A Guest Post by Basil Copeland
Like many of Anthony’s readers here on WUWT, I’ve been riveted by all the revelations and ongoing discussion and analysis of the CRUtape Letters™ (with appropriate props to WUWT’s “ctm”). It might be hard to imagine that anyone could add to what has already been said, but I am going to try. It might also come as a surprise, to those who reckon me for a skeptic, that I do not think that anything was revealed that suggests that the global temperature data set maintained by CRU was irreparably damaged by these revelations. We’ve known all along that the data may be biased by poor siting issues, handling of station dropout, or inadequate treatment of UHI effects. But nothing was revealed that suggests that the global temperature data sets are completely bogus, or unreliable.
I will return to the figure at the top of this post below, but I want to introduce another figure to illustrate the previous assertion:
This figure plots smoothed seasonal differences (year to year differences in monthly anomalies) for the four major global temperature data sets: HadCRUT, GISS, UAH and RSS. With the exception of the starting months of the satellite era (UAH and RSS), and to a lesser degree the starting months of GISS, there is remarkable agreement between the four data sets – where they overlap – especially with respect to the cyclical pattern of natural climate variation. This coherence gives me confidence that while there may be problems with the land-sea data sets, they accurately reflect the general course of natural climate variation over the period for which we have instrumental data. While we need to continue to insist upon open access to the data and methods used to chronicle global and regional climate variation, and refine the process to remove the biases which may be present from trying to make the data fit the narrative of CO2 induced global warming, it would be wrong to conclude that the “CRUtape Letters” prove that global warming does not exist. That has never really been the issue. The issue has been the extent of warming (have the data been distorted in a way that would overstate the degree of warming?), the extent to which it is the result of natural climate variation (as opposed to human influences), and the extent to which it owes to human influences other than the burning of fossil fuels (such as land use/land cover changes, urban heat islands, etc.). And flowing from this, the issue has been whether we really know enough to justify the kind of massive government programs said to be necessary to forestall climate catastrophe.
Figure 2 plots the composite smooth against the backdrop of the monthly seasonal differences of the four global temperature data sets:
Many readers may recognize the familiar episodes of warming and cooling associated with ENSO and volcanic activity in the preceding figure. With a little more smoothing, we get a pattern like that depicted in Figure 3, which other readers may notice looks a lot like the cycles that Anthony and I have attributed to lunar and solar influences (they are the same):
In either case, the thing to note is that over time climate goes through repetitive episodes of warming and cooling. You have to look closely on Figures 2 and 3 – it is much clearer in Figure 1 – but episodes of warming exist when the smooth is above zero, and cooling episodes exist when the smooth is below zero. Remember, by design, the smooth is not a plot of the temperature itself, but of the trend in the temperature, i.e. the year to year change in monthly temperatures. The intent is to demonstrate and delineate the range of natural climate variation in global temperatures. It shows, in effect, the trend in the trend – up and down over time, with natural regularity, while perhaps also trending generally upward over time.
Which brings us to Figure 1. Here we are focusing in on the last 30 years, and a forecast to 2050 derived by a simple linear regression through the (composite) smooth of Figure 3. (Standard errors have been adjusted for serial correlation.) There has been an upward trend in the global temperature trend, and when this is projected out to 2050, the average is 0.114°C per decade ± 0.440°C per decade. Yes, you read that right: ± 0.440°C per decade. Broad enough to include both the worst imaginations of the IPCC and the CRU crowd, as well as negative growth rates, i.e. global cooling. Because if the truth be told, natural climate variation is so – well, variable – that no one can say with any kind of certainty what the future holds with respect to climate change. Be skeptical of any statistical claims to the contrary.
I think we can say, however, with reasonable certainty, that earth’s climate will remain variable, and that this will frustrate the effort to blame climate change on CO2 induced AGW. Noted on the image at the top of this post is a quote from Kevin Trenberth from the CRUtape Letters™: “The fact is that we cannot account for the lack of warmth at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” Trenberth betrays a subtle bias here – he cannot acknowledge the recent period of global cooling. It is, rather, “a lack of warmth.” But he is right that it is a “travesty” that we cannot fully account for the ebb and flow of earth’s energy balance, and ultimately, climate change. I think Trenberth just sees it as a lack of monitoring methods or devices. But I think there still remains a considerable lack of knowledge, or understanding, about the mechanics of natural climate variation. If you look carefully at Figure 1, you will notice that there seem to be upper and lower limits to the range of natural climate variability. On the scale depicted in Figure 1 (the scale is different with other degrees of smoothing), when warming reaches a limit of approximately 0.08-0.10°C per year, the warming slows down, and eventually a period of cooling takes place, always with the space of just a few years. Homeostasis, anyone? While phenomenon like ENSO are the effect of this regularity in natural climate variation, they are not the cause of it.
In my opinion, what is the real travesty of the global warming ideology is the hijacking of climate science in the service of a research agenda that has prevented science from investigating the full range of natural climate variation, because that would be an inconvenient truth. We see this, quite clearly, in the CRUtape Letters™ where the Medieval Warm Period is just “putative,” and a rather inconvenient truth that needs to be suppressed. Or the “1940’s blip” that implies that global temperatures increased just as rapidly in the early part of the 20th Century, as they did at the end of the 20th Century, an inconvenient truth at odds with the narrative preferred by the IPCC.
It is a truism that “climate varies on all time scales.” With respect to the variability demonstrated here, I’m convinced that someday it will be acknowledged that variability on this scale is dominated by lunar and solar influences. On longer scales, such as the ebb and flow from the Medieval Warm Period, through the Little Ice Age, and now into the “Modern Warm Period,” I do not think climate science yet has any real understanding of the underlying causes of such climate change. If we are, as seems possible, on the verge of a Dalton or Maunder type minimum in solar activity, we may eventually have an answer to whether solar activity can account for centennial scale changes in earth’s climate. And I do think it is reasonable to conclude, at the margin, that human activity has had some influence. It is hard to imagine population growing from one to six billion over the past one and a half centuries without some effect. Most likely, the effect is on local and regional scales, but this might add up to a discernible impact on global temperature. But until all of the forces that determine the full range of natural climate variability are understood better than they are now, there is no scientific justification for the massive overhaul of economic and government structures being promoted under the guise of climate change, or global warming.
Icarus,
If our “climate scientists were ideally ‘working’ with at least 30 years of data to see any trend” instead of less than ideally maniplulating data to show a trend, then you wouldn’t appear so misguided and none of us would be here and WUWT would not exist.
And there would not be any AGW movement.
WxForecaster (12:41:23) :
As leftists they fail to notice that these poor developing countries disadvantages are created by their leftist governments.</i?
Wx, they don’t fail to notice. That is their intent. It is about control.
CAGW – The C is catastrophic. Remember, with Progressives there must always be a crisis. It’s a means to an end, and the means don’t matter. Whatever it takes, even lying, to prove a theory or force a policy.
Remember this as you watch these One-Worlders in Copenhagen. Watch this, it is in their own words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k-kzlRoNfks They say themselves, Global Governance, forcing everyone into unions, a new progressive globalization. [snip]
bill (19:10:29)
yes. Like ice cores, they show trends, but not exact data.
Maybe the magic number for world wide media consumption is a definition of variability — most people can grasp the concept that an increase in a minor atmospheric gas might lead to some climate change, but that the change is in the noise.
Plus or minus .44C has a nice, “Dirty Harry’ish” ring to it — get the politicians and media circus to go away, stop trying to save or run the world, and then the focus can return to trying to figure out what actually matters in determining climate. My guess is that a model of orbital variation, sun spot cycles, and major ocean currents will predict global climate variation far better then a carbon forcing regression.
By anyones measurement we are currently at 11 years and counting Icarus; despite known warm bias in the surface data sets.
Please don’t give us graphs made up by people pushing agendas and call them data.
Icarus (16:57:22) “[…] but right now there is no significant difference at all between (say) the last ten years and any other ten year period you care to choose in the last several decades.”
You got that part seriously wrong, but I will back you up by agreeing that deniers aren’t helping nonalarmists by ranting about “cooling” in the past 10 years.
I suggest you consider this:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/sqrtaayoy.sq22.png
Also, trying to make it into an issue of “whether or not” it is warming is a tired old alarmist trick. The smart hunters don’t shoot decoys. Warming happens naturally. Maybe we can agree that a _lot_ more research is needed on natural climate variations.
Cheers!
don’t know if this is a valid way to look at the data, but the resultant graphs are pretty impressive— being obvious even to duffers like me.
included in my utility bill is a report of the average temp for the billing period (month).
my wife saves these, and so i decided to plot the results. i was unable to get archive temp data from the national weather service before 2008, so i used the info from my utility bills, since i believe they use the same figures.
i have records from november 1991 to present.
first, i put ALL of the consecutive temps onto a Microsoft spreadsheet and generated a graph.
rather nondescript– sinusoidal, wildly swinging lines.
hard to tell what is really going on.
so , i decide to modify my approach. i put in separate average monthly temps for the 3 highest and lowest periods of the year. Jun-Jul- Aug, and Dec-Jan – Feb., from Dec 1991 to present.
the high temp graph appears to not have any discernible trend to me, but ther is a nicely seen downward trend starting with feb of 2004.
there is no “1998” peak in the high temp graph but the low temp one does have a peak in Dec 1997.
i live in north central Iowa
i can e mail the graphs if someone is interested, but will need instructions as to how to do it
In your analysis you have addressed the statistical problem in getting an average temperature. Satellites should be able to cover this problem as they scan the whole globe.
In addition there is the physics problem of what it would mean even if you could statistically measure it, covered in the GERHARD GERLICH and RALF D. TSCHEUSCHNER
International Journal of Modern Physics B (IJMPB) Volume: 23, Issue: 3 (30 January 2009)
Page: 275-364
http://www.worldscinet.com/ijmpb/
A pdf image copy exists in
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0707/0707.1161v4.pdf
It is much clearer than the first versions in making the point of the disagreement with basic physics of the GCModels and the (im)possible physics meaning of an average global temperature.
rbateman (14:04:57) :
“…We are in a cooling phase. Key concept: Phase. Telling descriptor: Cooling.
For how long? Pick a card, any card. Your guess is as good as mine.
I say it’s a cascade failure of many things going in the same direction all at once…”
Julian in Wales (17:40:23) :
“Instead of talking of “Climate Change” should we perhaps talk of “Climate Variation”. It seems to fit better and be more neutral. Change seems to infer going from one place to another when in fact climate is always wobbling this way then that way and going nowhere dramatic unless another ice age is looming.”
Invariant (13:37:18)
“…chaotic and unpredictable …
…Thus forecasting or understanding climate variations seems impossible…”
Reply: Some people smell the coffee, most other people don’t.
Dirk (13:00:16) :
“…Once there is consensus on trends, then hopefully we can rule CO2 out as the primary driver, and focus on just how much effect it actually has…”
Reply: Unfortunately Dirk, it’s not that simple. Our climate is NOT driven by a bunch of simple linear processes, but by deterministic chaos. This means that tiny changes to initial conditions will lead to widely diverging observed effects. However, this is not
One effect of this is that small rounding errors in the input to computer models, for example, will lead to predictions for the future diverging from reality in a very short space of time. Another effect is that time series trends have ZERO information content, as even tiny changes to the amount of energy the Earth gains or loses will have effects far into the future.
This is really well illustrated on this thread by the way Icarus and his opponents can easily use the same data and some clever statistics/graphical display techniques to produce a trend which can ‘prove’ whatever they want. This is the real secret behind the CAGW scam.
The whole AGW house of cards is in reality just one of several stratagems instigated by Thatcher at the behest of the Chatham House / Council On Foreign Relations long-term strategic think tank. Their ultimate goal is to set up a World Government to prevent any future wars, by using the fear of a global threat (AGW – pandemics – financial melt-down) to get the public to accept the sacrifice of their freedom.
So, where do you go to find the truth?
It has been known since the early 60’s that climate is driven by non-linear deterministic chaos (Wiki links below to get you started). If you google around you will get lots of information about Chatham House & the Council On Foreign Relations. As ever, the rest of the story will be found when you follow the money – it’s ‘old money’ you’re looking for.
Everyone needs to wake up and smell the coffee.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Norton_Lorenz
Re: Richard M (19:01:49)
I don’t imagine Trenberth panicking. The guy has published some serious insight into natural climate variations, but he lives in a pool of sharks. The clever ones know how to survive the sharks and still get research done on natural climate variations. Tricky business …but you’re right: the jury is still out; it may be a long time before we know what he really thinks …and he may never be in a position to disclose the full truth. Someone has to do the research on natural climate variations. [Don’t forget about funding. There’s still none for nonalarmists.] That means someone has to suck it up and do what is necessary to survive the shark pool. What really matters is results about natural climate variations, not misdirected smear jobs.
Cheers.
To be read with sarcasm:
Boy, it must be just pure coincidence that 1930 & 1976 feature prominently in dozens of terrestrial time series, eh?
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/3r.-.IOD.png
Yet another.
That’s a cross-wavelet harmonic phase-contrast of cumulative Indian Ocean Dipole (IOD) index and the radial velocity of the north pole of the sun about the solar system barycentre. [Note that the ~1870 feature is also consistent with the cumulative PDO.]
Oh, and hey, gee, I wonder why Ian Wilson’s index of solar system asymmetry just happens to point to the IOD phase aberrations?
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/I_IOD_Period_SolSysAsym.PNG
Surely it must be just pure random chaos noise that can be conveniently absorbed by some untenable GCM assumptions, just like the hundreds (we’re not talking about a couple flukes here folks) of similar patterns that are easily found by anyone who bothers to look!
What on earth is it going to take to get these guys TO NOTICE NATURE!?
Good fun. I’ve always enjoyed exploring nature. Lots of fascinating patterns for those who look.
Sorry, part of my post above unintentionally ‘snipped’ – should read as follows:-
Reply: Unfortunately Dirk, it’s not that simple. Our climate is NOT driven by a bunch of simple linear processes, but by deterministic chaos. This means that tiny changes to initial conditions will lead to widely diverging observed effects. However, this is not the only problem, as turbulent short-term events such as hurricanes, tend to re-set initial conditions on a regular basis, thus even with accurate data future forecasts are impossible, based on current methods and technology.
Tenuc (21:56:27) “It has been known since the early 60’s that climate is driven by non-linear deterministic chaos”
There remain patterns that can be detected by simple multivariate conditioning. They are being overlooked because people think (and have been trained that) oversimplified statistical inference is a sufficient form of data analysis. At some point in the evolution of understanding there will be random measurement-related noise and confusing chaos left in the unmodeled stuff, but there remain plenty of [relatively] easy hits to be had for those with the patience to work out complex conditioning. I suggest throwing money at research instead of abstract computer fantasies.
Here’s an example involving terrestrial polar motion, geomagnetic aa index, solar system dynamics, & the lunar nodal cycle:
http://www.sfu.ca/~plv/-LOD_aa_Pr._r.._LNC.png
The 1990s anomaly relates precisely to nutation obliquity [so that’s not a negative].
We need to break down false assumptions. They’re trying to put a roof on a house with no walls and no foundation.
Icarus,
“Now, perhaps in 10 years’ time, if we haven’t seen any new record high global average temperatures, you could legitimately claim that there has been a change to the warming trend”
How can you say this when Basil just showed that the periodicity of natural variation is around 9 years (and 60 years)? The 10 year average around 2010 must then be above the 1998 level according to your graph, which is impossible without a record high by 2015.
Tenuc (23:24:54) “[…] thus even with accurate data future forecasts are impossible, based on current methods and technology.”
Some types of future forecasts.
“deniers aren’t helping nonalarmists by ranting about “cooling” in the past 10 years.”
Right. It’s better to understate by saying “flat-lining this century, and lately a bit of cooling.”
Basil: You wrote, “While phenomenon like ENSO are the effect of this regularity in natural climate variation, they are not the cause of it.”
El Nino events release and redistribute heat from the eastern tropical Pacific the rest of the globe through wind-driven ocean currents and changes in atmospheric circulation. During the La Nina event that follows, trade winds increase above normal levels and decrease tropical Pacific cloud cover. This increases downward shortwave radiation to the tropical Pacific and replaces the heat released by the El Nino. The whole ENSO cycle, starting with the La Nina, creates ocean heat, releases it and redistributes it. In that respect, ENSO is the cause of the climate variation.
The east-west dipole response of the Pacific also impacts global temperatures. During a La Nina, SST anomalies in a large part of the globe rise in opposition to the drop in the Eastern Pacific. That is: during the La Nina event, ocean currents and changes in atmospheric circulation cause SST anomalies to rise in the Western Pacific and in the Eastern Indian Ocean. And if enough warm water was released from the subsurface western tropical Pacific (Pacific Warm Pool) during the El Nino, or if the La Nina lasts for more than one season, the SST anomalies in the East Indian and West Pacific Oceans can remain at elevated levels.
Travesty = burlesque, mockery, perversion, sham, distortion.
Yes, the very gods mock them. Kevin Trenberth inadvertently acknowledged the hubris of his clique.
Peter Taylor: You wrote, “The data is entirely conisistent not with El Nino – as so often mentioned, but the northern pacific PDO cycle (which effects the amplitude of the ENSO)…”
The PDO is an aftereffect of ENSO. Refer to Zhang et al (1997):
http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~david/zwb1997.pdf
and to Newman et al (2003):
http://www.cdc.noaa.gov/people/gilbert.p.compo/Newmanetal2003.pdf
and to Shakun and Shaman (2009) courtesy of Leif Svalgaard:
http://www.leif.org/EOS/2009GL040313.pdf
Basil (17:01:39) : said
“I went out with my wife for a movie and dinner, and came back to 144 responses! I’ll reply as best I can, but some of the replies may not come until tomorrow morning.”
Come on Basil your attitude is very disappointing-you should be in front of the computer screen twenty four hours a day just in case any of us have a query. Please show a bit more dedication! 🙂
Tonyb
Tenuc (21:56:27):
…even tiny changes to the amount of energy the Earth gains or loses will have effects far into the future.
Isn’t that precisely why climate scientists are predicting substantial changes in the Earth’s climate from a forcing of just a few W/m² caused by greenhouse gases, land use changes etc? According to the latest IPCC report the net anthropogenic forcing is 1.6W/m² –
http://www.ipcc.ch/graphics/syr/fig2-4.jpg
The normal solar variance (the difference between solar minimum and solar maximum in the regular 11-year cycle) gives a change in total solar irradiance of around 0.2W/m² and that is thought to result in about 0.1°C fluctuation in global average temperature . If we have an anthropogenic forcing of 8 times more than the normal solar cycle, it’s inevitably going to have a substantial effect, and that’s only with current levels of greenhouse gases, let alone projected levels in the future – good reason for concern, yes?
Rob R (12:57:57) : said
“The fact that the global anomaly products from these two organisations march in step does not constitute verification of either or both.”
If the data sets presented as finished products did not show agreement I would be very very surprised. We know they were talking to each other and colluding on peer review, what better way to make people think they are telling the truth than to have two data sets in fairly close agreement. This presents “validation” of the graphs and if they did not do this the scam would not have worked.
AJStrata (who works for NASA) explains how it is done.
“….you ask how good NOAA’s global data [can] be worse than local data in Australia and elsewhere? It is simple (and trust me, I work for NASA and this is not beyond the pale). They averaged it (or smeared it) with other data to raise it up. They can rationalize why they need to over ride or lower the weighting of the cooler data. They just need to agree on some lame excuse to dilute good measurements with bad…..
Seriously. The way to fight back is to run scenarios with the same data that takes out the smearing. Make the assumption the satellite data is solid and that the ground based sensors are only there to do local validation of the sat data. What is the answer when we process the data with these assumptions, where we don’t ‘fill in’ holes by averaging the two sets?….” http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/9887
Sorry Mr. Copeland if everyone is in on the scam, and they are , then NONE of the data can be trusted until validated. That means we need to look at the raw data and that is what AJStrata is doing. He also addresses the error in the CRU data.
“…What surprised me was the one CRU document where CRU proves there is no demonstrable global warming (even by their own ridiculously optimistic assessment). Check out this graph from their report…
The title of this graph indicates this is the CRU computed sampling (measurement) error in C for 1969. Note how large these sampling errors are. They start at 0.5°C, which is the mark where any indication of global warming is just statistical noise and not reality. Most of the data is in the +/- 1°C range, which means any attempt to claim a global increase below this threshold is mathematically false. Imagine the noise in the 1880 data! You cannot create detail (resolution) below what your sensor system can measure. CRU has proven my point already – they do not have the temperature data to detect a 0.8°C global warming trend since 1960, let alone 1880.
See: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420
So thank you Mr. Strata
Basil
I can’t stop wondering about fig. 1. I assume the temperature rise is reflected in the integral of that graph, so that a larger area above 0 than below means warming. Then I would expect to see a rising trend if the warming is caused by GHGs, with peaks and troughs going higher and higher, but that’s not the case.
The reason for the larger area above 0 is the double peaks in late 70s 80s and 90s and not higher peaks. I must be totally off track here, will your algorithm always give a no-trend graph?
Dirk (13:00:16) :
Could someone who truly understands these plots explain the obvious difference between the data presented by Icarus and the data presented here?
REPLY: AJStrata is working on it here: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/index.php/archives/11420