What sudden recent warming? What Hockey Stick? I don’t see any.
By Lucy Skywalker Green World Trust
with thanks to the late John Daly and his timeless, brilliant website page “What the Stations Say” (click on Arctic map above). Click on each thumbnail graph to access Daly’s full size graph with time and temperature scales and other details. The thicker dark horizontal line across some of these thumbnails indicated 0ºC (a few of the graphs are ALL under that line). The Arctic is shown in the condition of summer sea ice (see thumbnail below) and the pale circle is the Arctic Circle. All data comes from NASA GISS or CRU originally.
Paul Vaughan notes at WUWT that he “spent a fair amount of time updating these graphs (& others of Daly’s for other regions)” using http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/ and adds a cautionary note: The time-frame and aspect-ratio of the timeplots can be manipulated to create the illusion of a steep trend in recent years.
The highly variable temperatures and amounts of sea ice in both polar regions is well-known to locals, but cherrypicked extremes have become a media weapon to scare ignorant folk with. Greenlanders today are aware of recent warming; but history, archaeology, and the Norse sagas show that Greenland was warmer than today in the Middle Ages, when crops and trees were grown there. For recent sea ice changes (since 1979) see Cryosphere Today and note that while Northern Hemisphere sea ice (at the top of the CT page) has gone down recently (but is currently going up again), Southern Hemisphere sea ice (at the bottom of the CT page) is going up, so that the overall total is pretty constant although fluctuating between summer and winter.
Finally, Jeff Id’s superb animation of recent Arctic sea ice>>
|
Lucy,
I agree that the most difficult part of studying something is removing confirmation bias. I am sure that I am not able to be 100% objective nor can anyone else without using a double-blind study.
I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause. I also see that the folks who support the AGW theory are able to articulate their arguments much better than those that are anti-AGW. There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field. One cannot deny that but one can certainly trot out the conspiracy theory arguments or name a small fraction of experts who disagree. Science progresses through the peer-review process not via blogs and mass media interviews. To change that process would be scientific anarchy and, using a metaphor, the wheels would fall off.
You do this blog a great service because although I do not think you are correct, you articulate your position very well and you support your arguments with data.
Lucy Skywalker (02:13:59),
Excellent critique following a great article. Thanks for both.
I still recall the first time I saw your memorable name on this site. Scientific progress used to be accomplished by gifted amateurs who took an interest in their subject. Great to see you carrying on that tradition.
Scott Mandia: “There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field”
I used to have this position as well – and I used to be a “believer” in AGW for more than 25 years (ever since Carl Sagan introduced me to GHG theory through “Cosmos”).
I think, however, that one of the dangers of today’s highly specialised science is that some branches will have too much “inbreed” of ideas that will not be weeded out by the peer reviewed literature. I note that there are quite a few scientists outside of climatology, but within neighbouring disciplines (be it Meteorology, Geology, Glaciology, Physics or Statistics) that are questioning the quality of the science. But I assume that the reviewers of climatology papers will all be specialised climatologists, won’t they?
Scott Mandia said:
I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause.
That is because you see only what you want to see, Scott. You have lost your ability to be objective (if indeed you ever had it), and have become an ideologue, which is sad. Yes, you are “polite”, and have the aura of rationality, but it’s all phony.
Many of us, including Lucy used to believe AGW was true, but, upon investigation began to see more and more problems with it, eventually becoming skeptics or climate realists. This is a journey that rational people take, people who are interested in the truth, and in science. “Conspiracy” talk would, if anything, be a turn-off, and in fact, is primarily used by the AGW Believers as lame straw man argument.
Believe me, It would have been much, much easier to simply stay in the AGW “camp”, believing the hype, and in “the consensus”. Family and friends remain Believers, and it is now a taboo subject due to the rift it causes.
MORE SEA ICE PICS–
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009253/crefl1_143.A2009253000000-2009253000459.250m.jpg
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/single.php?2009253/crefl1_721.A2009253000000-2009253000459.500m.jpg
http://rapidfire.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/realtime/2009253/?multiple&resolutionlist
Every picture
belies claims that current sea ice in
canada archipeligo is only 30 percent.
NO OPEN WATER
AT ALL IN THESE HIGH RESOLUTION SATELLITE SHOTS OF
SNOW SNOW COVERED SEA ICE IN THE CANADIAN ARCHIPELEGO–the sea ice may be thin and new –but that just shows how cold it is there now–and that the melt is over–pics refute
GRAPHS and claims that the melt season is not yet finished.
CodeTech (11:57:03) :
You can’t skip the most important part of fixing a problem, and that most important part is finding out if there even IS a problem
I’d hate to have you as my car mechanic, you’d be replacing parts that have nothing wrong with them.
Isn’t this called preventive maintenance.
I would hate to own a car that has been driven well past the recommended cam belt mileage. It may never break but can you afford to take the risk?
You change the cam belt (not cheap) because if it fails you wreck the engine (very expensive)
Very similar to global warming. Accept a large cost now to prevent a humongous cost later.
Waiting is not an option
“I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause.”
Because you want to see the AGW in the evidence. I was there too a few years ago. It has been my experience, by far, that the believers in the general public don’t know enough about science or statistics to “get it” and see what’s really going on. Once you learn the least little bit about stats, what these guys is doing will make any real scientist cringe. Sir Issac Newton, the inventor of the scientific method, rolls over in his grave every time one of these reports are issued….
Scott Mandia:
“I do not recall seeing anything in a peer-reviewed journal that shows (with any confidence and peer support) any natural forcing to be the cause of the modern day global warming.”
DaveE has already posted an explanation of this but I’ll add my two penneth’s worth. The hypothesis that the modern warming is not the result of natural forcing is predicated on the belief that the climate was stable in the past, as symbolised by the now debunked hockey stick. In fact, as soon as you reintroduce the natural cycle variables – Roman warm, dark age cool, MWP, LIA, modern warm then the need to invent an anthropogenic forcing agent dissappears entirely. That is why hockey stick revisionism is so crucial to the AGW debate.
“I see AGW in the evidence and I do not see any strong arguments for a natural cause. ”
What IS this evidence? You AGW people keep telling us about this evidence, but when asked to present it, it invariably leads a reference to the IPCC report. Yet, this report offers no evidence. Why? Because it is still anchored to an implied hockey stick – the myth of a stable climate.
In reality, such a climate has never existed except in the minds of warmists. But in order to believe in such a fantasy, here’s what you have to do. You have to walk past a mountain of archeological, paleological and historical evidence that has been built up over hundreds of years, and pick up instead a crumb that represents Mannian bristlecone proxies.
Scott
Let’s be clear, the new Arctic hockey stick is not the mainstream view. It is a new idea and it has been published and hyped up precisely because it is new. It conflicts with existing lines of evidence and uses discredited techniques so subsequent peer reviewed papers will likely debunk it in the fullness of time. Taking a position too early is indeed bias (yours as well as ours) but skepticism of unusual new claims is always a rather more credible position to take than accepting every new paper at face value.
Of course, the mainstream view is shifting all the time. Many “experts” are now admitting to not being so expert after all. The wilder postulations have been overturned not by AGW skeptics but by AGW believers: The hurricane scares and the gulf stream shift scare to name but two. Now it is even generally accepted that natural variation is far more important than had previously been perceived. So yes science does progress and over the long term it is progressing towards the skeptics long-held positions and away from the alarmist positions.
Scientific progress is being slowed though by the consensus mentality and current peer-review process which acts as a gate-keeper, excluding many reasonable but more skeptical views from being published. It seems that science journals are becoming like the tabloid press where new and scary ideas will always be published but boring, “nothing happening here” stuff won’t. So you might see anarchy in new publishing methods but we see a way of combating the stifling of ideas inherent in the old systems.
Smokey (18:21:14) :
Those natural multi-decadal cycles have nothing to do with carbon dioxide. Therefore CO2 should be disregarded as an entity in any explanation of climate change.
There are many met stations in rural UK areas (e.g. Stornaway, Lerwick, Tiree, Yeovilton, Ross-on-Wye and of course CET) that show the claimed rise in temps since 60s (not global I know, but I would trust the data) Globally Hadcrut3v GISS etc show the similar rise.
This temperature rise has not happened between MWP (assuming this is a valid period although where you get data from is tricky since you (AAGWers) do not trust proxies of any description) and the 60s.
The solar output is similar over milennia. There is no other source of heat.
You are looking for a means to store solar output for a few centuries and release it now – can you suggest a storage medium for that?
Another alternative is that the albedo of the earth has changed (reflecting energy back to space) and has been high for the last couple of centuries and was magically low during the MWP and 20th/21st Century
Another alternative is that the insulation surrounding the earth has changed (slowing the release of energy to space). CO2 CH4 H2O O3 could all be culprits.
H2O is transient and needs heat to increase to get it into the atmosphere
CH4 is longer lived but gets broken down to CO2
CO2 is even longer lived in the atmosphere
O3 is short lived but is important in reducing the UV (energy) hitting the earth. High UV = high plant mortality+high genetic damage. Did this happen in the MWP? Is it happening now?
Using your mate Occam, which is most likely to cause the globe to warm.
Assume you suggest heat storage, then please tell me where this storage is that can have such a controlled release.
Or is the simplicity of GHGs the most likely?
Scott Mandia:
“I also see that the folks who support the AGW theory are able to articulate their arguments much better than those that are anti-AGW.”
I have followed climate blogs for some years now, and I have to say that this statement just beggers belief. Most warmists avoid arguing science and give only appeals to authority, like you have done with the following:
“There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field.”
And when warmists do try and debate the science their ignorance usually shows when they fail to understand major flaws in their arguments such as the lack of accumulation of ocean heat since 2003. They seem to confuse this with ENSO events and argue that the heat will return with the next El Nino. Unbelievable. Or they think that global warming is evidence of AGW.
Lucy
I’ve only checked one station using raw and homogenised GISS temperatures from Fairbanks – the homogenised version actually lowers modern and raises historic temps – but the results do not look much like those in your graphic. Do you know the source of the data used in your graphs? Is it wise to use annually averaged data?
The plot I created averages monthly data a month at a time over the usual 1961 to 1990 period then creates a monthly anomaly for plotting. Doing a yearly plot looses too much data in my view.
Before using the graphic it would be worthwhile updataing the temperature plots to current data and state where the data has been derived from.
What I see is the blatant misuse of statistics begun by Mann 10 years ago. That’s the only way they can get a hockey stick: sleight of hand mathematical trickery…
bill (06:13:49)
“Or is the simplicity of GHGs the most likely?”
Bill – to clarify: Is your starting position that without industrial activity the earth would experience an invariant climate at all points on the globe such that by reference to the day number of the year one would know the weather conditions?
Bruce Cobb (04:52:39) :
Many of us, including Lucy used to believe AGW was true, but, upon investigation began to see more and more problems with it, eventually becoming skeptics or climate realists
Halleluja.
bill (06:13:49)
Oceans retain heat. Air doesn’r retain much heat. The sun works 24 hours a day
Scott Mandia: “There is a preponderance of support for AGW in the peer-reviewed literature from a preponderance of folks who are experts in the field”
Scott, many others here have already said they come from an originally “warmist” stance – I too am one. I appreciate your rational approach and willingness to converse on these matters. Of course, as an experiment, you could try posting something ‘negative’ on RC (under an assumed name) and see whether it gets published, and if it does, whether you drown in a sea of slander and invective.
Having a preponderance of support from a preponderance of experts does not a scientific theory make. History is littered with examples of where the ‘consensus’ had it wrong and continued to get it wrong for a very long time. Examples include round-earth, helio-centricity, natural-selection, plate-tectonics, helicobacter-pylori, prions; I could go on.
Often in ‘warming’ circles, it is the sceptic who is compared to the flat-earthers because AGW is seen as the “new idea” and we are seen to not accept it, therefore being Luddite in nature. This is far from the case (at least as I see it) – AGW is a form of one of the oldest theories in the book, namely: “the sky is falling and it’s all our fault”.
Reading and listening to the likes of Mann / Hansen et al. puts me in mind of what it must have been like to be in the presence of the Oracles of ancient times. Do we look back and think the old soothsayers had it right? No we think they made up their readings, rode the wave of public fear and had the ear of the rich, powerful and influential – sound familiar?
AGW has become politicised and this is a bad thing for science. Scientists aren’t, as a rule, political animals. When the AGW bandwagon’s wheels finally come off I guarantee that the politicos of the time will turn around with one voice and place the blame for all the hysteria at the feet of the scientific community; it is the way of the world.
There is growing evidence, mainly from the terms in which certain ideas are now being couched, that some in the scientific realm are getting decidedly twitchy about the hyperbole and exaggeration prevalent in the media and government circles. They are trying to position themselves apart from such excesses. However, they only have themselves to blame for not reigning in those with a public voice earlier.
There’s only so much the general public will take of being told the end-of-the-world-is nigh before getting entirely fed up with it; especially when it starts to hit their pockets…
Science as a whole will suffer because of AGW.
Cheers
Mark
Excellent work Lucy, with thanks also to the late John Daly. (Just a thought: have you averaged all the data together into one series? I reckon it would give a pretty flat line.)
I’ve only been visiting WUWT and similar sites for less than 6 months – my internet connection at home wasn’t up to the task until then and, being an oil guy, I don’t access these sites at work- but even in that short time I have noticed a gain in momentum away from the AGW side. There is a lot of excellent work being done in the fight against the AGW fantasy.
Thanks again to yourself and Anthony, and also, for example, to the Pielkes, Roy Spencer, Jeff Id – and to all the other true climate scientists out there: the truth will out. (Especially with the continuing help of Old Mother Nature herself.)
If CO2 is not a greenhouse gas, then why was the earth not much colder for much of the past 4 1/2 billion years, including the cretaceous and jurrasic?
incidentally, when oceans heat and evaporate, causing clouds and precipitation when it hits cold air, it also releases a lot of heat and carbon dioxide. Oceans are net emitters of c02 during warming phases. You therefore have the later scenario of a cooling period with elevates levels of c02 and decreasing temperatures
Long live the cutting edge of Occam’s razor
“Scott Mandia (17:44:49)
@Smokey (07:51:30) :
“Natural climate variability explains the climate, with no need for an extra variable like carbon dioxide.”
Which would that be? I do not recall seeing anything in a peer-reviewed journal that shows (with any confidence and peer support) any natural forcing to be the cause of the modern day global warming. The first person to do so wins the Nobel and their name hangs on the wall with the Galielos, Darwins and Einsteins. So there is certainly an incentive.”
Reply:
If there is indeed an incentive to get climate analysis right
then do please explain why there is no peer reviewed material noting the periodic multidecadal ocean phase shifts AND linking them with the subsequent and obvious latitudinal shifts in the global air circulation systems.
It must be apparent to all that such a latitudinal shift represents a real world physical process and it should be obvious to all that the process must involve an adjustment in the rate of energy transfer from surface to space.
Nowhere in the peer reviewed material have I ever seen an investigation of the potential implications. Instead it has been said that the latitudinal shift was the fault of mankind and permanent. When the shift started reversing from 2000 not a word was said.
Those two processes in oceans and air when combined have the power to explain all the regional climate changes ever observed subject only to a solar induced background trend on century time scales.
Why was the link ignored ?
Why is it still being ignored ?
John Vaughan:
I have, and on web pages of the relevant science institutes (NSIDC, for example), as well as the semi-popular blog literature. They tend to support the notion that the Arctic has warmed significantly over the instrumental trecord. But being skeptical by nature I visit this place and others in the hope to find robust analysis that challenges the mainstream view. Not because I prefer a particular view, but to balance my references.
In this regard, for example, I am eager to see trend time analysis of US weather stations per the surfacestations.org project.
If I had the skill to do that, I would do this work for myself. The best I can do is try to understand what is presented, which includes being critical (skeptical). Well, I taught myself how to run trend lines in Exel, so I can do some of the simple stuff.
I note that upthread the instrumental record is still being referred to as a ‘hockey stick’. What else can I make of this conflation of the ‘blade’ with the whole hockey stick but that this is a reference to a tangential topic, probably deployed because ‘hockey stick’ is a ‘power phrase’? And that therefore the premise of the top post (“what hockey stick?”) is a straw man?
Do you disagree with the mainstream view that the Arctic has been warming over the instrumental record?
In what way did Tamino mischaracterise your remarks? Better yet, can you clarify what you meant by, “The time-frame and aspect-ratio of the timeplots can be manipulated to create the illusion of a steep trend in recent years”?
Surely, when we’re talking about a few degrees or tenths of a degree, scaling the Y axes to 50 degrees (for example) serves to conceal any trend?
Scott Mandia (03:33:24) :
Scott Mandia,
You are “believing” and defending a hockey stick graph (non is produced by any temperature record in the real world) that denies the existence, for example, of the Medieval Warm Period, the Little Ice Age, the Maunder and the Dalton Minimum, this despite the fact that all these events have been confirmed in different peer reviewed scientific reports.
You defend your point of view by referring to the elimination of confirmation bias and a double blind study necessary to confirm any results, at the same time claiming that you are not 100% objective!
Would you therefore please explain why you see AGW in the evidence and why you think that the Medieval Warm Period (with temperatures much higher than today), the Little Ice Age, the Maunder and Dalton Minimum, much colder than today are not a strong confirmation of a climate driven by natural cycles?
Do you spot a hockey stick here?:
http://heliogenic.blogspot.com/2009/09/can-you-spot-hockey-stick-here.html