful and it certainly was not warmer than the MWP.
tonyb
TonyB (13:00:09) :
It is difficult to see any meaningful increase in sea levels
I think that there is reasonable agreement that the century rise is of the order of 20 cm. Whether it is 15 or 25 doesn’t matter. My argument is actually a bit more subtle:
Some people say that solar activity is the main driver of climate. since solar activity the last decade has been what it was 1890-1900, temperatures in 1901 and 2009 should have been similar on that argument.
By the same argument if temperature is the main driver of sea-level then the SL rise since 1900 should also be near zero, yet it is something like 20 cm.
So, there is a flaw somewhere. If we accept the SL-rise then we cannot accept that T did not rise, hence the conclusion that T os driven by the Sun is wrong. To maintain that the Sun is the driver, we must accept that the T didn’t rise and that SL didn’t rise. That will go beyond that most people would accept.
At typical ploy is to invoke some long delays that may be different from time to time and from ocean to air such that they just give any desired result when invoked.
Leif Svalgard
I am an agnostic on solar activity and read your excellent posts on this subject with great interest.
I think that ocean heights oscillate in a number of unrelated cycles and for a variety of reasons. Personally, I think our concept of a global sea level is as flawed as the idea of a global temperature, and do not believe the IPCC version of events having traced the evolution of the historic reconstruction of the tide gauges they use.
In principle your logic is impeccable, in practice I don’t think our data allows us to get a definitive answer over the long-rather than short-term
Tonyb
TonyB (14:49:15) :
In principle your logic is impeccable, in practice I don’t think our data allows us to get a definitive answer over the long-rather than short-term
That is a problem for all the people that claim this or that. I make no such claims so have no problem with not knowing.
Leif said:
Some people say that solar activity is the main driver of climate. since solar activity the last decade has been what it was 1890-1900, temperatures in 1901 and 2009 should have been similar on that argument.
By the same argument if temperature is the main driver of sea-level then the SL rise since 1900 should also be near zero, yet it is something like 20 cm.
Thank you Leif and Tony for your comments. I hope others will comment as well.
Leif, I am not sure that I find your logic as quoted herein “impeccable”.
Forgive me, but here is one possible peck:
It is reasonable to assume that there is a significant time delay between global temperature change and sea level change. So temperatures could be the same at two differnt times, but it could take many more decades for sea level to reach its new “equilibrium”.
Back to my question – was Earth significantly warmer circa 2009 than circa 1900? For those who answer yes or no, please provide your evidence.
Leif Svalgaard (16:08:53) : said
“TonyB (14:49:15) :
In principle your logic is impeccable, in practice I don’t think our data allows us to get a definitive answer over the long-rather than short-term
That is a problem for all the people that claim this or that. I make no such claims so have no problem with not knowing.”
Leif
I really admire people who recognise that they dont know everything. Unfortunately climate science is populated at present with people that believe they know the answer to everry question even if they patently don’t.
Tonyb
Alan,
I think it is warmer c.2009 than c.1900 and this is evidenced by glacial retreat, the milder winters, and the polewards migration of species. For examples I offer the discovery of the bronze age ‘ice man’ in the Austrian Tyrol, the lack of much decent sledging weather in my home town in the last 20 years, and the appearance of certain types of Gatekeeper Butterflies in Northern England. I could also add the earlier flowering of various species of plants and trees, and the introduction of warmth loving varieties of food crops to southern England from abroad. I think these natural indicators tell us about longer term climate change more accurately than massaged figures do.
I’d also like Leif to tell us what evidence he has that there is a linear relationship between the small changes in TSI he believes in and temperature on Earth. And getting a bit more technical, what evidence he has that the changes in the earth’s magnetic field have a linear effect on the magnetic relationship between Solar and terrestrial magnetic activity he bases his TSI reconstruction on.
TonyB (01:49:35) :
“I really admire people who recognise that they dont know everything. Unfortunately climate science is populated at present with people that believe they know the answer to everry question even if they patently don’t.”
Absolutely! Well said.
In my job as a wellsite geologist I am often asked my opinion of what is happening during drilling. The answers I give can and often do have a real time impact on multi-million dollar decisions. I have no problem in saying on occasion that I don’t know what is happening in the wells we are drilling. However when I do say that I know what is going on, the guys who employ me have more confidence in me because they know I don’t BS them.
Now, Leif, shall I compare thee to a ‘climate scientist’?…
“Unfortunately climate science is populated at present with people that believe they know the answer to everry question even if they patently don’t.”
They are priests who offer certainty to those of the faith.
Real scientists, like Leif, offer explanation.
I don’t think Leif’s logic holds water 🙂 at all.
I’ll take his word that solar activity in the past decade might have been similar to or even the same as the period 1890 to 1900.
That does not imply that current ocean energy content should be the same as back then.
It is not a ‘ploy’ to invoke time lags or other factors as a possible explanation. It is a genuine search for the causes and the science behind the observed phenomenon that warming of both air and ocean has occurred in the intervening period.
Leif is suggesting that the periods 1890 to 1900 and the past ten years should each be plucked out of their respective positions at different points in a changing continuum and compared as though that continuum did not exist.
Not clever, not scientific, just silly.
Quite simply the oceans are now at a higher level of energy content after decades of active solar cycles and it will take time for the curve to get back to that of 100 years ago and only then if solar activity does continue to decline.
I do find this determination to deny any solar influence on the oceans over the centuries as somewhat suspicious. After all it may just be that the system is very sensitive to tiny solar changes. Whenever I have raised that point Leif has ignored it.
Leif said:
“Some people say that solar activity is the main driver of climate. since solar activity the last decade has been what it was 1890-1900, temperatures in 1901 and 2009 should have been similar on that argument.
By the same argument if temperature is the main driver of sea-level then the SL rise since 1900 should also be near zero, yet it is something like 20 cm.”
It’s best not to conflate temperature with climate as Leif has done.
Most people who support a solar influence on climate (or rather temperature) would say that the level of solar activity is the source of the energy in the system that drives climate (temperature). They would not usually say that it directly drives climate (temperature).
The oceanic phase shifts demonstrate that the oceans more directly drive climate (temperature) but there are those who believe (unlike me) that the composition of the air or the amounts of clouds drive the climate (temperature).
The total energy in the system clearly changes over enough time and that energy must come from the sun initially. What happens after it arrives from the sun is at the heart of the puzzle.
As regards sea level and total ocean energy content that has to be a result of a constant interplay between solar energy getting into the oceans and oceans releasing that energy at variable rates to the air.
Pointing out a simple similarity or even exact match between two ten year periods a century apart tells us precisely nothing.
FWIW I think Nasif is entirely correct in distinguishing between ocean heat content and ocean energy content.
Climate is a matter of energy in the air as measured by the temperature of the air and also a matter of the differing rates at which energy is received by the air from the oceans and at which the energy in the air is transferred to space.
Heat is not a helpful term in this context and has caused much confusion.
The heat contained in the oceans is an irrelevance if the energy behind it is not transferred to the air at a consistent rate and we can see from the oceanic phase shifts that it is not.
Allan
I will give you a satirically scientific answer, a scientfic answer and some estimates based on both.
Firstly I think Tallbloke with his anecdote about sledging illustrates the problem, which is that we all tend to think of climate based on our own experiences. What about if we looked at the climate throughout the lifetime of someone aged 70? This is the sartirical scientific article-sorry to those who have seen it before;
“Burn the research
Being at a loose end I set my dedicated team of climate researchers here in the UK on the task of graphing Hadley CET temperatures to 1660, so we could demonstrate to the misinformed the realities of indisputable catastrophic climate change, and get our large budgets increased.
Unfortunately the ‘adjustments and smoothing interpolator’ was away on holiday and the ‘trend line coordinator’ was away at a wedding, so I must apologise that the data shown below is unadjusted and looks nowhere near as pretty and nicely ordered as we have been used to.
http://cadenzapress.co.uk/download/beck_mencken_hadley.jpg
One of our staff is a former actuary and thought she would amuse herself by working systematically through the records back to 1660, to see for herself the alarming warming trend over the centuries-obviously she had seen the Gore film and was wearing the T Shirt
“Catastrophic Climate Change-stop it now! Ask me How!”
Living near the coast she thought about the cycle of the tides, and whilst realising that the climate cycle was different- in as much it is however long we want it to be, and starts from whatever point necessary to maximise our funding- thought it would be fun to use this idea of a regular cycle.
Consequently she based her calculations on a three score year and ten life span as she worked out the average annual mean temperature enjoyed by ‘British Everyman’ through each year of each decade. This assumed he was born at the start of a decade and died the last year of the decade seventy years later. Of course we urged her to call this mythical person ‘everywoman’ but as a woman was likely to live longer, she thought that as an actuary this would only complicate matters, so 70 years it is.
These are her calculations;
Someone born in Britain in 1660 and living to 70- Average annual temp 8.87c
Someone born in 1670 and living to 70 Average annual temp 8.98
1680 9.01
1690 9.05
1700 9.19
1710 9.21
1720 9.17
1730 9.14
1740 9.04
1750 9.03
1760 9.08
1770 9.10
1780 9.07
1790 9.12
1800 9.15
1810 9.13
1820 9.14
1830 9.12
1840 9.10
1850 9.14 (Start of the famously reliable Hadley global temperatures)
1860 9.17
1870 9.21
1880 9.30 Official end of the Little Ice Age
1890 9.39
1900 9.40
1910 9.46
1920 9.497
1930 9.60
1940 9.70 (projected to 2009)
1950 9.76 Extrapolating current trends (our favourite phrase)
1960 9.79 Using advanced modelling techniques to create a robust scenario.
The actuary has a poetic turn of mind and decided to call the people born in the period from 1660 to 1880 as ‘LIA Everyman’ in as much the person lived part or all of their lives during the little ice age. She called those born from 1890 to the present day as ‘UHI Everyman’ She assures me that no adjustments have been made to correct UHI Everyman’s unfair reputation to exaggerate his (or her) temperatures.
It was at this point that the Accountants -who were in auditing our accounts to ensure we were spending our grants wisely- became really interested. They’re at a bit of a loose end as they’re the group who audit the annual EU accounts-they’ve refused to endorse them for 12 years in a row now, and say it’s so easy to spot the fraud that it’s not a full time job anymore! Consequently they hope to get some work with the IPCC as they see them as a rapidly growing enterprise as fond of throwing meaningless and unsubstantiated-some might unkindly say fraudulent –numbers around, as the EU are.
After examination of the data the accountants reluctantly agreed that the temperatures were remarkably consistent, and the increase of a fraction of a degree in mean average temperatures during Everyman’s lifetime over a period of 350 years was so well within natural variability it was difficult to make any useful analogy (other than it was the sort of increase in average warmth that would pass by completely unnoticed if we weren’t looking hard for it). The fractional temperature difference was unlikely to have any effect on Everyman’s choice of clothes, or the day they might attempt to have their first swim of the year in the sea. Wearing approved buoyancy aids of course
The Accountants were particularly intrigued by the fact that the very slight rise in overall temperatures was almost entirely due to the absence of cold winters depressing overall temperatures, rather than hotter summers. At this point the actuary mentioned that warmer winters were good, as statistically, fewer people died.
Someone mused that the modern temperatures seemed rather too close for comfort to those experienced during the LIA, and another murmured as to what the temperature variance would show if we did this exercise for the MWP, or the Roman warm period. I quickly pointed out that it was just a Little Ice age and not the real thing, and that Dr Mann had told us all that the MWP was an outdated concept, and as I had never heard of the Romans they couldn’t exist, and neither could their allegedly warm period.
Another Accountant mentioned that if UHI was stripped out, the already tiny increase in temperature since the Little Ice Age would all but disappear. I reminded them who was paying their bills and to stop that sort of Contrarian talk immediately.
Of course I fired the actuary when she confessed that the almost indistinguishable blue line along the bottom of her original graph represented total man made co2 since 1750. Obviously she was some sort of closet right wing tool of Big Oil out to cause trouble.
I’m undecided whether to turn this report over to our adjustments and smoothing interpolator for remedial work or merely to lose it. Or burn it.”
Allan
Hope you managed to get to the far side and have rejoined me again.
As for your query as to whether it is warmer now than in 1900 it is useful to look at long data bases. None better than these from John Daley gathered from around the world.
http://www.john-daly.com/stations/stations.htm#Greenland,%20Iceland,%20northern%20Norway,%20and%20the%20Arctic%20Ocean
If you exclude UHI, badly sited stations, massage, and accept there are natural trends up and down I would say that there has possibly been a slight warming trend since 1900. If we revert back to the man of 70 figures I think I would say that in our recent recorded instrumental history there are many places in the world that have been warmer than today and many that are cooler than today-in other words the reason for the gradual dropping of the word ‘global warming’ is because that is difficult to substantiate.
I suspect that the 1830’s 1880’s 1770’s and early 1700’s were as warm as today in many places, despite average mean temperatures being dragged down by very cold winters.
Hope this gives some sort of answer
Tonyb
Re Tallbloke
Here are the BOM records (with minor, insignificant in-filling of missing data) from the Bureau of Meteorology for Macquarie Island, between Australia and Antarctica, for my study period 1968-2008. (Don’t worry about the 3 sig figs, that’s a calculation artefact when averaging daily obs. Slope is from Excel LINEST. The study period was chosen because Aust went decimal in 1966 and this aids in removing conversion from degrees F to C from consideration).
Year Tmax Tmin Tav
1968 6.554 3.217 4.885
1969 6.223 2.641 4.432
1970 6.413 2.956 4.685
1971 7.258 3.869 5.563
1972 6.346 2.523 4.435
1973 6.430 2.971 4.700
1974 6.700 3.136 4.918
1975 6.722 3.094 4.908
1976 6.788 2.723 4.755
1977 7.110 3.161 5.135
1978 6.863 3.457 5.160
1979 6.881 3.270 5.076
1980 7.273 3.760 5.516
1981 6.896 3.580 5.238
1982 6.572 2.914 4.743
1983 6.271 2.486 4.378
1984 7.128 3.575 5.351
1985 7.142 3.702 5.422
1986 7.188 3.619 5.404
1987 6.673 3.355 5.014
1988 6.501 2.699 4.600
1989 7.367 3.767 5.567
1990 6.422 2.717 4.569
1991 6.560 2.863 4.711
1992 6.396 3.140 4.768
1993 6.981 3.389 5.185
1994 6.214 2.675 4.445
1995 5.889 2.537 4.213
1996 6.756 3.431 5.094
1997 6.415 3.053 4.734
1998 6.379 2.983 4.681
1999 7.058 3.375 5.216
2000 6.618 3.182 4.900
2001 6.901 3.370 5.136
2002 7.035 3.498 5.266
2003 6.524 2.887 4.706
2004 6.326 2.753 4.539
2005 7.039 3.536 5.288
2006 6.503 2.923 4.713
2007 6.417 3.100 4.759
2008 6.508 3.150 4.829
AVERAGE 6.689 3.147 4.918
SLOPE -0.003 0.000 0.000
The trouble is that there are adequate other Australian remote rural sites that also show essentially no change of slope. If you envisage mechanisms such as cloud for cold, remote Macquarie, then you have to envisage them for tropical Broome. You might even have to invoke a number of special case pleads to explain the zero trend at several stations. To me, it’s simpler to assume that Nature provided essentially no change, but successive adjustment and instrumental changes have produced a pseudo trend. But, I lack adequate coverage to make that conclusion yet.
I’m not a climatologist so my questions are undoubtedly naive. But, I wonder if thermal heating of the ocean from vents on the ocean floor has been measured accurately enough to assess their contribution to “global warming.”
Leif Svalgaard (16:08:53) :
TonyB (14:49:15) :
In principle your logic is impeccable, in practice I don’t think our data allows us to get a definitive answer over the long-rather than short-term
That is a problem for all the people that claim this or that. I make no such claims so have no problem with not knowing.
Yet you make plenty of categorical statements about what can’t be the case, despite having no problem with not knowing. And in many of these cases, there are other effects, which you dismiss is ‘negligible’, ‘tiny’, or ‘second order’, without considering the difference between TSI arriving at the top of the atmosphere, and the modulation of that energy by the many terrestrial systems you wot not of.
Geoff Sherrington (05:36:08) :
To me, it’s simpler to assume that Nature provided essentially no change, but successive adjustment and instrumental changes have produced a pseudo trend. But, I lack adequate coverage to make that conclusion yet.
Hi Geoff, thanks for the data. I think it’s certainly true that the southern hemisphere in general has seen little trend, but large areas in the north have. The warmies dismiss this by saying the seperation of the weather systems have kept more co2 in the north. Sounds like cobblers to me. Still, there is an overall global trend because of this, and although your study doen’t find it, that is as you say, because it is geographically limited to a corner of the southern hemisphere.
I agree the surface data is suspect, so we agree in large measure anyway.
I see that Leif elsewhere did make a point about the issue of climate sensitivity being a non issue because what goes in has to come out eventually.
Thus a small change in solar (or any other) input can only result in a small climate response. Then he contends that solar variations are so tiny that any climate response is insignificant. I consider that to be an error.
I normally use the idea of sensitivity as a measure of speed of response rather than size of response in the way that the climate deals with changes in inputs of any particular kind.
Furthermore different parts of the system have differing sensitivities as regards speed of response.
When gradually increasing or decreasing solar energy into the oceans exceeds or falls short of that released to the air by the oceans it can take centuries for the full extent of the small slow solar changes to become fully reflected in the total energy content of the oceans. In the meantime we do see variations over shorter periods of time as the ENSO cycle and the 30 year oceanic phase changes interact.
It seems that the ocean phase shifts periodically reduce the build up of excess energy and then allow a further build up for a while thus showing a ‘stepped’ pattern to long term warming (or cooling).
When those phase shifts occur, however, the change in the air circulation systems is immediate and we see them move poleward or equatorward within a short time of an oceanic phase shift with regional weather changing at the same time. Note that the shorter term ENSO cycle does partially disguise the main multidecadal phase shifts (at least initially) and modulates the size of the steps which occur during warming and cooling phases quite considerably.
So what we get is a tiny solar variation towards warming or cooling over centuries but during the period that the solar output is slowly changing we get a mixture of large and small, fast and slow climate changes which follow the behaviour of the oceans as they vary in their responses to that solar forcing whether it be towards cooling or towards warming.
So, I contend that the climate which we observe is highly sensitive to tiny solar changes over time and Leif’s suggestion that sensitivity is a non issue is misleading and born of a lack of knowledge of the world outside his specialism.
A little late response to Luke Skywalker: You mention Bodø. I had a look at that the other day: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/cgi-bin/gistemp/gistemp_station.py?id=634011520003&data_set=1&num_neighbors=1
There seems to be an upward trend since 1990. It’s very similar to the trend from 1920 to 1940, but there’s a difference: An explosion in air traffic during the nineties. And I’m pretty sure the station is at the airport (any locals who know?).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
always select raw data from the dropdown list, but still contain adjustments
This reveals some of the story about datasets, which very often are void as one record. In this case it reveals 4 datasets.
There is no metadata so it is impossible to find out much unless it is in say the ncdc database. Two are but only from 2007 and say nothing but did reveal one is at the civilian airport and another a little way from there.
The population is shown as 31,000, Wikipedia says 46,000.
There are two air stations, the other being the largest air force base in Norway. It is unclear whether it is one station or two. (I’ve done a quick google map)
The record looks bad at 1939/40 outbreak of WW2, no surprise. Is probably broken. Plenty of other times it looks dicey.
” Most of Bodø was destroyed during a Luftwaffe attack on the 27 May 1940. Six thousand people were living in Bodø, and 3500 people lost their homes in the attack.”
Yet there is a temperature record. This might even be remarkable for uncovering UHI back then except we know no details.
Particularly telling is the recent dataset which is suddenly very different. This is classic of a change in location or equipment and voids the long dataset.
Often you can identify station changes in the supposed long record and they tally with database information or deducible information which can be found elsewhere.
This is the civi airport, weather station not found so far
http://weather.gladstonefamily.net/site/ENBO