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.
Deech… looks like the UN thinks they better look at it again…
I have a feeling that it won’t be much different than the 2007 report you cite.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601082&sid=a92m7lbAaQQc
Re Deech 56
…..I’m not Joel, but I will make a couple of points.
1. The change in CO2 occurs about 800 years after the start of the temperature change, but continues throughout the warming and cooling phases.
2. The forcing from Milankovitch cycles cannot account for the temperature change without the inclusion of feedbacks – and we know that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and as CO2 levels increase, they feed back on the earth’s heat balance.
3. Calculations of climate sensitivity have included the analysis of the last glacial maximum, and the number that comes up (1.2–4.3 oC) is close to the IPCC estimates. Of course, compared to the last million years plus, we are in uncharted territory in a way, so it is useful to look back even further, at a study in which the authors found a range of 1.6-5.5 oC; again, consistent with the IPCC estimates…
Deech 56, be sure to continue your conclusions by noting that CO2 concentration then falls 400 to 1500 years AFTER T decrease at the onset of glaciation!!
And continue and note that during the Eemian glaciation, global mean surface temperatures were 3 to 5oC HIGHER than now, but with CO2 at 280ppmv. So here we have an scenario where T’s were 3-5oC higher than now with CO2 100ppmv LESS than now. So what drove these higher T’s during the Eemian Interglacial?
So we “know” that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, but its effect in driving T changes at concentrations of 280ppmv and above are tiny – the data speaks for itself. And, why don’t you mention the role of clouds vs CO2 in your feedback models?
Smokey, thanx for all of that.
Just an observation from this chart – http://3.bp.blogspot.com/__VkzVMn3cHA/S0pG400b4TI/AAAAAAAAAGA/DFyRKeT6gqg/s1600-h/Twelve+Year+Satellite+Trend2.bmp
Looking at the reference to El nino/nina, it appears that the climate is much more sensitive to cooling forcings then to warming forcings. Or am I just “seeing” things?
rbateman, you can view CDO NCDC data for free from a .edu, .k12, or .gov domain. It is apparently done that way so that people don’t use the data commercially (without breaking a rule of their provider). All of the weather stations use NCDC data. This saves taxpayer money.
RE Mike Bryant (13:08:24) :
I did ask for publications to substantiate your points, but apparently none are forthcoming. Crying out “UN! UN!” means nothing to me. Those of us in medical research have a positive image of their scientific missions, thanks to the WHO. And what’s wrong with wanting more data? There appears to some uncertainty about the Himalayan glaciers, so more analysis is warranted.
Again, show me where the WGMS is wrong. Find the papers that state that glaciers world-wide are advancing.
RE Leo G (13:39:36) :
What kind of analysis did you perform? Is it reasonable to calculate sensitivities based on such short-term events? Just wondering.
They’ve been retreating for centuries, most of them, before manmade CO2 increased – what might be the reason for that?
Lower precipitation and humidity, mostly. Regarding glacial retreat, see section 2.2 (pages 28-32), “Glaciers,” of Dr. Syun-Ichi Akasofu’s paper, “Two Natural Components of Recent Climate Change,” here (as a 50-Mb PDF):
http://people.iarc.uaf.edu/~sakasofu/little_ice_age.php
deech56 (10:26:23) :
“Glaciers around the world are retreating – what might be the reason for that?”
As we just learned on another thread there are 162,000 glaciers and the majority are not monitored. We also know that many glaciers are, in fact, advancing. We also suspect based on ClimateGate, etc. that most of those studying glaciers need to claim AGW just to get published.
The net result is I think we know a lot less than you think.
BTW, I think it has warmed since the depth of the LIA. Personally, I am quite happy about it. Would you like to see a colder world with less farm land, lower crop yields and more cold winter related deaths?
deech56 (13:51:31) :
“Those of us in medical research …”
In general I find people in medical research to be quite skeptical of AGW. The medical research community proved oh so clearly the problems with research bias many years ago. Hence, the adherence to double blind studies. Clearly, there is no equivalent in climate research. Bias is rampant and anyone with any sense of medical research history should be very, very skeptical.
deech56 (13:57:22) : – {What kind of analysis did you perform? Is it reasonable to calculate sensitivities based on such short-term events? Just wondering.}
It was a peer review.
You know, you peer at it and make a review! 🙂
Not everything posted on blogs has to be serious my friend.
deech56 (12:59:47):
“As far as the “financial gain” and propaganda stuff, please spare me…”
You should be damn mad that “global warming studies” have already drained tens of billions of dollars away from other, more important research – like the field you work in. The global warming scam is a monumental rip-off of taxpayer funds, and it starves all other areas of publicly funded science.
There are only so many tax dollars available to go around. That is why the promoters of AGW run and hide from any real debate. That’s why Al Gore and the rest duck out of interviews [unless the person doing the interview is a trusted pet]. And that is why there are no true scientific skeptics in the whole bunch. The climate alarmists have both front feet in the public trough; they are not going to derail their gravy train by answering questions.
And if Cap & Trade ever passes, it will be much worse – doubled and squared.
You asked for publications. OK. I can provide several dozen if you like in the next few minutes. But since the central aspect of the CO2=CAGW hypothesis concerns the question of climate sensitivity, I’ll provide one that answers that question [Prof Richard Lindzen arrives at roughly the same answer, although he is a little more conservative. But he’s in the same ball park].
To give some background on the one I’m providing, it came about due to the persistence of Lord Monckton, who ultimately prevailed against the editorial board of the American Physical Society – which had tried to shut him out of the debate.
By finally publishing his paper, Lord Monckton forced them to acknowledge his rationale. [You can see from their intro that they printed his corrigendum with gritted teeth; they could have simply called for Monckton’s paper to be refereed and peer reviewed, but apparently decided that it would be in their best interest to not give it that status.]
Monckton methodically shows that the sensitivity to CO2 is too low to result in anything but very slight warming, and for all practical purposes CO2 can be disregarded: click
Leo G (13:39:36),
I am at a little bit of a loss regarding your question about forcings for the same reason that E. M. Smith questions them: how are “forcings” quantified? Electrical current is measured in amperes, resistance is in ohms, etc. What is the basic unit of forcing? The term sounds like inside baseball to me. Sorry for the non-answer. But first we need to know what quantity a forcing is.
RE Roger Knights (14:22:29) :
What do your sources that discuss the long-term retreat tell you? And was Dr. Akasofu’s paper published in a journal? I would be interested in reading the abstract before spending the time downloading the full paper.
RE Richard M (15:02:16) :
Any population study involves taking a sample. Here are the locations of the glaciers that were studied for the mass balance calculations. They represent a broad range of regions. Do you think that the sampling that started decades ago just happened to pick glaciers that were going to melt? Any evidence for this? You “suspect” that the glacier papers need to claim AGW to get published? Where was this in the stolen e-mails? The choice isn’t between a colder world or a warmer world. The choice is between the world we have become accustomed to and a world (and country) far, far different. I’m from Buffalo, and cold world doesn’t frighten me. 😉 (Leo G wil like this)
Increased water and agricultural stresses and risks to coastlines don’t sound too pleasant to me. Food production is pretty important.
RE Richard M (15:12:12) :
My experience reading the writings of HIV/AIDS and vaccine deniers has led me to be skeptical of “skeptical” claims against the science. Double blind studies are important, but that’s because of the placebo effect; at my end of research double-blind studies weren’t really feasible. That doesn’t mean that we didn’t consider bias and try to minimize it, of course.
But the point that I am trying to make is that I approach a field outside of my own area of expertise the same way that I approach any scientific research – looking for the best sources of information, and that is the scientific literature, paying particular attention to any findings by organizations like the National Academy of Sciences.
I had the advantage of being able to manipulate conditions in my experiments. In fields like astronomy climatology, geology and paleontology, researchers depend a lot on observations, but we still accept things like the big bang, age of the earth, and evolution. That’s life, and in science we use the tools that are available.
“I’m from Buffalo, and cold world doesn’t frighten me. ;-)”
No one cares that you think you’re from Buffalo… How about a study to back that up? 🙂 Also a study that demonstrates that a cold world is better than a warmer world…
RE Smokey (16:11:46) :
And you answer with claims about financial gain and propaganda.
Spencer did provide a decent analysis pointing out the flaws in Lindzen and Choi, but Monckton? C’mon. You don’t actually look to him as an authority, do you? That article in the APS newsletter was in no way, shape or form a peer-reviewed publication. There are many more reliable sources for information on climate sensitivity, like the review paper by Knutti & Hegerl from Nature Geosciences. This paper highlights the idea of independent confirmation (as does James Annan’s analysis, but it’s getting kind of late).
RE Mike Bryant (17:24:27) :
False dichotomy. Those aren’t the choices we face.
deech56 (17:18:24) :
“My experience reading the writings of HIV/AIDS and vaccine deniers has led me to be skeptical of “skeptical” claims against the science.”
You have it exactly backward, my friend. The long established climate theory is that of natural variability. That is what must be falsified, if possible, by the relatively new hypothesis of CO2=CAGW.
The Scientific Method doesn’t only require that an upstart hypothesis must explain reality better than the established theory [usually done by making more accurate predictions, or falsifying the existing theory]; the Scientific Method also requires full and transparent cooperation from those proposing any new new hypothesis.
Why? Because the goal isn’t one-upmanship, or protecting lucrative grant fiefs. The goal is scientific truth, which is arrived at only by attacking and attempting to falsify a hypothesis by skeptical scientists – and even by those scientists proposing the hypothesis. Everyone cooperates in trying to falsify a hypothesis [or a theory, or even a Law – just as the current search for the Higgs boson is intended to verify or falsify the current model of gravity].
Whatever remains standing after all attempts at falsification is considered to be as close to scientific truth as we can get.
Being ‘skeptical of skeptical claims,’ as you said, is the wrong way to look at it. The job of scientific skeptics [which includes all honest scientists] is to falsify a hypotheses if they can, whether the hypothesis is CO2=CAGW, or the theory of natural climate variability. Being skeptical of skeptics has no place in the Scientific Method; it is sophistry.
R John says:
A logarithm doesn’t saturate. What a logarithmic dependence means is that you need the same FRACTION of increase to produce the same amount of effect. This is why scientists talk about the effect of a CO2 doubling rather than the effect of raising CO2 by a fixed amount in ppm.
Ric Werme says:
No…It implies that over large enough periods of time, the temperature trend should be upward, which it has been. On times short enough that the ups-and-downs associated with ENSO and the like are dominating, the temperature trend is not expected to always be positive. And, in fact, some periods of ten or even 15 years where the least-trend fit is negative are a robust feature of climate models run with increasing greenhouse gases.
No. But, I am suggesting that appeals to “saturation” are bogus, particularly in arguing that this somehow contradicts the mainstream science. The fact that the dependence of forcing on CO2 concentration is approximately logarithmic is well-known, well-understood, and in fact the reason that scientists talk about the effects in the way that they do (in terms of a doubling of concentration).
Smokey (18:10:15) :
deech56 (17:18:24) :
“My experience reading the writings of HIV/AIDS and vaccine deniers has led me to be skeptical of “skeptical” claims against the science.”
You have it exactly backward, my friend. The long established climate theory is that of natural variability. That is what must be falsified, if possible, by the relatively new hypothesis of CO2=CAGW.
The ‘theory of natural variability’ isn’t a scientific theory since it’s incapable of falsification. On the other hand the theory of greenhouse gas warming is a scientific theory and has met all the challenges so far.
Phil, have you been reading the ENSO update that comes out every Monday? At the end of the power point, predictions of temperature/precip, etc, trends are given for the current ENSO state. If natural variability is not a theory, on what basis do they make these weather predictions?
deech56 (16:58:44) :
“Increased water and agricultural stresses and risks to coastlines don’t sound too pleasant to me. Food production is pretty important.”
Then you should be for global warming. Ask any farmer if warm or cold is better? No? You’d rather trust the ClimateGate team? Really? Why is that? The truth is most plants love heat. As long as they have water heat presents absolutely no problems. On top of that, higher CO2 allows plants to get by with less water. Not to mention that plants love more CO2 (it’s called plant food for a reason). The only “agricultural stresses” of increased heat/CO2 are imaginary.
Also, it appears you don’t question any of the AGW articles because you *trust* them as fellow scientists. Actually, that is very unscientific of you. I thought you were on the younger side because that unscientific trust has somehow become commonplace. You will learn eventually. You will find out that this situation is not unlike the 1960s in medical research. Those scientists thought they knew what they were doing as well. I think this is often the problem with new fields of study where researchers have little grasp of what they don’t understand.
Phil. (19:20:30) :
“The ‘theory of natural variability’ isn’t a scientific theory since it’s incapable of falsification. On the other hand the theory of greenhouse gas warming is a scientific theory and has met all the challenges so far.”
You’ve got to be kidding. All you need to falsify the natural climate variability theory is show that temperatures have remained constant for all of the Earth’s history. Let us know when you’ve completed the work and we’ll review it for you. Are you related to Mann?
BTW, spouting a strawman is silly. Greenhouse warming theory of 1C per doubling of CO2 is very reasonable and would be much appreciated by all the plants and animals that eat plants.
1. I’m basing my assertion that precipitation and relative humidity are mostly responsible for current glacial retreat on what I’ve read on this site from time to time. I don’t have links, but I’m sure there are “gunslingers” here who could provide them. (Smokey?) In particular, it’s a change to a dryer environment thanks to local land use changes (jungle replaced by farms) that is responsible for the shrinkage of the snows, etc. on Kilimanjaro.
2. Akasofu’s paper was not journal-published. He stated that because it is just a summary of material already published by others (and also, I guess, because it is over 50 pages), he didn’t bother to submit it. However, Akasofu has credibility as a scientist. I’ve read that he is one of the top-dozen scientists in his field (arctic studies, especially the northern lights) in terms of citations, and he has lots of honors. (He’s now semi-retired.)
3. Here’s the abstract:
“Two natural components of the presently progressing climate change are identified.
The first one is an almost linear global temperature increase of about 0.5°C/100 years (~1°F/100 years), which seems to have started at least one hundred years before 1946 when manmade CO2 in the atmosphere began to increase rapidly. This value of 0.5°C/100 years may be compared with what the International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) scientists consider to be the manmade greenhouse effect of 0.6°C/100 years. This 100-year long linear warming trend is likely to be a natural change. One possible cause of this linear increase may be Earth’s continuing recovery from the Little Ice Age (1400-1800). This trend (0.5°C/100 years) should be subtracted from the temperature data during the last 100 years when estimating the manmade contribution to the present global warming trend. As a result, there is a possibility that only a small fraction of the present warming trend is attributable to the greenhouse effect resulting from human activities. Note that both glaciers in many places in the world and sea ice in the Arctic Ocean that had developed during the Little Ice Age began to recede after 1800 and are still receding; their recession is thus not a recent phenomenon.
The second one is the multi-decadal oscillation, which is superposed on the linear change. One of them is the “multi-decadal oscillation,” which is a natural change. This particular change has a positive rate of change of about 0.15°C/10 years from about 1975, and is thought to be a sure sign of the greenhouse effect by the IPCC. But, this positive trend stopped after 2000 and now has a negative slope. As a result, the global warming trend stopped in about 2000-2001.
Therefore, it appears that the two natural changes have a greater effect on temperature changes than the greenhouse effects of CO2. These facts are contrary to the IPCC Report (2007, p.10), which states that “most” of the present warming is due “very likely” to be the manmade greenhouse effect. They predict that the warming trend continues after 2000. Contrary to their prediction, the warming halted after 2000.
There is an urgent need to correctly identify natural changes and remove them from the present global warming/cooling trend, in order to accurately identify the contribution of the manmade greenhouse effect. Only then can the contribution of CO2 be studied quantitatively.”
Phil. (19:20:30):
That’s nonsense.
Phil is saying that Dr Roy Spencer, our esteemed climatologist, doesn’t know what he’s talking about when he says, “No one has falsified the theory that the observed temperature changes are a consequence of natural variability.” So, who to believe? Phil? Or Dr Spencer?
Even more fun: Who to believe? Mother Earth, which is cooling as CO2 rises, thus empirically falsifying the CO2=CAGW [“AGW”] hypothesis? Or Mr Phil again? The planet’s verdict trumps anyone’s contrary opinion. The Earth is telling the truth.
And the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability… or its refutability, or its testability. Testability is the primary criterion; falsifiability is the ideal, and results from testability. But falsifiability is not an absolute requirement of the Scientific Method; testability is [source]. And AGW is tested all the time: as CO2 rises, the climate has been flat to cooling for almost a decade. AGW clearly fails the test.
Up next: deech56 (17:34:56)
Despite Mr deetch’s ad hominem attack against Lord Monckton [as opposed to trying to find any flaws in his scholarly paper], it is a fact that Lord Monckton is every bit as qualified as Gavin Schmidt [also a mathematician], or Rajendra Pachauri [an economist], or Michael Mann [a geologist], and just about all the rest of the alarmist crowd who pretend they are more qualified. They’re not, of course. Monckton is equal to the best of them, and better than most. And unlike the alarmists, Monckton isn’t suckling at the public teat. He pays his own way.
Also, glad to see deech acknowledge Dr Roy Spencer. He should remind Phil that Dr Spencer knows what he’s talking about regarding climate theories.
Finally, even I could find a better citation than the one deech provided by Knutti & Hegerl, who cite only Svante Arrenhius’ 1896 paper, with its high climate sensitivity conclusion – but without ever mentioning the fact that Arrenhius recanted his conclusion a decade later in his 1906 paper, with its much lower sensitivity number. By neglecting to mention Arrhenius’ correction of his earlier views, the K&H citation is little more than alarmist propaganda.
The reason this AGW scam has made it as far as it has is due to the problem deech and Phil have both avoided here: the deliberate stonewalling of information requests by skeptical scientists, and the blanket refusal to cooperate with others attempting to to falsify AGW. They don’t care about finding the truth. They only care about the money and status that result from their AGW advocacy.
McIntyre & McKitrick worked long and hard to falsify Mann’s treemometer-based Hokey Stick, when Mann should have cooperated with them from the get-go. The hiding of taxpayer financed data and methods by taxpayer financed scientists is contrary to the Scientific Method. It is based on the assumption that AGW is a fact, and that the data must be hammered into conformance, or fabricated outright, to fit their pre-conceived AGW conclusions.
If Mann and the rest really believed they had solid evidence backing up their AGW hypothesis, they would certainly have produced it. The reason they didn’t is because they knew their hypothesis would be torn to shreds, just like Mann’s Hokey Stick was.