From Dr. Roger Pielke Senior’s blog:
UPDATE PM JANUARY 16 2010 – Jim Hansen has released a statement on his current conclusions regarding the global average surface temperature trends [and thanks to Leonard Ornstein and Brian Toon for alerting us to this information]. The statement is If It’s That Warm, How Come It’s So Damned Cold? by James Hansen, Reto Ruedy, Makiko Sato, Ken Lo
My comments below remain unchanged. Readers will note that Jim Hansen does not cite or comment on any of the substantive unresolved uncertainties and systematic warm bias that we report on in our papers. They only report on their research papers. This is a clear example of ignoring peer reviewed studies which conflict with one’s conclusions.
***ORIGINAL POST***
Thanks to Anthony Watts for alerting us to a news release by NASA GISS (see) which reads
“NASA has not been involved in any manipulation of climate data used in the annual GISS global temperature analysis. The analysis utilizes three independent data sources provided by other agencies. Quality control checks are regularly performed on that data. The analysis methodology as well as updates to the analysis are publicly available on our website. The agency is confident of the quality of this data and stands by previous scientifically based conclusions regarding global temperatures.” (GISS temperature analysis website: http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/)” [note: I could not find the specific url from NASA, so I welcome being sent this original source].
This statement perpetuates the erroneous claim that the data sources are independent [I welcome information from GISS to justify their statement, and will post if they do]. This issue exists even without considering any other concerns regarding their analyses.
I have posted a number of times on my weblog with respect to the lack of independence of the surface temperature data; e.g. see
Further Comment On The Surface Temperature Data Used In The CRU, GISS And NCDC Analyses
There remain also important unresolved uncertainties and systematic biases in the surface temperature data used by GISS [and CRU and NCDC] which we reported in the peer reviewed literature, i.e.
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
with only one Comment in the literature on just two of our issues by the CRU group
Parker, D. E., P. Jones, T. C. Peterson, and J. Kennedy, 2009: Comment on Unresolved issues with the assessment of multidecadal global land surface temperature trends. by Roger A. Pielke Sr. et al.,J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05104, doi:10.1029/2008JD010450
which we refuted in
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, 2009: Reply to comment by David E. Parker, Phil Jones, Thomas C. Peterson, and John Kennedy on “Unresolved issues with the assessment of multi-decadal global land surface temperature trends. J. Geophys. Res., 114, D05105,
doi:10.1029/2008JD010938
with the referees agreeing with our Reply (see reviews contained within this post).
The NASA GISS (and NCDC and CRU groups) have also not responded to the systematic warm bias that we reported in
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., 114, D21102, doi:10.1029/2009JD011841.
Klotzbach, P. J., R. A. Pielke, Sr., R. A. Pielke, Jr., J. R. Christy, and R. T. McNider (2010), Correction to “An alternative explanation for differential temperature trends at the surface and in the lower troposphere”, J. Geophys. Res., 115, D01107, doi:10.1029/2009JD013655.
The GISS news release is symptomatic of the continued attempt to ignore science issues in their data analysis which conflict with their statement in the press release. This is not how the scientific process should be conducted.
We urge, based on the exposure of such type of behavior in the CRU e-mails; i.e. see
The Crutape Letters by Steven Mosher, Thomas W. Fuller, 2010 ISBN/EAN13: 1450512437 / 9781450512435
that the suppression of alternative viewpoints ends.
“C’mon! Lazy press persons!!”
Just ask for:
1. The raw data for every station used, for the entire period of analysis
2. The algorithm (recipe) for:
i. Averaging across the earth’s surface (interpolation across earth’s surface)
ii. Averaging across time (interpolation over time)
3. Any further algorithms to *legitimately* adjust for:
i. Changes in weather station (e.g. location, instruments, etc.)
ii. Changes to surrounds (e.g. urban build up)
Make these available publicly, and watch real science go to work!
Mr Revkin has an interesting thought about Mr. Watts and Mr. Hansen
http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/17/hansen-and-watts-agree-cold-weather-isnt-climate/
Harry (12:17:14) :
Interesting graph, now I understand that Hansen seems to me to be leading the pack of Alarmist doomsayers, but on that graph the Hansen C looks pretty good. What am I failing to understand here? Did he make a good projection? Add fudges after making it?
magicjava (12:16:06) :
Not according to thier site: They want to sell you data & products you have already paid for. Yes, I know where to get it free, but that’s not the point.
If it were private enterprise, and they were selling the crap that their flubbed forecasts were based on, they’d be filing Ch. 11.
I did a search on “NASA” and “ISO 9001” and one of the resultant links took me to a page that gave me a choice where I could choose a sub category of “NASA Headquarters QMS Homepages.
http://www.hq.nasa.gov/office/codej/codeji/codeji.html .
Where is says:
“The mission of the Headquarters ISO 9001 Program Office,
Code JI, is to provide leadership and overall management for
the Headquarters-wide Quality Management System (QMS)
that is certified to ISO 9001.
I clicked on the “internal” link and got “Server not found”.
Hmmmmmmmm!
Greg2213,
Hansen C assumed no further increase in CO2 concentration. Obviously this did not happen. In fact, the CO2 concentration assumed in Hansen A is the closest to what happened.
As a geologist and a scientist, what I don’t understand is how changes in a trace gas (carbon dioxide), which has a concentration of less than one part in 2,500 in our atmosphere, can have more than a minuscule effect on our climate.
I accept the fact that carbon dioxide, like water vapour, is a ‘greenhouse gas’ when measured in percentage terms – but 0.038% – that’s like putting a magazine in the attic of your home and expecting the whole building to heat up.
We never see anything from Hansen et alia showing how to quantify the relationship between carbon dioxide levels and global temperature for the simple reason the science does not exist – what we do see instead is models which cannot even be manipulated enough to reflect what happened in the past. When these same guys start talking about methane and global warming, it just becomes totally stupid – 1.7 parts per million – how can that affect anything?
How many people remember being taught about the phlogiston theory at school? AGW is the same type of theory – complete garbage.
An interesting question to ask the average supporter of global warming theory is: “What is the percentage of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere?” Usually, less than one in twenty say it’s under 1%. When they are told the actual number, a healthy scepticism usually begins to take root.
Chris (15:01:29) :
Thanks. Does this prove the Hansen models (A, B, & C anyway) to be completely off base?
What was it that Wegman said?
Method Wrong + Answer Correct = Bad Science
Harry says:
Since the forcings on which Scenario A was based didn’t come to pass, this is not surprising. Scenario A was a worst case scenario in which greenhouse gas forcings increased rapidly and there were no major volcanic eruptions. Scenario B was the middle-of-the-road case…and, in fact, the forcings used for Scenario B turn out to be quite close (although apparently still a little bit high) of what came to pass.
Peter Miller says:
I am not sure how you get your intuition. What is your intuition for what would happen to you if you were placed in a room with 0.038% of plutonium? As a scientist, you ought to understand that intuition is only a guide that works when it is informed by experience or hard scientific understanding.
There is two good reasons why CO2 has a disproportionate effect on the climate:
(1) 99% of the constituents of the atmosphere are transparent to IR radiation so the remaining ~1% have a disproportionate effect.
(2) The effect of concentration on radiative forcing is logarithmic over a fairly large range of concentrations, which again means that there can be a disproportionate effect.
Besides which, a change of ~6 C in the global temperature is a small change on an absolute temperature scale (about 2%) and yet this is enough to mean the difference between glacial and interglacial conditions.
Well, you don’t see what you don’t look at but that doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. You don’t even have to go into the scientific literature to find a discussion of this by Hansen. You need only go to his Scientific American article from a few years back: http://naturalscience.com/ns/articles/01-16/ns_jeh.html (see especially p. 2) More detail can be found in his peer-reviewed publications (e.g., http://pubs.giss.nasa.gov/abstracts/2007/Hansen_etal_2.html ).
Hansen’s graph taken from the GISS web page: click
Hansen’s “adjusted” charts: click
And this one, just for fun: click
Another Hansen/GISS chart. Notice the earlier temperatures have been adjusted downward, so the warming appears to rise even faster: click
RE: Peter Miller (15:51:24) :
“As a geologist and a scientist, what I don’t understand is how changes in a trace gas (carbon dioxide), which has a concentration of less than one part in 2,500 in our atmosphere, can have more than a minuscule effect on our climate.”
Really? Most of the atmosphere (O2 and N2) is transparent to infrared radiation, so trace gases can have a large impact. We know that without the greenhouse effect caused by trace gases (yes, that includes water vapor) the earth would be about 33 degrees cooler. The reduction in outgoing infrared radiation at the wavelengths absorbed by CO2 has been measured by satellite.
I’m surprised nobody else answered your concerns.
A machinist would say that the C02 concentration in the atmosphere is .38 of a thousandth.
Try opening your dial caliper to 1/3 of a thousandth. Takes some practice and due diligence to deal with the backlash.
Hold it up to the light. See the Light?
What are the odds of a photon in any given moment of hitting a C02 atom?
380 in a million.
This is nuts.
rbateman (11:53:08) :
magicjava (11:38:38) :
Data sold separately.
——
I am not following your point with respect to what rbateman said or linked. Can you explain, please?
Somewhat related, quoted from the link: http://n4eil01u.ecs.nasa.gov:22000/WebAccess/drill?attrib=esdt&esdt=AE_L2A.2&group=AMSA
The AMSR-E/Aqua Daily L3 12.5 km Brightness Temperatures, Sea Ice Concentration, & Snow Depth Polar Grids (AE_SI12) product using the V11 algorithm contains an error in the Snow Depth on Sea Ice parameter in data prior to 05 October 2009. Users of this product should use caution when working with the Northern Hemisphere Snow Depth on Sea Ice parameter in data prior to 05 October 2009 until the data have been reprocessed with the V12 algorithm. We apologize for the inconvenience.
OMG! Grab the data quick before they fix it. Oh wait, they already fixed it 11 times, that’s why it has an error.
Peter Miller (15:51:24) :
At certain important infrared wavelengths of light, a fraction of the current concentration is almost opaque. It’s unfortunate that we have so few colored gasses, chlorine (green) and iodine (brown, but you have to heat the iodine to evaporate enough of it) are the best examples people might have experience with. However, try to imagine CO2 as absorbing red light so it appears as a blue-green gas. All the absorbed light is reradiated (gases at Earth’s temperatures are luminous in IR wavelengths) in all directions, the net effect is to slow down Earth’s cooling.
Perhaps another way to look at it is to imagine taking some of the CO2 in the atmosphere and turn it into a sheet of mylar in the middle of the troposphere. That would have a huge impact on climate. (And would make the world’s biggest greenhouse to boot!)
What you can say, and this is one of the key reasons I gave up on AGW, is that there’s so much CO2 in the atmosphere that adding more has much less impact than it did before it became nearly opaque.
Water vapor is also opaque at some wavelengths, some which overlap CO2’s IR absorption curve. You can see more about it at http://wermenh.com/climate/science.html
Jonni (16:58:44) :
rbateman (11:53:08) :
Data sold separately.
http://cdo.ncdc.noaa.gov/qclcd/QCLCD?prior=N
You want to play, you have to pay.
Your tax dollars at work.
deech56 (16:49:32) :
RE: Peter Miller (15:51:24) :
> I’m surprised nobody else answered your concerns.
Sorry – we’re only on here too much, not all the time.
————
rbateman (16:51:32) :
A thousandths of what? Meter? Millimeter? Inch? Firkin? (Yes, I know that’s volume, but I like the name) Thickness of the atmosphere?
Mylar is sold in thicknesses like 0.0005″. (That’s about a micro-meter. Really thin mylar is available at 0.000059″.) Cover a doorway with a piece. Measure the environmental impact – it will stop air flow, maybe people flow. And still, it just adds a few grams to the weight of the building. Trace materials matter.
Is there math behind that? Don’t forget that an IR photon is much larger than a CO2 molecule. That’s why we can’t image atoms with visible light. One mole of air is 22.4 liters at STP IIRC. That’s Avogadro’s number of molecules, about 6 x 10^23 molecules. That’s more than 2 x 10^20 CO2 molecules in a space smaller than a cubic foot. Beyond that, I don’t know what the odds are, but I think I’ve read that the right wavelengths, an IR photon gets captured in a few meters. That seems awfully short to me and I suspect its wrong. I do think its unlikely such a photon can make it out of the atmosphere.
BTW, I’ve been meaning to ask – you consistently write C02 (C zero two) instead of CO2 (C oh two). How come?
deech56 (16:49:32),
Let’s do a little gedanken experiment:
Suppose there were no “greenhouse” gases in the atmosphere. An incoming photon would presumably travel from the Sun straight down to the Earth, adding its quanta of energy and warming the planet.
Now let’s add CO2 [forget H2O vapor, it doesn’t change the experiment].
An incoming photon is absorbed by a CO2 molecule a couple of miles up. The CO2 molecule almost instantly re-emits a photon in a random direction, sloughing off the extra energy as it returns to its ground state. The re-emitted photon either goes down and hits the ground, adding energy and warming the planet, or it is re-emitted upward and lost to space, taking its extra energy with it.
Thus, 100% of radiation from the Sun to the Earth doesn’t warm the planet. Some of it is returned to space because of carbon dioxide. And that amount is more than 50%.
If CO2 at ground level absorbs a photon, chances are close to 50/50 that any re-emitted photon will hit the ground. But as we go up in altitude, the photons hitting the ground will decline from 50%.
Think of it this way: if a CO2 molecule half way between the Sun and the Earth absorbs and re-emits a photon, there is only a very small chance of that re-emitted photon hitting the Earth. Most will fly off into space, or back toward the Sun. The higher the altitude, the fewer re-emitted photons will warm the Earth. The rest escape to space.
So in our little thought experiment, atmospheric CO2 would tend to cool the planet by keeping some of the Sun’s incoming radiation from warming the Earth; CO2 acts as a partial reflector of solar energy.
Smokey (17:49:06) :
Thus, 100% of radiation from the Sun to the Earth doesn’t warm the planet. Some of it is returned to space because of carbon dioxide. And that amount is more than 50%.
Presumably some [most I would reckon] of the photons zip right through without encountering a CO2 molecule. You say ‘add some CO2’. OK, I’ll add exactly ONE molecule. That single one still cuts the amount reaching the ground by more that 50%?
RE: Smokey (17:49:06) :
Arghhh – forgot to close the block-quote. My reply starts at “But your thought experiment…”
Google is censoring Climategate!!!
Financial Post – Lawrence Solomon:
http://tinyurl.com/yctbtgc
RE Joel Shore (16:35:17) :
“I am not sure how you get your intuition. What is your intuition for what would happen to you if you were placed in a room with 0.038% of plutonium? ”
Psst, Joel. Plutonium is an alpha emitter and the radiation is stopped by the dead skin layer, so it’s not the worst hazard one could think of – now if it’s inhaled…
Cs-137, a gamma emitter, may be a better choice. 😉
p.s. I enjoy your posts – I often check to see if you have posted when I am directed here.
Old Jim Hansen just trots out his same old assumption. He believes that he can estimate temperatures in adjacent grids that have no sensors and do so without falsifying the data.
Response 1: Of course, he can. If you do not measure temperature in the adjacent grid, your estimate cannot be wrong.
Response 2: Now, that is some funky science. Sure, jim, estimate the adjacent grid. But the science begins when you install sensors in the next grid and use them to verify or falsify your estimate.
Old Jim Hansen should understand that we will be satisfied with nothing less than sensors in each grid and a comparable number of sensors throughout the atmosphere. There’s Old Jim’s next grant proposal and he should get to work on it if he wants to be taken seriously.