The December 2009 and year 2009 University of Alabama at Huntsville lower tropospheric MSU temperature data is available. Thanks to Phillip Gentry and John Christy for alerting us to these figures]. I have several comments following the figures.
This data shows why the focus needs to be on the regional scale and that a global average is not of much use in describing weather that all of us experience.
The news media seem to continue to avoid this perspective. For example, in the article Snow, ice and the bigger picture
excerpts read
“Rather than seeking vindication or catastrophe in this cold snap, now is a good time to remind ourselves that weather, like death and taxes, will always be with us. Spectacular regional swings in temperature and precipitation, sometimes lasting for months, often emerge from the natural jostlings of atmosphere and ocean. By themselves, none of these prove or disprove a human role in climate change.”
“What’s different now is that climate change is shifting the odds towards record-hot summers and away from record-cold winters. The latter aren’t impossible; they’re just harder to get, like scoring a straight flush on one trip to Vegas and a royal flush the next.”
“If you’re craving a scapegoat for this winter, consider the Arctic oscillation. The AO is a measure of north-south differences in air pressure between the northern midlatitudes and polar regions. When the AO is positive, pressures are unusually high to the south and low to the north. This helps shuttle weather systems quickly across the Atlantic, often bringing warm, wet conditions to Europe. In the past month, however, the AO has dipped to astoundingly low levels – among the lowest observed in the past 60 years. This has gummed up the hemisphere’s usual west-to-east flow with huge “blocking highs” that route frigid air southward.”
“Handy as it is, the AO describes more than it explains. Forecasters still don’t know exactly what sends the AO into one mode or the other, just as the birth of an El Niño is easier to spot than to predict.”
See also the post at Dot Earth by Andy Revkin titled Cold Arctic Pressure Pattern Nearly Off Chart
The obvious response to these claims is that if we cannot predict weather features such as the Arctic oscillation or an El Niño under current climate, how can anyone credibly claim we have predictive skill decades into the future from both natural and human caused climate forcings? The short answer is that they cannot.
The article concludes with the text
“If this winter tells us anything, it’s that we’ll have to remain on guard for familiar weather risks as well as the evolving ones brought by climate change.”
This admission implicitly recognizes the focus on the reduction of vulnerability that we wrote about in our paper
Pielke Sr., R., K. Beven, G. Brasseur, J. Calvert, M. Chahine, R. Dickerson, D. Entekhabi, E. Foufoula-Georgiou, H. Gupta, V. Gupta, W. Krajewski, E. Philip Krider, W. K.M. Lau, J. McDonnell, W. Rossow, J. Schaake, J. Smith, S. Sorooshian, and E. Wood, 2009: Climate change: The need to consider human forcings besides greenhouse gases. Eos, Vol. 90, No. 45, 10 November 2009, 413. Copyright (2009) American Geophysical Union.
The media, policymakers and others should recognize this evidence of our incomplete understanding of the climate system. We will continue to have surprises such as we have seen this winter.
J.Hansford (00:23:25) “Communism’s inability […]”
Same could be said of any system (including capitalism). Science does not divide along party lines – sorry man.
ryancmc (08:12:12) :
“I don’t quite understand this:
“…if we cannot predict weather features such as the Arctic oscillation or an El Niño under current climate, how can anyone credibly claim we have predictive skill decades into the future from both natural and human caused climate forcings?”….”
There are a number of problems
First as AJ Strata and I pointed out we do not have a good way of measuring “global temperature” at least until recently with satellite readings.
Second “Climate Scientists” like those at the CRU “homogenized” and manipulated the data and changed it.
Third grants, funding and publication of scientific papers were all geared toward CO2 is evil, this has held back other areas of research for a couple of decades. However there is a bunch of research out there that is “fringe” and Joe Bastardi and Piers Corbyn are doing pretty well on long range forcasting using this “fringe research” One wonders how much further advanced we would be if “Global Warming” had not come to be a political football.
Smokey (11:11:17) :
You insist on using out-of-date plots. You continue to ignore the agreement between the IPCC projections and current temperatures.
But you’re right, some people are indeed basing their conclusions on “a litany of half-truths.”
AGW discredited in one paragraph:
Absolute temp of Earth in degrees K = about 300K
Solar constant at LIA = 1363.5 watts/ meter squared
Solar constant now = 1367.0 watts/ meter squared
delta = 3.5 watts.
temp delta solar = 3.5/1363.5*300 = 0.77 degrees
IPCC estimated temp change from LIA to now = 1.10 degrees
delta due to ALL other heat source variables COMBINED = 0.33 degrees
IPCC claim that human generated CO2 accounts for 3.7 watts = false by at least one order of magnitude
Yeah yeah its more complicated than that. Fine, for the complicated explanation and how everyone seems to miss the fact that energy input changes don’t reflect in temps for decades later:
http://knowledgedrift.wordpress.com/category/uncategorized/
Tom P (12:01:57) :
Smokey (11:11:17) :
You insist on using out-of-date plots. You continue to ignore the agreement between the IPCC projections and current temperatures.
———
This is getting ridiculous. Your plots, Tom, are a sham. You start the trends in 1990 which is blatant cherry-picking for one. Also choosing start dates where the models have information on the future is cheating. Third you overlay plots on a woodfortrees temp plot without explaining. You don’t explain your offsets. And you do not give your source of model plots.
There is nothing outdated about Smokey’s plots. The IPCC blew it. That doesn’t change just because you want to rewrite history.
Average December temps/anomaly. Where’s the warming? click
Hey! Where did that 0.7° rise in temps go? click
Failure of IPCC predictions: click
Modeled IPCC temperature changes for a doubling of CO2 vs actual temperature changes: click
Tom P,
“Smokey (11:11:17) :
You insist on using out-of-date plots.”
Are you refering to the IPCC temperature projections? I thought Smokey was attempting to show that the older projections failed to predict the current cooling. The fact that they might have changed their mind with newer plots wouldn’t be relevant to the point being made.
Syl (12:26:34) :
My plot is no more than an update of the Pielke figure in the reference I gave:
http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/admin/publication_files/resource-2592-2008.07.pdf
but with monthly rather than annual temperature averages. The trends are all from the IPCC AR reports – the Pielke reference gives the exact figures and pages of the reports from which they were extracted.
In that article Pielke writes: “Once published, projections should not be forgotten but should be rigorously compared with evolving observations.” That is exactly what I have done.
Roger Pielke Jr is the son of the author of this post and has himself written articles posted on this site. That you should call an update of his plot “a sham” reflects more on you than on any graph I’ve posted here.
The mood seems to be shifting in the British media – here’s an example.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1242011/DAVID-ROSE-The-mini-ice-age-starts-here.html
And here’s another.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/environment/article6982299.ece
Right. The original projections should not be forgotten. But they shouldn’t be changed, either, and then use the newly adjusted/changed projections to compare with the new observations. If that were allowed, the IPCC would always be accurate in its predictions.
“brian dodge (16:03:11):
The climatology has not been replaced with weather focastering. Global temperature became a “barometer” for climate change in the media and by politicians. I share your dismay about the many confusing conclusions that have been made to define a global temperature. Of course, we do have strong indications that climate has changed other than from temperature data. However, it was the IPCC that carefully selected set of temperature data over a narrow time scale in order to create alarm in the world about an impending climatic doom. A doom that only they alone are able to predict. They became the “high priests” for predicting and controlling the temperature of the globe. Unfortunately they pointed much of scientific climate community in the wrong direction. If (a big if) all of the scientific community had been collectively engaged in the pursuit of climate mechanisms including honest evaluations of the systematic biases and random uncertainties in the temperature data, there could have been an honest evaluation of the uncertainty limits in calculating global temperature instead of the mess we have today. Now we have temperature data have been destroyed. We have global temperature results obtained from temperature data that have been contaminated or that were preselected and homogenized to prove one point. In addition, the uncertainties in the temperature measurements were never openly debated and evaluated by all of the scientitists with scientific interest in the results. As a result CRU and IPPC has diminished public belief in scientific integrity, especially with respect to climate.
I spent a number of years at Case Institute of Technology where the famous Michelson-Morely experiment was performed that was aimed at measuring the speed of light in an ether. Since almost all of the physics community believed that the speed of light depended on its motion through the ether, it was very troublesome when M-M obtained a negative result, But the result was ultimately believed because they carried out the experiment with very careful calibration of the instruments and understood and documented the uncertainties in their measurements. The whole physics community was included in the discussion of their data as well as their result. Michelson and Morley did not hide their data or attempt to selectively use only one set of data to show that there is a medium through which light travels, an ether. Contrast this example with the behavior of the CRU and IPCC climate prophets.
Sadly I do not see a way out of this temperature mess because the raw temperature data appear to be contaminated and or lost by the researchers at CRU. Many in the climate scientific community are trying to fix this situation. I pray that they will be successful before we are all forced to make a huge donation to the high priests of climatology.
Smokey (12:47:15):
I have shown that there is good agreement between all the IPCC global projections since 1995 and average global temperatures up to date.
In response you show plots of:
1. Just December temperatures from an unspecified database;
2. Just tropical temperatures;
3. Temperatures to the middle of 2008 (yet again!);
4. A comparison of warming with altitude which is not even included as an IPCC projection.
You’re certainly throwing a lot of plots at the wall. But do you have any that might stick?
Tom P
“That you should call an update of his plot “a sham” reflects more on you than on any graph I’ve posted here.”
I’m sure Pielke explained exactly what his methods were and where his data came from which you omitted. Besides it’s dishonest of you to throw out a graph with no attribution as if its yours.
Now tell us, what was changed in the models to give different results? The impression you’ve given is that nothing has changed and the IPCC has been right all along. And why do you insist that the ‘old’ graphs are invalid? Is it because they show the IPCC models failed and we can no longer rely on the IPCC conclusions? Are you trying to claim that even if the models were wrong, they were right?
Tom P
And another thing, I don’t care who makes up graphs. The modelers now know what the data is. So for all we know they’ve merely made adjustments to fit the curve.
And that proves nothing.
Gail Combs (11:50:12) :
“”There are a number of problems
Second “Climate Scientists” like those at the CRU “homogenized” and manipulated the data and changed it.””
Pretty sure they’ve been cleared of all wrongdoing.
“Third grants, funding and publication of scientific papers were all geared toward CO2 is evil,…”
Again, I don’t really understand this statement. Grant writing is an open process just like science itself. It sounds like you’re pointing to a conspiracy that spans all of the science community AND the entire grant approval side of government.
“…this has held back other areas of research for a couple of decades.”
I don’t think so. A good proposal will get approved. If it’s good enough and doesn’t get approved through standard grant processes, someone somewhere will fund it.
**************
Sidenote: This blog has been pretty interesting. It doesn’t have the stale taste that usually accompanies the climate deniers. I appreciate the links and references.
Syl (14:43:42) :
“The modelers now know what the data is. So for all we know they’ve merely made adjustments to fit the curve.”
Have you actually looked at the plot?
http://img13.imageshack.us/img13/811/ipccprojections.png
The IPCC prediction made in 1995 is in good agreement with current temperatures. Are you now claiming the modellers have some kind of time machine?
ryancmc (15:02:36):
Regarding your comment about the CRU scientists & Mann: “Pretty sure they’ve been cleared of all wrongdoing.”
I pretty much agree with you. Of course, the investigations have only just begun. But they probably followed the new climate science paradigm, and reached their conclusions first, to be followed later by selected supporting facts.
And: “Grant writing is an open process just like science itself. It sounds like you’re pointing to a conspiracy that spans all of the science community AND the entire grant approval side of government.” Here, read this.
Then you’ll understand that the process actually operates like this: click
I’m sure you’re aware that government funding of those scientists skeptical of AGW is less than one one-thousandth of funding for pro-AGW scientists.
The Scientific Method, with its antiquated, old timey requirements for full and open cooperation and disclosure between those promoting a new hypothesis and those questioning it, has been replaced by a much easier and more streamlined method of doing climate science: click
It’s amazing how well it works.
Thanks for the link. The article looks interesting.
However, the wording of your image was a little off, which makes the whole play on words fall through. It’s not that it CAN’T be peer reviewed, it’s that it fails peer review.
“”I’m sure you’re aware that government funding of those scientists skeptical of AGW is less than one one-thousandth of funding for pro-AGW scientists.””
While I’m inclined to agree, the entire sentence reeks of conspiracy theory. How do you even classify this?
I’ll grant that almost all scientists go into their experiments with a perception bias, but the grants are worded in generic language. For instance someone might be seeking grant money to research the effect C02 levels on…blah blah blah. Well that person may or may not be a skeptic. The grants are never written in speech like, “I’m seeking grant money to prove that humans are the end all cause of global warming.”
“The Scientific Method, with its antiquated, old timey requirements for full and open cooperation and disclosure between those promoting….”
Funny picture, but nobody uses the scientific method. The idea is noble, but that’s not how science is done. (well maybe drug testing in the medical field where things are very mechanistic)
Nonetheless, I’m hoping to get some first hand experience with the grant process this semester, so we’ll see. I’ll be the first to report back when I find that conspiracy. 😉
ryancmc:
Can you explain which part of the scientific method that you think people ignore?
“Carrick (16:18:47)
Can you explain which part of the scientific method that you think people ignore?”
We’re getting off topic here, but I can’t think of a single discovery that was made using the scientific method.
Let me ask, what part of the scientific method IS followed?
What really happens is people with a strong sense of curiosity set out to try to understand the world they live in. If they make any discoveries everything gets retrofitted back into the scientific method.
Nobody I know sits down and says…. “Ok, first I need a hypothesis, then I need to find a way to test it, then I have…..”
It’s more like an ongoing learning and tinkering process.
ryancmc:
Funny picture, but nobody uses the scientific method. The idea is noble, but that’s not how science is done.
A statement rich with irony. What’s scary about this is you’re so matter of fact about it, which leads me to suspect you’re being taught this in school. Let me clue you in on something. If the scientific method is not being used, it’s not science. It’s something else for which we do not have a name, and its reliability is highly suspect.
Following up on my comment to ryancmc, it could be that you’ve been taught a strict interpretation of the scientific method. For example, science can and is done by doing observation alone. I’ve sometimes heard people say that in order to adhere to the scientific method you have to have a designed experiment with a control for comparison. That would be ideal, but not all science is done that way, particularly when there’s a study of something on a large scale. This is done all the time in astronomy. The best that can be hoped for in these scenarios is something that closely resembles repeatability. My guess is the way scientists deal with the uncertainties of not having a control is they factor it into the error that accompanies any data that is gathered.
Like I said, we’re way off topic here, and talking more about the philosophy of science.
“If the scientific method is not being used, it’s not science.”
Whoa really? You think every scientific fact has been found using the scientific method?
Now don’t get me wrong. I’m specifically talking about the formal method they teach you in elementary school. I’m NOT claiming that there are alternate methods to find truth. I do NOT subscribe to mysticism, or any other new age mumbo jumbo.
Mark your second comment pretty much hits on exactly what I was talking about.
In fact, I was thinking of astronomy examples when I was responding. Lots of examples in Biology too though.