By Steve Goddard
As Bob Tisdale pointed out, Tom Karl’s NCDC trend claims don’t match his graph. The trend line is less than either of the claimed V2 or V3 trends in the graph below.
But beyond this blatant error, there are other problems with his graph. Why did it start in 1900? NCDC has data going back to 1880. As you can see below, temperatures dropped from 1880 for about 30 years, which reduces the long term slope considerably.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/img/climate/research/global-jan-dec-error-bar-pg.gif
Now let’s compare his graph vs. Had-Crut, which goes back to 1850. Had-Crut is shown in green, and NCDC V3 is shown in red, at the same scale. Note that there is a huge divergence over the last ten years vs. Had-Crut. The Had-Crut long term trend is 0.45C/century, about half of what Tom Karl is claiming.
It appears that someone is hiding the decline at both ends of the graph.
UPDATE from Steve Goddard:
When I wrote the article I did not recognize that the “global” data presented to the Senate in slide 21 was land only. Thanks to Bob Tisdale for pointing it out. The land only data has diverged from global data over the last decade and explains the discrepancy at the right side of the graph. It does not explain why the slide is marked as “global” or why the land only data set was presented to Congress as “unequivocal” evidence of “global” warming. My apologies to Tom Karl for not recognizing which data set he was presenting to Congress in that particular slide.
Clearer skies (more penetrating sunlight) + end of solar minima + urban heat island effects + poor station citing + manmade adjustments = higher temperature readings
Why does this door keep revolving?
The global averages are used to create false impressions (and clearly NCDC is trying to impress).
A CRU email from Phil Jones to Michael Mann, Malcolm Hughes and others, Mar 11, 2003, stated: “Even with the instrumental record, the early and late 20th century warming periods are only significant locally at between 10-20% of grid boxes.”
A start to an investigation of areas with / without warming using CRU data:
http://www.appinsys.com/GlobalWarming/SeekingWarming.htm
Imagine that!
Oh, another gate for my collection – Thanks!
Anthony: HADCrut is a combined Land Plus Sea Surface Temp dataset. Your comparison should have been the GCHN Version 3 versus CRUTEM, instead if HADCrut, should it not?
REPLY: Not my post, Goddard’s. But I’ll pass on the question -A
Doesn’t matter how it is dressed up, it is still background warming and perfectly natural, the prestidigitator’s are still massaging the figures, same old, same old, it looks massive (it’s worse than we thought!) and the graphs are designed to do just that, scare, startle and confuse.
If the time scale is increased we would find …well not much out of the ordinary.
I think natural warming is good, so does the earth but there may be a shock in store (lets hope not);
http://www.examiner.com/x-32936-Seminole-County-Environmental-News-Examiner~y2010m5d19-Triple-Crown-of-global-cooling-could-pose-serious-threat-to-humanity
It should be obvious that the data are wrong, not the trends. That will be corrected in version 4.
I haven’t compared V2 with V3 yet, but here’s my old V1, V2 comparison for the Illinois USHCN stations.
Anthony: You replied, “Not my post, Goddard’s. But I’ll pass on the question”
Sorry. I didn’t see Steve’s name earlier.
Regards
Ever notice how all the temperature graphs of this scale start somewhere near the lower left and finish somewhere near the upper right no matter how they are sliced and diced?
“NCDC has data going back to 1880”
So how far would we have to go back to see the even bigger trend.
It’s hell coming out of a LIA.
Steve Goddard,
You can find Hadley land temps on their website. Create a graph of that and NCDC land temps for a fair comparison. For version 2, it looks like this: http://i81.photobucket.com/albums/j237/hausfath/Picture384.png
Still hotter than HadCRU, but not as dramatic. They use somewhat different data, however, since NCDC only uses GHCN. Our various reconstructions (mine, Nick Stokes, Chads, Jeff Id/Roman, Tamino) are a lot close to NCDC than Hadley, likely because we also only use GHCN.
It seems to me that you could perhaps ignore older temperature variations as natural, and claim that only the changes that coincide with increases in CO2 should be considered as part of the trend line.
I don’t know what the CO2 increase line looks like – if it started in 1850, then your point holds perfectly, but if it started in, say 1900, then 1900 is not an unreasonable place to start.
Also, 1880-1900 are only warmer in global temps, not NCDC land-only temps. No nefarious motives behind the truncation.
See http://climateknowledge.org/figures/WuGblog_figures/RBRWuG0072_NCDC_march_temp_global_average_2008.gif for example.
The Had-Crut long term trend is 0.45C/century, about half of what Tom Karl is claiming.
The HadCRUT trend is 0.73° C/century according to the notorious alarmist Lucia Lijlegren.
I mean, it’s an odd argument: it’s undisputed that warming has increased faster in the 20th century, right? So extending a graph way back into the mid-1800s and running a trend line through it as though the increase was monotonic would give a totally mistaken impression of the rate of warming. And why would you want to do that?
Oh. Wait.
Never mind.
Oh that’s a simple one… why start at 1900 ? well tell me what would happen to the line of best fit if I started 10,000 years ago ? it would be flat or so close to it that it wouldn’t matter. So why start at 1900 well that’s when we started digging up oil and using it. In reality it’s really should be the last 50 years or so but I doubt you would like those numbers.
a line of best fit that extends way past the period you’re trying to see the underlying treat will be counter productive, please think about it. If we are looking for a tread in the last 50 years what would happen if I made the line of best fit 100 years, then 200 years and then 300 years ?
I don’t believe these guys are actually that stupid not to understand this, which only leaves me with one conclusion.
Re Bob Tisdale’s question –but if that’s the wrong dataset, then why is the agreement so close prior to the last 10 years?
Alan Cheetham says:
May 20, 2010 at 1:53 pm
I have some I checked out from Phil Jones CRU sets here (Scroll down)
http://www.robertb.darkhorizons.org/WhatGlobalWarming.htm
My selection bias is for stations that did not move or moved only a short distance, and anything I could find that had
records going back as far as possible.
Nice site you got there, btw.
I don’t believe these guys are actually that stupid not to understand this, which only leaves me with one conclusion.
And of course, if you’re trying to compare natural variation to anything attributable to humans, you would see we are in a substantial down-trend for temperature. That blip at the end sure stands out like a sore thumb, doesn’t it? Unbelievably scary if you ask me.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/12/historical-video-perspective-our-current-unprecedented-global-warming-in-the-context-of-scale/#more-14034
Now if you don’t see what all the fuss is about after THAT, it leaves me with only one conclusion.
Nigel Leck,
Can you get your mind around the possibility that concurrent warming happened to coincide with the industrial revolution? The planet has warmed at essentially the same rate many times in the pre-SUV era.
I am not saying that CO2 didn’t cause the warming. I am saying that is an assumption. Show us the physical evidence confirming that the recent warming was due to the one CO2 molecule out of every 34 that is emitted by mankind.
Otherwise, your assumption is no more valid than this.
Where are the statisticians? Could Bob T. or WIllis E. kindly explain why people are still allowed to draw straight lines through the these data series when the issue of “stationarity” means that it is statistically invalid to do so. Has “stationarity” gone away as an issue? I would appreciate an explanation.
In that last graphic, there seems to be an issue. It is described as “Now let’s compare his graph vs. Had-Crut, which goes back to 1850. Had-Crut is shown in green, and NCDC V3 is shown in red, at the same scale.”
Note the claim of “at the same scale”. Sorry, but a quick visual inspection shows they very obviously and blatantly are NOT at the same scale. The red graph’s -0.5 level is even with the green graph’s -0.6 level. The red graph’s +0.5 level is about across from the green graph’s +0.4 level, but not precisely.
That image is significantly off and needs to be corrected. I suspect the shift would move the entire red graph upward a bit, and might compress it just a touch. I don’t know exactly how that would show in comparison to the green graph, but nonetheless, it ought to be fixed.
We know the increase in CO2 levels are due to human activity due to the carbon isotopes. Please see :-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
Nigel Leck,
Another assumption, in this case assuming that plants will reject CO2 molecules with one extra neutron.
“Down trend” ?? check for yourself… There doesn’t seem to be a down trend to me.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
or at :-
http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Smokey: No one say planets reject carbon based on their atomic weight. Please read the link:-
http://www.skepticalscience.com/human-co2-smaller-than-natural-emissions.htm
latitude says:
May 20, 2010 at 3:22 pm
“NCDC has data going back to 1880″
So how far would we have to go back to see the even bigger trend.
It’s hell coming out of a LIA.
______________________________________________________________
If you want to know take a look at Lucy’s super graph Click
@Nigel Leck
Extend that line back to the MWP or the RWP. You sound like you bought into Mann’s straight line going back forever. That has been throughly debunked here and elsewhere. You must be new here. Relax and just sip the cool aid instead of gulping it.
the thing that is missing from these graphs are ERROR bars.
A.J. Strata dug through the whistleblower released CRU information and found the error bars.
A.J. States:
“…Before we dive into CRU data we need to step back and understand the concept of ‘accuracy’ in scientific measurements. One rule of reality is you cannot process data (run statistics) to create more accuracy than originallly captured in the raw data. If you measure something in meters or yards, no amount of statistical analysis can increase your accuracy to inches or centimeters….
…I also want to note the size of the so-called temperature anomaly depicted on this graph. It shows a -0.3°C (circa 1910) to +0.5°C (circa 2000) change over the period. Therefore the error in temp data cannot exceed 0.5°C or else all these global temp indexes are statistically equal (i.e., no warming)….
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…..”
The graph is here: http://strata-sphere.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/CRU%20Sampling%20Error.gif
geo says: “Re Bob Tisdale’s question –but if that’s the wrong dataset, then why is the agreement so close prior to the last 10 years?”
Look again. Is it so close prior to the last 10 years, or is it the way Steve overlaid them?
geo says: May 20, 2010 at 3:57 pm . . .
Totally off topic, but great work on the Iowa station survey, geo. Much appreciated.
Now who’s gonna get Indianola?
Mr Mike McMillan;
I’ve wanted to ask some questions for awhile now ;
1)_What subset of the Illinois stations did you plot for those blinkers?
2) Was there any indication or statement that the version had changed from V1 to V2, if indeed that is the difference?
3) What rationale was offered for ‘RAW’ data changing so dramatically?
4) What is your opinion of the source of the dramatic shifts in individual trends?
When I show that page to AGW believers, they reject it as being cherry-picked or not representative.
Beyond the download dates, what else can you say about the provenance of the underlying data sets?
Big thanx
RR
Mike G: Take the line to when the asteroid killed the dinosaurs it may even show a cooling as I’m fairly sure that it was quite warm on that day.
Maybe if you want to be serious you should look at this instead :_
http://climateprogress.org/2010/05/16/nasa-easily-the-hottest-january-and-hottest-jan-april-in-temperature-record/
jb says: “It seems to me that you could perhaps ignore older temperature variations as natural, and claim that only the changes that coincide with increases in CO2 should be considered as part of the trend line.”
Circular reasoning lies at the base of your suggestion. Correlation is not causation.
Nigel Leck,
OK, I read your article and the links. Did you read the comments? I didn’t count, but it appears there are more [true] skeptics than those supporting the article’s contention. [BTW, I dislike blogs where the owner repeatedly jumps into the thread to argue with people who have a different point of view than he does. Almost all alarmist blogs do that, and it tends to drive away the folks who get put in their place by the presumed “authority,” even though they often turn out to be right after all.]
But anyway, let’s assume you’re right, and there can be no other explanation for the isotope disparity, even though the authors conclude that “the (isotopic) fractionation between compartments is not established well enough to allow conclusions to be drawn unequivocally.”
So please explain how an isotopic change from 0.0111073 of CO2 to 0.0110906 is going to radically alter the global climate. This recent peer reviewed paper shows that there has been no net increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years, or even over the past 5 decades. It appears that the biosphere is responding to increased airborne fertilizer.
The central question is whether CO2 will cause runaway global warming, isn’t it? Because if CO2 has only a slight to moderate effect on temperature, or its effect is naturally countered by other feedbacks, then there is no reason to continue spending the exorbitant amounts of tax dollars on beating the dead carbon horse.
Finally, CO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. Rising CO2 is not the cause, it is the effect of past rising temperatures. Also, what we see now has happened regularly in the past.
If you accept the wisdom of Occam’s Razor, you know there is no reason to add an extraneous entity like CO2 to the explanation of rising and falling global temperatures. From what is actually observed, that tiny trace gas has less influence over the planet than U.S. postal rates.
@Nigel
Maybe if you want to be serious you should look at this instead :_
That’s covered pretty well of various current threads. One, recent El Nino, now deceased. Two, GISS extrapolates METAR corrupted temperature data to encompass the entire arctic, convieniently inflating their numbers.
For Nigel: http://i42.tinypic.com/vpx303.jpg
So, that’s how ya’ll do it. Cook the books.
Reminds me of a certain chemist we used to call to get boron concentration. She’d ask what we expected it to be and then go grab the sample and analyze it. Pretty soon she’d call back and tell us it was what we’d thought it was going to be. Of course, we did know what it was going to be because we knew how much we’d diluted the RCS since the last sample.
RuhRoh,
I’ve wondered about some of those things, too. Notice that the later charts always show faster warming, whether it’s done by lowering past temperatures, or by raising current temperatures.
But the most glaring issue is that both charts in V1 and V2 have the notation “July 09 Raw” and “November 09 Raw”. GISS could not have made the same error inadvertently on every station. One or both of the data months for each station must have been “adjusted.”
It is hard to avoid the conclusion that James Hansen is deliberately manipulating the climate data in his custody to show alarming warming.
Smokey:
“no net increase in atmospheric CO2” We can directly measure the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere, so sorry I do not agree with you on that point.
“CO2 will cause runaway global warming” A doubling of the CO2 levels by itself is predicted to produce 1.1c increase in temperatures BUT it’s the feedbacks both positive and negative that the debate is over. One of these feedback is as ice caps melt the dark oceans will adsorb more heat. The sum total of all these feedbacks is predicted to increase the average temperatures by ~3c for a doubling of the CO2 levels.
http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
Dan Inesanto
They are at the same scale. If you look closer you will see that they are normalised with NCDC shifted down by 0.1 degrees, due to a different baseline.
Mike G: You know that we have been in a period of a solar minimum yet record high temperatures. A sinlge El Nino doesn’t explain multi decade trends.
http://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2009/03sep_sunspots/
Bob,
The NCDC presentation has disappeared off their web site as Anthony predicted. From looking at the copies of his slides on WUWT there is not much indication that they are land only, but after graphing the NCDC data from the web site I think you are correct.
Why would he be using land-only data???? Hansen tells us that global warming is about the oceans. Sounds like yet another deception.
Nigel Leck,
There is no valid reason to exclude any Had-Crut data.
https://spreadsheets.google.com/oimg?key=0AnKz9p_7fMvBdDFaMF92Y19odXZoLUhZMHJBUVk1LWc&oid=1&zx=qd0s83-pcpv8g
The slope is 0.45C/century. Now justify your cherry picking.
Yes Nigel,
But that level of feedback is derived by tweaking gains in questionable climate models to get the warming that CRU said took place and was claimed to be entirely man-made (tweaking the models to match the thoroughly debunked hockey stick, ignoring UHI, adjusting past temperatures downswards, etc.). They are deniers of natural variability.
Bob,
I calculated the NCDC land trends from their web site. 0.76C/century since 1900 and 0.72C/century since 1880.
But their land-ocean trend since 1880 is only 0.57C/century!
Given that the ocean is 2/3 of the planet, I find it mind-boggling that he is using a shortened trend from 1900, using only land data and excluding the oceans.
Nigel Leck,
See Mike G’s link above. Please explain.
And when you say, “so sorry I do not agree with you on that point,” without giving any basis for your feelings, you do realize that you are not arguing with me, you are arguing with the conclusions of a peer reviewed paper.
I have lots of charts, and graphs, and articles from knowledgeable climate scientists, if you’d like to keep going.
I know your mind is made up, but lots of other folks read these comments. They are the ones for whom I’m really providing this information. But maybe you will learn something in the process.
RuhRoh says: May 20, 2010 at 5:55 pm
I’ve wanted to ask some questions for awhile now ;
1)_What subset of the Illinois stations did you plot for those blinkers?
That is the entire Illinois USHCN set, not a subset. The stations are listed on surfacestations.org
http://www.surfacestations.org/USHCN_stationlist.htm
2) Was there any indication or statement that the version had changed from V1 to V2, if indeed that is the difference?
All charts were downloaded from
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/station_data/
with “raw GHCN data+USHCN corrections” selected in the “Data Set:” box.
Prior to V2, there was no other set. The current page has a “Note to prior users,” but it is at best ambiguous, and doesn’t mention anything about a Version 2. That the dataset changed between the dates is demonstrated by the charts.
3) What rationale was offered for ‘RAW’ data changing so dramatically?
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/research/ushcn/
4) What is your opinion of the source of the dramatic shifts in individual trends?
UHI is not included among the adjustments. I don’t doubt that other adjustments were fine tuned within reasonable limits to show an unambiguous warming trend, but that’s only opinion. The new raw data is much more closely aligned with GISS homogenized data, fact, suggesting an effort to fit the data to the theory, opinion.
When I show that page to AGW believers, they reject it as being cherry-picked or not representative.
That’s every Illinois station. Here’s Iowa and Wisconsin, every station –
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_iowa.htm
http://www.rockyhigh66.org/stuff/USHCN_revisions_wisconsin.htm
Beyond the download dates, what else can you say about the provenance of the underlying data sets?
Charts are direct from the govt web site, overlaid to set the scales in register, then .gif’d.
Richard Hill says:
May 20, 2010 at 4:29 pm
Where are the statisticians? Could Bob T. or WIllis E. kindly explain why people are still allowed to draw straight lines through the these data series when the issue of “stationarity” means that it is statistically invalid to do so. Has “stationarity” gone away as an issue? I would appreciate an explanation.
Richard, I would also like a second opinion on that aspect.
However, I came away from that tremendously long interplay with VS a few months ago that a linear regression has two completely different uses. One is to see backwards at what data has done in the past while minimizing variances, nothing more. Two is to attach a confidence level to that data and regression and try to infer some inkling of it’s probability to continue along that regression line into the future, a true trend that is (and I know the term “trend’ gets thrown around with dual meaning applying to both cases). To me, that is where “stationary” come blazing in to play and clearly indicates when that is not only wrong but fictional, a figment so to speak. If I’m incorrect there in my thoughts, I would like to hear from someone savvy in statistics because I really want to understand and know I am thinking correct when in that realm.
geo: I just checked, and, as I suspected, the similarities between the land surface temperature and combined land plus sea surface temperature are really a matter of appearance. (Steve actually did a great job of overlaying the two graphs.) Here’s a comparison of annual land surface temperature anomalies (CRUTEM) and combined land plus sea surface temperature anomalies (HADCRUT) from 1850 to 2009:
http://i50.tinypic.com/rscs45.png
The two datasets appear similar for the mid to latter part of the 20th century. But if we subtract the HADCRUT data from the CRUTEM data we can see the actual differences:
http://i50.tinypic.com/icidmu.png
When global temperatures are rising, land surface temperatures rise more than the combined, and when global temperatures are dropping, land surface temperatures drop more.
Smokey says: May 20, 2010 at 6:40 pm
But the most glaring issue is that both charts in V1 and V2 have the notation “July 09 Raw” and “November 09 Raw”.
I put that label on the charts, which indicates the file date when I downloaded the two charts. I don’t recall knowing at the time that there was a version 2, or when the changeover was.
Wisconsin blinks were downloaded later, but there were still no indications on the download pages, so I continued to label them with just the date.
I have indicated v1 and v2 on the Iowa charts.
Hmm.
Somebody FOIA noaa for the correspondence regarding the disappearing of presentations that have previously been public. And maybe check the DQA.
Nigel Leck says:
May 20, 2010 at 6:45 pm
A doubling of the CO2 levels by itself is predicted to produce 1.1c increase in temperatures BUT it’s the feedbacks both positive and negative that the debate is over. One of these feedback is as ice caps melt the dark oceans will adsorb more heat.
—…—…
No. We have observational evidence that this so-called “melted icecap” spiral is false.
September 2006 was observed with an average AMSRE low point for the past 10 years.
September 2007 – with near identical temperatures (NO global warming NOR cooling occurred between the two dates! – was extremely low (to the delight of the AGW extremists – and completely UNPREDICTED by any AGW models for that year at those temperatures.
September 2008 saw a 30 % increase from that low point – at the same temperatures and a slightly higher CO2 level. NO FEEDBACK loop nor “Freezing death ice age spiral” occurred.
September 2009 saw even higher sea ice extents, again with the same global temperatures. Again – NO sea ice feedback (positive or negative) on temperature has been observed in the real world – away from Al Gore’s movie and ten thousand (false) so-called experiments (propaganda demonstrations) at schools across the nation..
It is a figment of the AGW community’s (vivid) imaginations.
OK, thanks, Mike.
Steve Goddard,
GHCN is a land-only series. Showing land/ocean trends with GHCNv2 and GHCNv3 would be rather pointless if one was trying to highlight the effects of the change from v2 to v3, since they would be drowned in the ocean data.
Still no rebuttal to the fact that 1880-1900 NCDC land data is quite chilly and doesn’t depress the trend? Also, comparing 1850-2009 trends to 1900-2009 (or 1880-2009) trends is slightly disingenuous…
Zeke Hausfather,
It is you who are being disingenuous, accepting payola from the far-left Grantham Foundation. Don’t try to deny it, we’ve been over this before.
You are bought and paid for. Go away.
Zeke Hausfather
Land makes up 30% of the planet, and a much smaller percent of the southern hemisphere. Calling land trends “global” is simply dishonest.
http://i48.tinypic.com/4j4c60.png
Hansen says that global warming is about the temperature of the oceans, and we all know that land temperatures are tainted by UHI effects. Try being honest with yourself. It feels good.
stevengoddard,
Its a mistake that others have made (e.g. http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/25/thermal-hammer-part-deux/ ), but I agree that global land temperatures or just land temperatures would be preferable. I tend to use the former (for example, in http://rankexploits.com/musings/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/Picture-381.png ).
As for me, I always try and be honest with myself; I show my work, justify my reasoning, and call a spade a spade. Arguing that your original post doesn’t make sense given that GHCN is a land-only series is meant to be constructive criticism, and I apologize if it came off as somewhat antagonistic.
In yesterday’s critique of this bogus presentation I suggested that it reminded me of just using the DOW (stock market) from about 2002 to 2008.
After reading this one an even better analogy comes to mind: a graph of U.S. house prices during that same period. Its more relevant because the powers that be, including all the ‘experts,’ kept telling everybody that housing prices could only keep going up – just as this gang is trying to project its straight line up into the future.
There were a few sceptics about those housing prices, of course, but they were ignored and ridiculed until reality started to set in. Sound familiar?
Problem is, the Wall Streeters fooled Congress completely, or they chose to be fooled, because too many of those noble politicians were in bed with them or had vested interests in that sham. I sure hope that is not the case with this but I’m really starting to wonder, especially given what Obama has turned out to be.
stevengoddard: With the “both ends” the latest readings from both the skeptic crowd and NASA are as high or nearly as high as they have ever been so shorting the range only serves to give you a lower trend, which you would accept. So I think we are only talking about the start point correct ?
Now when do you think we started burning the majority of the fossil fuels ? before or after the second world war ? If you wanted to show the highest slope you would start at 1970.
Tell me how many cars where driving around in 1880 ? how many in 1680 ? if we had the numbers back to 1680 would it be appropriate to draw line of best fit from 1680 to 2010 ? do you think that may obscure the issue a bit ? please be honest.
[REPLY – After WWII. So far as we know, temps have been rising c. 1C per century since the nadir of the Little Ice Age. The Medieval Warm Period is now believed to have been worldwide and as warm or warmer than today. ~ Evan]
RACookPE1978: Ice caps melting ? see http://psc.apl.washington.edu/ArcticSeaiceVolume/IceVolume.php
Have you heard the expression “a dead cat bounces if drop from a high enough point” ? So to ice caps but hardly a recovery.
Smokey: Are you seriously saying that we haven’t measured an increase in CO2 concentrations ? That is the levels of CO2 in the atmosphere in 1810 ~= 2010 ? If so I’d love to put some money on that one
Evan: ( I assume you’re the moderator, wish you wouldn’t edit my replies) I think the current “best science” says on average the MWP was cooler than current temperatures BUT and this is the kicker, if it turns out to be warmer then that means the feed back effects are higher than we think they are and therefore we need to adjust the models UP.
This also leads me to another point Ian Plimer and Christopher Monckton on the same stage arguing against climate change but from opposite points of view. One saying it has always changed and will continue to do so, the other saying climate sensitively is low they both can’t be right.
http://www.skepticalscience.com/medieval-warm-period.htm
Mike G,
Hockey stick has been validate by multiple peer reviewed papers from many angles
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/paleo/pubs/mann2008/mann2008.html
http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/ccr/ammann/millennium/refs/Wahl_ClimChange2007.pdf
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/~mann/shared/research/ONLINE-PREPRINTS/Millennium/mbh99.pdf
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/~peter/Resources/Seminar/readings/Huang_boreholeTemp_Nature%2700.pdf
Zeke Hausfather says:
May 20, 2010 at 8:23 pm
“Also, comparing 1850-2009 trends to 1900-2009 (or 1880-2009) trends is slightly disingenuous…”
Hmmm, If S.G. is being disingenuous maybe you can get an answer for Steven mosher @ May 20, 2010 at 7:44 pm regarding the disappearing of presentations that have previously been public. Once again, I smell fish and it’s a nasty smell!
I analysed the data myself and use a 25 year period for the linear fit to compute slope, interesting result.
http://weathernotclimate.wordpress.com/
SteveGoddard: You replied, “From looking at the copies of his slides on WUWT there is not much indication that they are land only, but after graphing the NCDC data from the web site I think you are correct.”
The slide (Slide 21) you’re referring to that I used in my post was GHCN data. You cropped the title block off of it:
http://i48.tinypic.com/4j4c60.png
GHCN is land only. The title of Tom Karl’s Slide 16 reads “GHCN – Monthly Land Surface Stations”.
http://i46.tinypic.com/2mow50k.png
You asked, “Why would he be using land-only data????”
Because he was presenting the new GHCN dataset. He later discusses SST data in Slides 25 to 28.
You wrote, “Hansen tells us that global warming is about the oceans.”
Do you have a link?
It is one of the positive consequences of climategate, that some of the enablers and people in the background had to give up some of their low profile, because others are discredited.
Steve Goddard: In one of your replies to Zeke, you wrote, “Land makes up 30% of the planet, and a much smaller percent of the southern hemisphere. Calling land trends ‘global’ is simply dishonest.”
http://i48.tinypic.com/4j4c60.png
Huh? How else would you describe “Global Land Surface Temperature Anomaly” data?
The slide you linked clearly states GHCN. GHCN data is land-only data. Your overlaid comparison was obviously a comparison of land-only versus land-plus-ocean data, which was why I asked the question at the top of the thread. For example, I presented this comparison of CRUTEM and HADCRUT for blogger geo above:
http://i50.tinypic.com/rscs45.png
Now if I delete the first 50 years of CRUTEM data, the graph replicates your overlay illustration:
http://i49.tinypic.com/2zpnjif.png
Nigel Leck,
Why are you arguing with everyone? It reminds me of the story about the young child who was watching a parade that his father was in. He asked his mother, “Mommy, why is everyone out of step but daddy?”
Mann’s original Hokey Stick chart has been thoroughly debunked. It is a fraudulent chart that pretended that there was no MWP or LIA.
As a direct result of McKitrick and McIntyre’s debunking, the UN/IPCC can no longer use Mann’s chart in their publications. Instead, they use pale imitations, all of which lack the visual impact of Mann’ original [and fraudulent] hokey stick chart.
Make no mistake: the UN’s 100% political appointees in the IPCC absolutely loved Michael Mann’s scary chart. They published it repeatedly in their Assessment Reports, before M&M debunked it. Mann’s chart was much better than any of the current hokey stick chart imitations. The UN would never have dropped Mann’s chart, if they had not been forced to.
But if you want to believe that Mann’s chart is accurate, then by all means, carry on. Cognitive dissonance is almost always incurable using facts, and there is no payoff in trying to correct your alarmist belief system. Everyone else knows that the UN/IPCC would never have deleted reference to Mann’s Hokey Stick chart, if they had not been forced to dump it.
Smokey,
Where are the peer reviewed research saying the hockey stick is invalid ? I just listed four recent ones supporting it.
Something has bugged me since the Wednesday’s WUWT article. Given that Karl messed up by showing his trend line starting in 1900, what happens to the trend line slope if it starts in 1909? Does the trend, using his data, go higher?
— John M Reynolds
Bob,
I am not sure what you are looking at, but your image of Karl’s slide does not make any reference to land. It creates the unequivocal impression that it is discussing “global temperatures.”
http://i48.tinypic.com/4j4c60.png
The fact that you (Bob Tisdale) know that GHCN temperatures are land only doesn’t help out the policy makers which the slide is intended for. The slide uses the word “global” twice, including the punch line “Confirms that global warming is robust.”
No, what it confirms is that “UHI is robust” over the last decade.
Bob,
Remember that the slide was presented to the US Senate. It is either gross oversight or intentional deception that he is presenting land only temperatures to the US Senate – which show warming over the last decade.
Nigel Leck:
“Where are the peer reviewed research saying the hockey stick is invalid ? I just listed four recent ones supporting it.”
Either your reading comprehension fails or you are mendaciously trying to re-frame what I clearly stated. Look at the link in my post above. That is the hokey stick chart that the science-challenged UN/IPCC political appointees have repeatedly published, and which they can no longer use because it has been debunked by McIntyre & McKittrick.
So now they try to back and fill by using visually inferior charts — many of which are just as fraudulent, eliminating the MWP and the LIA.
You want a peer reviewed paper showing how corrupt government climate science is? Here.
I’ve been patient with you since you recently appeared, hoping you were here to learn something. Now it looks like you are just another troll from an alarmist blog, coming here to clutter up the internet’s “Best Science” site. If I’m wrong and you’re here to learn, fine. Otherwise, go away.
“Oh that’s a simple one… why start at 1900 ? well tell me what would happen to the line of best fit if I started 10,000 years ago ? it would be flat or so close to it that it wouldn’t matter.”
Actually that would result in a “steep” decline of temperatures. Global temps were higher than current times throughout most of holocene period.
Pete H says:
I think you go too far to suggest a fishy smell. There are many reasons why they could take it down.
For example people pounding that server from WUWT. I enjoy browsing through the ftp site turning over rocks just like going to a goodwill or army surplus or thrift store.. anyways, dont always assume the worst motives
SteveGoddard: You replied, “I am not sure what you are looking at, but your image of Karl’s slide does not make any reference to land. It creates the unequivocal impression that it is discussing ‘global temperatures.'”
It shows graph with the title of “New Global (GHCN) Monthly Version 3 To Replace Version 2”. GHCN stands for Global Historical Climatology Network. And that is land based temperatures only.
Why are you arguing about it?
Since you weren’t at the presentation, you don’t know what was said while the slide was displayed, and since you weren’t there, you can’t claim that the slide misrepresents anything. GCHN data is land-only data. Slide 21 is between two slides that are discussing urbanization and the move of weather stations from downtown locations to airports. Both of those are land-based temperature discussions. Here, read it yourself. The link works fine. I just opened it:
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/download/Global%20Warming%20is%20Unequivocal%20TKarl%20May%206.ppt
Stevegoddard.
You made a simple mistake. But in making that mistake you accused somebody else of hiding data. Bob and Zeke have both pointed out the error and without acrimony or innuendo about your motives. My suggestion would be that you admit your mistake and thank those who pointed it out.
The current behavior I see reminds me of Mann when he was caught out on simple errors. Two paths forward. choose.
REPLY: Mosh gives good advice, take it. – Anthony
Bob,
The link doesn’t work for me.
ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/download/Global%20Warming%20is%20Unequivocal%20TKarl%20May%206.ppt
I did not know that the temperature set was land only. The presentation slide seen in your post, shows it as global. It was presented to Congress as a “global” temperature. I made the same mistake which I’m sure the Senators made and were intended to make.
REPLY: I’ve added new links in PPT and PDF form in the original story for the presentation, since the FTP link is now “broken”.
See http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/19/tom-karls-senate-dog-and-pony-show-its-worse-than-we-thought-again/
– A
@Nigel Leck: Here are links to a couple of recent WUWT posts in response to the recent stretch of warm months:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/17/gistemp-is-high/
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/05/18/gistemp-vs-hadcrut/
Steven mosher
NCDC’s global (land-ocean) temperature data is flat since the 1998 El Nino. The “land only” data was presented to the Senate as global, but makes up only 30% of the globe. NCDC has their own global data set. Why wasn’t it used?
Bob’s graph shows the difference between land and global.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2zpnjif.png
I recognized that Karl’s data did not accurately match global temperature data. I did not recognize the root cause. Comparing that to Mann is absurd.
Another interesting question is why the NCDC land data does not track the land-sea data any more. It did until 10 years ago.
http://i49.tinypic.com/2zpnjif.png
I’ve posted Steve’s response on the data set issue pointed out by Bob Tisdale in the body of the story as an update.
Im saying this. if you make a simple mistake, just correct it and give a hat tip.
if you dont, your headed down a path that mann went down.
Ah nice update. well done. mann could learn something from that.
Steven mosher
I appreciate your response, but am not following your logic.
Karl presented a slide to the Senate with a data set that was not only likely faulty, but also inappropriate for the labeling of the slide. The slide appears to show an increase in global temperatures over the last decade, which has not occurred. Only an expert like Bob Tisdale would be aware that he was using a non-global data set. There are all kinds of issues with that slide, and I did not notice one of them – which Bob did pick up on.
A few questions for you:
How many Senators do you think would know that the “global” data set in that slide only covers 30% of the earth? Why would that slide (labeled “Confirms that global warming is robust”) contain land only data rather than available NCDC land-sea data? Why is GHCN not named GLHCN if it only contains land data?
“”” Smokey says:
May 21, 2010 at 2:48 am
Nigel Leck,
Why are you arguing with everyone? It reminds me of the story about the young child who was watching a parade that his father was in. He asked his mother, “Mommy, why is everyone out of step but daddy?” “””
Well Nigel; dear chap, you have just described the scientific method in a way even a fifth grader can understand.
That is the way scientific knowledge advances; everybody bud daddy joins the “concensus” bandwagon; but it takes but a single daddy; doing a single experiment, to debunk the whole thing and toss all of that concensus in the dumpster.
So you have four references that support Mann’s Hockey stick; that plus 38 cents will buy you a senior coffee at McDonalds.
It still only takes one result; ala Macintyre/ McKitrick, to pack it in the trash can.
Trees are three dimensional objects; a single core drilling is a one dimensional sample that doesn’t satisfy the Nyquist Criterion; even for a single tree; let alone for a whole forest of trees. (as aDenrothermometer).
stevengoddard says:
May 21, 2010 at 1:57 pm
Steven mosher
I appreciate your response, but am not following your logic.
Probably because you approach Karl’s presentation withy a view to picking holes in it rather than as a presentation.
Karl presented a slide to the Senate with a data set that was not only likely faulty, but also inappropriate for the labeling of the slide. The slide appears to show an increase in global temperatures over the last decade, which has not occurred. Only an expert like Bob Tisdale would be aware that he was using a non-global data set.
Incorrect, Karl made a presentation which led the senators slide by slide through the evidence.
Slide 16: Entitled in 40pt “GHCN-Monthly Land Surface Stations”
“NOAA/NCDC monitors global land surface temperature using the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN)”
Includes a map of the world showing the locations of the stations
(on land).
Anyone awake through that slide knows that GHCN is associated with ‘Land’ measurements.
Slide 17: Illustrates how spatial integration is performed to fill in gaps, clearly shown over land.
Slide 18: Discusses the decrease in GHCN stations
Slide 19: Shows how land and ocean data are blended together.
Slide 20: Discusses Urbanization effects, graph sub title “Global Temperature from Surface Stations”- clearly referring to land stations.
Slide 21: entitled “New Global (GHCN) Monthly Version 3 to Replace Version 2”
This a few minutes after describing what the GHCN data was, anyone who didn’t think that land data was being described had to have not been paying attention.
A few questions for you:
How many Senators do you think would know that the “global” data set in that slide only covers 30% of the earth? Why would that slide (labeled “Confirms that global warming is robust”) contain land only data rather than available NCDC land-sea data? Why is GHCN not named GLHCN if it only contains land data?
Now you’re just being argumentative, the presentation was well laid out, the GHCN data was described adequately and its extent clear from the world map prior to the data being presented. As Mosher said you made a mistake and you’re blustering in an attempt to cover it up.
Smokey,
You’ve been challenged on two factual statements 1) peer reviewed paper showing where the hockey stick is broken 2) your statement that CO2 levels haven’t increased.
You have failed to produce evidence to support your claims. Telling people to go away because they ask for evidence doesn’t normally pass for an intellectual debate.
You should produce the evidence required to support your statements or correct your statements, and no yelling loudly doesn’t count as evidence.
Phil
Here is the short answer. The NCDC land data makes it appear that the world warmed during the last 12 years. That is what he wanted the policy makers to believe.
Using a true global data set would have left lawmakers with a clear understanding that there is no crisis.
George E. Smith,
I mostly agree with you. Just because most people were saying “the earth is the center of the universe” and one person was saying otherwise doesn’t mean that that one guy was wrong. The scientific process which includes the peer review process isn’t perfect and no one would say it is, and most people would say that it needs to be improved but it’s the best approach that we currently have to prevent us from fooling ourselves with what we want to believe.
Does that mean we understand everything about a very complex system or that there isn’t any mysteries ? no absolutely not, indeed it’s normally when we look at why something doesn’t add up we learn something new.
but… think about any other question in life, would you wait until you’re a 100% certain that car is going to hit you as you walk across the road before you speed up ? No, of course not as it maybe to late once you are certain it’ll hit you to do anything about it.
With Climate Change we have many independent researches saying that the average global temperature is going up from many different methods of measuring. We can demonstrate that increasing levels CO2 will retain more heat in the lab. We have many weather stations and satellites measuring an increase in CO2 levels. I don’t think any of these three points are seriously challenged.
rogerkni,
You can check the satellite temperature readings yourself, we are not talking about a few months here http://discover.itsc.uah.edu/amsutemps/
Look at “14,000 ft / 4.4 km / 600 mb (ch05)” to see the current year versus the 20 year average.
tommy,
Sorry, that’s a simple maths question. Let’s say it was 5c hotter 10,000 years ago for argument sake then as 10,000 years is a 100 centuries divide 5c/100 gives you 0.05c per century which is ~20 lower than that is currently estimated tread.
You have illustrated my point nicely thank you, it is inappropriate to use best line of fit for such long periods.
Nigel,
I thought the post a few days ago had a pretty good discussion about UAH being high compared to surface temperature during El Nino and low compared to surface temperature during La Nino (which was used in a very informative expose’ of the lack of justification for the divergence of GISS from CRU). You must have missed that discussion. But, since you have drunk so much Kool Aid, I’m sure you can set us straight.
Nigel Leck May 21, 2010 at 6:11 pm:
I savor Leck’s comments, because they’re fun and easy to deconstruct.
For example, I never stated that I had a peer reviewed paper showing that the hokey stick is broken. They may be out there. But as McKittrick, Wegman et al. and others show, the climate peer review process is hopelessly broken.
Contrary to Leck’s assertion, I produced solid evidence verifying what I said: the fact that the IPCC no longer uses Mann’s hokey stick chart is proof positive that it has been debunked beyond salvation; the IPCC absolutely loved that scary chart, and their political appointees published it at least four or five times before McIntyre debunked it. Visually, it was much more alarming than any of its subsequent imitations.
Now, the IPCC can only use pale imitations of Mann’s original chart, which catapulted him to fame and fortune at the tender age of 32. Read my post again @May 21, 2010 at 7:41 am, and you will clearly see that Leck only erected a strawman argument… and he knocked down that bad old strawman, brave strawman killer that he is. But Leck hasn’t refuted anything I wrote, and my evidence is air tight. To prove me wrong, Leck needs to get the IPCC to publish Mann’s chart. Just once will do.
Same thing with Leck’s complaint about the link I posted re: CO2 levels. For someone who puts all his faith in the climate peer review process, Leck really needs to read and understand that paper, and if he disagrees with the facts, he should submit a Correction or a Corrigendum to the journal. But since he hasn’t said what he believes is non-factual about that link, he probably has no Correction — just a gut reaction.
Mr Leck also ignored the McKittrick paper, which shows how corrupt the climate peer review system is. Ignoring what I provided while demanding what Leck wants doesn’t fly here.
Mr Leck doesn’t seem to understand the basic fact that scientific skeptics have nothing to prove. Skeptics have only the null hypothesis to defend: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.” ~ Dr Roy Spencer. The only ‘challenge’ is to falsify that hypothesis. If Leck can do that, he will get into the history books.
It is the purveyors of the new CO2=CAGW hypothesis who have the burden of showing that it explains reality better than the long held theory of natural climate variability. So far, they have all failed. But maybe Leck will succeed.☺
Smokey,
I think I’ve found where you got “no net increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years” please see slide 75 of this presentation for an explanation.
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/index.htm
Ah, but you were:
Steven mosher says:
May 21, 2010 at 1:15 pm
“Im saying this. if you make a simple mistake, just correct it and give a hat tip.
if you dont, your headed down a path that mann went down.”
You are giving Mann the benefit of an awful lot of doubt, here. Simple mistake?
Nigel Leck May 21, 2010 at 8:34 pm,
Good for you for your discovery. But I’ve never seen the link you posted. Whatever you believe you’ve found, it’s probably wrong.
G’night, I’m bagging it.
rogerkni,
Look at the data it’s a fairly consistent pattern, decade on decade.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/tabledata/GLB.Ts+dSST.txt
Smokey,
“CAGW hypothesis” cool the “C” means you are no longer willing to defend that there is no AGW but whether or not it will be CATASTROPHIC which leads to the question what you mean by CATASTROPHIC ?
A 1-2 m sea rise is cool if you live 100m above sea level but makes for a really bad day if your island is only 2m above sea level.
Nigel Leck says:
“I think I’ve found where you got ‘no net increase in atmospheric CO2 over the past 150 years’ please see slide 75 of this presentation for an explanation.”
Wrong, I never cited that paper [or even read it]; you did. This is the paper I cited, which you were so unhappy about. I am not endorsing it, I provided it as an interesting concept for the consideration of WUWT readers. If you can refute it specifically, then as I suggested you should write a Correction to the journal. But you only indicated you didn’t like it, with no reasons given. Maybe others have responded to it, I don’t know. You could investigate. But if no one has taken issue with it, then it stands as currently written, no?
You’re new here, so I’ll assist you in understanding the not so subtle differences between AGW and CAGW: ‘catastrophic’ refers to runaway global warming, something that has not happened in the geologic past, and which is not happening now.
The current climate is very benign, and freaking out about an imaginary “1 – 2 m sea rise” is alarmism based on emotion; the black cat fallacy: you’re worried about a black cat in a dark room, but when you turn on the light… there is no cat. And there never was.
The difference between AGW and CAGW is this: AGW is a hypothesis. Its effect has not been shown to exist globally, only locally, due to the UHI effect. But it is a hypothesis.
CAGW is a conjecture. An opinion. There is zero empirical, testable evidence for CAGW. It is simply a scare tactic with no testable basis. Testability is required by the scientific method, therefore CAGW is not science, any more than Scientology is science.
But CAGW is required in order to push the political agenda of Cap & Trade. Those who speculate about a huge sea level rise are not being scientific, they are being tools of those with a political agenda. That alarmism is not appropriate on the internet’s Best Science site — unless testable, replicable evidence is provided. got evidence?
Now that you know the difference between a conjecture and a hypothesis, we can discuss AGW — which also lacks any testable evidence. But at least it is based on radiative physics, rather than Al Gore-style alarmism.
Smokey,
Are you seriously saying that the concentration of CO2 hasn’t increased in the last century? We can and do measure it.
You have your terms wrong a hypothesis is an idea, a theory is a hypothesis with supporting evidence. AGW is a sound theory i.e. one with much evidence.
The planet’s temperature will always find an equilibrium no one has suggested otherwise, ‘run away’ to me would mean without bounds. The term ‘catastrophic’ is next to useless because everyone definition is different.
Yes “1 – 2 m sea rise” is what s currently been predicted http://www.ccrc.unsw.edu.au/Copenhagen/Copenhagen_Diagnosis_LOW.pdf
“Cap & Trade” is a political solution to a scientific problem, I have only ever talked about the scientific question. I naively believe that well informed, reasonable people will come to reasonable solutions. The trick is for these people to be well informed. In this context “well informed” means understand the potential risks and UNCERTAINTIES
@ Nigel Leck
Slide 75 is about how the atmosphere increased from about 0.0280% to about 0.380%. That 0.01 increase in the percent of atmospheric CO2 levels is correct according to the Mauna Loa data. To misconstrue Lord Monckton’s argument to suggest that he said it was a 0.01 percent increase is wrong.
You have to be careful when discussing percentages.
John M Reynolds
Skeptics have only the null hypothesis to defend: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.
Smokey. That is not a Null hypothesis. Its a vacuous empty statement with no quantitative substance.
Steven mosher says:
May 22, 2010 at 9:02 am
Skeptics have only the null hypothesis to defend: “No one has falsified the hypothesis that the observed temperatures changes are a consequence of natural variability.
Smokey. That is not a Null hypothesis. Its a vacuous empty statement with no quantitative substance.
Nicely put, welcome to the club!
Well, let me give you boys a definition of the null hypothesis, and an example.
The definition of the null hypothesis is that it is the opposite of the alternative proposed hypothesis that the scientist attempts to falsify, or nullify.
The “null” often refers to the accepted view of something [eg, natural climate variability], while the alternative hypothesis [eg, CO2=CAGW] is what the researcher believes is the cause of a phenomenon in question.
To support a new hypothesis a scientist needs to compare his results against the opposite, or alternative situation [that the warming is natural and not caused by humans]. That’s the null hypothesis – the assertion that the thing being tested is not the same, and that your results are the product of random events. Example:
Null Hypothesis: the warming of the planet since the LIA is a natural event.
Alternate Hypothesis: the warming of the planet since the LIA is due to human CO2 emissions.
The scientist has not falsified the first [null] hypothesis, and he has not provided testable, replicable, empirical evidence that his new hypothesis is valid.
The null hypothesis, and Dr Spencer’s statement, have been discussed here for a long time by a lot of people. Hand-waving it away by calling it a ‘vacuous empty statement’ is the kind of remark that belongs on tamino or climate progress, not here. You need to state your reasons. Then we can discuss whether they’re in the ball park, or even if we really have a basic disagreement or not.
Do a search for “null hypothesis,” and you will discover two things right off the bat: first, there are various definitions of the phrase depending on context, and second, that the examples I provided here fit the definition.
Steve, I think you just got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning. And look what you did. You went and got Phil all riled up, thinking he’s made his first convert! ☺
jmrsudbury,
Yes, Chris Monckton is trying to say that there is only been a 0.01% increase in CO2 which is amazingly misleading. CO2 current concentration is 390ppm was in pre-industrial times 280ppm which is a 39% increase.
http://courseweb.stthomas.edu/jpabraham/global_warming/Monckton/index.htm
Dr Abraham gives the references back to Monckton’s presentation so you can check that is what monckton is saying. Below is the PDF of the presentation as clear as it can be on page 70.
http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/monckton_2009.pdf
Smokey,
I agree with the statement below ( changed LIA to Pre-Industrial Era):-
I would also agree that the burden of proof rest with those making the alternative hypothesis. I would also suggest it comedown to a balance of probabilities as in life there are very few certainties.
@ Nigel Leck: There’s a lot of threads here on sea level rise. In the sidebar, look for the Categories box, click to open it, and click on sea level.
The site would be improved if the Categories box didn’t require a click to open it, but displayed all its links up front. Many visitors miss it, because it is so small and not sufficiently self-explanatory.
Nigel. Yup! Page 70 of that pdf explains it very well that the % by volume change went from 0.03% to 0.04%. That is indeed a change of 0.01% by volume according to Mauna Loa data. That is different than saying that the ppm level of CO2 increased by 39%. I listened carefully every time I heard Lord Monckton mention this increase. He is consistent, and he is correct with the 0.01% by volume. You are barking up the wrong tree. CO2 is still a trace gas. — John M Reynolds
Seems the first thing that should have been done in regards to AGW is to check history as far back as can be done to see if anything different is occurring now that did not occur in the past. If nothing different is occurring then seems to me, its a non-problem that therefore needs no solution. Examination of past records show:
1) CO2 concentrations 10x higher than today with no runaway global warming
2) Current rate of global warming has occurred numerous times in history. Cooling has occurred at fast rates before as well. Nothing out of the ordinary appears to be occurring.
3) Current temperatures are not at record highs (maybe for the past 200 years it is but thats about it)
4) Vikings once settled in Greenland and farmed land that is currently still covered in ice now.
5) Best evidence to date indicates that clouds are a negative feedback (see Roy Spencer’s website) meaning the net effect of warming due to CO2 is less than the CO2 warming alone. This makes intuitive sense or else the earth should have burned up long ago when CO2 was 10x higher.
Smokey. A null hypothesis has to be a quantitative statement as I said. QUANTITATIVE. you left that word out.
For example
Null Hypothesis: the warming of the planet since the LIA is a natural event.
Alternate Hypothesis: the warming of the planet since the LIA is due to human CO2 emissions.
Doesnt even come close. What you need for a testable Null is a NUMBER. and a relation.
Also, statistics doesnt address causation.
lets give you some examples
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null_hypothesis
you see those formulas? the formulas Like
u1 =u2 Means that you specify a mathematical relationship and then you TEST that trying to falsify the mathematical statement. In this case your NULL is that the quantity u1 is equal to the quantity u2. Then you collect data. then you analyze.
Then you report a numerical result.
So you need to put numbers/mathematical relations in your sentence. Also, Null hypothesis say nothing about CAUSATION. in fact statistics refrains from making statements about causality. Now perhaps you are using the Null as a metaphor. Well, this isnt poetry.
lets try another source for null
http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/null-hypothesis.html
see that word quantities. The NULL is all about numbers. like I said. your null is vacuous. No numbers. can be falsified in its current form.
Here some help for beginners
http://www.experiment-resources.com/how-to-write-a-hypothesis.html
notice words like Greater than. That leads to a directional Null u1>u2
That means you collect data and test that math equation.
some more help
http://www.stats.gla.ac.uk/steps/glossary/hypothesis_testing.html#h0
http://stattrek.com/Lesson5/HypothesisTesting.aspx
http://economics.about.com/cs/termpaperhelp/a/one_sample_2.htm
So, it matters little that the issue has been misunderstood around here for a long time or rather poorly explained. You simply do not understand what a null hypothesis is, how to write one or how to test one. . The Null you wrote is ill formed untestable. UNTESTABLE. because a test involves specifing a mathematical relationship ( X is greater than Y) and then collecting data on X and Y and then performing math on X and Y. Your null is a vacuous statement about causation that is vague unfalsifiable in its current form and not meaningful in any scientific sense.
When you try to write a REAL NULL you will see the problem you face.
As a metaphor, its a fun little piece of rhetoric.
and a couple more things….
1) Geologically speaking, we should be on our way to entering another ice age… we might need every little bit of extra warmth we can get
2) Plants grow faster with extra CO2… with all the mouths to feed that could come in handy.
Bottom line… increased CO2 is not necessarily bad.
Steven Mosher:
“A null hypothesis has to be a quantitative statement as I said. QUANTITATIVE. you left that word out.”
Is your apostrophe key broken?☺
Steve, we all have our specialties, and statistics may be yours, so I defer to you on that. I read everything on the first search page for “null hypothesis” when the subject was first raised here several months ago, and yesterday I read the articles that have appeared since then. I’ve read the Wiki links. It turns out that the definitions vary somewhat, particularly regarding statistics and math.
Regarding ‘quantitative,’ I could hypothesize that a heavy meteor shower will occur the night of August 12th of this year. No numbers really, just a date. I can think of other examples, but I won’t belabor the point, because you associate the null hypothesis with a numerical quantity. So I will omit the term, and propose a gedanken experiment to help clarify the situation:
If the AGW hypothesis was never an issue, and it was never even discussed, and then someone asked a group of, say, meteorologists whether the current climate was normal or abnormal, what do you think their collective answer would be?
I think they would get out their charts and graphs of past temperatures, and solar cycles, and geomagnetic changes, and precipitation parameters, etc., going as far back as possible, to determine if today’s climate is exceeding any of them, or acting abnormal in any unexplained way, and then they would come to some sort of conclusion.
It may be that a few of them might mention CO2 or water vapor. But as a primary cause of the climate’s actions? And do you think they would warn of an imminent tipping point leading to runaway global warming if CO2 increases any more?
We may disagree, after all it’s only a thought experiment. My view is that the really minor trace gas CO2 would be seen as something that, like many other factors, could be having a small effect on temperature, which is probably mitigated by other feedbacks. But in general they would come to the conclusion that the planet’s climate is normal. In fact, that it is a Goldilocks climate.
It is hard cutting through the emotion being generated over what I consider to be a largely trumped up scare, and I think if the really enormous amounts of money were not available, the CO2 issue would be a science backwater; a footnote in a physics textbook, or at most a paragraph in a chapter on the many climate feedbacks. CO2 follows temperature, not vice-versa, and about 97% of the rise in CO2 comes from non-human, natural sources. I cannot seriously accept that the small human component of CO2 is running the climate. YMMV.
I’m willing to change my mind completely on this. But it will take more than the generally weak, roundabout ‘evidence’ that is being argued. The planet is doing what it always has, but now we can measure smaller and smaller changes, and people are getting worked up over the tiny fraction of a degree anomalies that have always occurred.
To me, past parameters are what is important. They show whether anything abnormal is happening. Currently, we are right in the middle of the sweet spot. Nothing unusual is happening, and that includes the Arctic. If things really begin to change on a global scale my mind will change along with it. But so far, like most folks I remain unconvinced that there is any big problem brewing. There are plenty of more important things to worry about.
+++++++++
Based on Nigel Leck’s post above @4:14 pm, he and I may not have major differences after all. Time will tell, but it’s a good sign.
Smokey.
you were wrong. that’s ok. compounding that does not help your case
“Regarding ‘quantitative,’ I could hypothesize that a heavy meteor shower will occur the night of August 12th of this year. No numbers really, just a date. I can think of other examples, but I won’t belabor the point, because you associate the null hypothesis with a numerical quantity. So I will omit the term, and propose a gedanken experiment to help clarify the situation”
Quantify “heavy”, quantify “night” and you have a claim that is testable. lets suppose that at 530pm we see 10 meteors. you then argue that you are right. I then argue that you said HEAVY, and that 10 is medium and not heavy and I argue that everybody knows 5:30 is still in the day, as night starts at 6pm. Defining terms is always a good step.
As far as your thought experiment. I would say this. The word normal needs definition, numerical definition. Further, the question is NOT whether the weather is normal. The question is “does adding C02 lead to warmer temps on average?” for that question we have some very basic physics which says yes. There are of course other drivers, even “natural” cycles that we dont yet fully undertstand. But, Lindzen and Spenser, and all the prominent scientists who presented at heartland agree. That little trace gas ( which has a big impact in the dry stratosphere) will on average warm the planet if we add more. How much? THERE is where the real science debate is. That is where the strongest skeptical argument is made.
The current warming we see may be well within “normal limits” That is not the question. The question is can we explain the past rise since 1850 with physics.. can we UNDERSTAND part of the reason why it goes up and down. can we explain the ups and downs? can we explain or do we just shrug our collective incurious shoulders and say “nothing here to see?”A volcano erupts. the temperature cools. would you therefore argue that since the cooling was within NORMAL bounds ( hey we didnt get a snowball earth) that the volcano did NOT CAUSE the cooling? no. you would look at the physics and say ” aerosols block the incoming radiation” therefore the cooling we saw.. cooling that was within Normal natural variation was IN FACT cause by the volcano. You see the fundamental logical flaw with the argument from natural variation. The sun goes down. It gets colder. I look at the history of high and lows for my town. the cooling I see is within normal bounds. Do I therefore argue that the sun going down didnt cause the cooling? no. So to repeat. The range of variation in historical temps has a only a tangential role in establishing the prediction that more C02 will on average warm the planet.
jmrsudbury,
No one said CO2 wasn’t a trace gas, just like methane.
Steven mosher says:
May 23, 2010 at 10:29 am:
That’s what all the believers in CAGW say. But how is it ‘wrong’ to question a hypothesis?
The basic hypothesis that the current climate is fully explained by mundane natural variability has never been falsified. Let’s cut to the case, and falsify that — if you can. If you can’t, it’s the Last Hypothesis Standing.
“”” Nigel Leck says:
May 21, 2010 at 6:36 pm
George E. Smith,
I mostly agree with you. Just because most people were saying “the earth is the center of the universe” and one person was saying otherwise doesn’t mean that that one guy was wrong. The scientific process which includes the peer review process isn’t perfect and no one would say it is, and most people would say that it needs to be improved but it’s the best approach that we currently have to prevent us from fooling ourselves with what we want to believe.
Does that mean we understand everything about a very complex system or that there isn’t any mysteries ? no absolutely not, indeed it’s normally when we look at why something doesn’t add up we learn something new.
but… think about any other question in life, would you wait until you’re a 100% certain that car is going to hit you as you walk across the road before you speed up ? No, of course not as it maybe to late once you are certain it’ll hit you to do anything about it.
With Climate Change we have many independent researches saying that the average global temperature is going up from many different methods of measuring. We can demonstrate that increasing levels CO2 will retain more heat in the lab. We have many weather stations and satellites measuring an increase in CO2 levels. I don’t think any of these three points are seriously challenged. “””
Well NigelLet’s look at some of your questions. I like the one about the car hitting me as I cross the street. I grew up in an era when crossing a street was not a crime; and we taught little children to NOT cross the street until it was safe to do so. So I NEVER cross the street until I am 100% certain that there is no car that could possibly hit me; well maybe a supersonic car might have a chance. So that question is null and void.
So to this paragraph:- “”” With Climate Change we have many independent researches saying that the average global temperature is going up from many different methods of measuring. We can demonstrate that increasing levels CO2 will retain more heat in the lab. We have many weather stations and satellites measuring an increase in CO2 levels. I don’t think any of these three points are seriously challenged. “””
Well take it as read that I do not dispute any one of your three “phenomena”.
As to the first observation that there are “”” many independent researches saying that the average global temperature is going up from many different methods of measuring. “”” ; to which I would add and an equal number of researches showing the average global temperature going down; well up and down to be more nit picky depending on the time scale you want to cherry pick. For the last 15 years one could argue it hasn’t gone uch of anywhere. Well to be more correct we should say not that the average global temperature is going up; because nobody is actually measuring the average global temperature; by any method; they are all measuring anomalies. And the results of those anomaly measurements depends on the assumed base period average temperature. So therein lies an assumption that it was possible to measure the average temperature for that base period, and that they did that correctly. Well as I understand it they do have a separate and unique average base period temperature for each and every measuring site. So the presumption is that they can and do correctly measure the true average temperature of that site over that base period. So that reduces the temperature function to a function of one variable; namely time; since the location is now fixed. And the accepted standard method of measuring temperature over time, is to use a max/min reading, and take the average of those two readings; whenever they occur as the average temperature for that day. And that methodology cannot possibly give the correct answer; evn if one ignores completly the daily variation in temperature due to changes in cloud cover; which isn’t even monitored at those sites. Even in a cloudless sky, the daily temperature fluctuation is not a pure sinusoidal function; and therefore even its average value cannot be recovered without error from a twice per day sampling method; even a min/max method. Only if the daily cyclic temperature variation is sinusoidal (no harmonics) is the Nyquist Criterion satisfied for two samples per cycle. The presence of even a second harmonic signal component, implies a Nyquist violation by a factor of 2 so even the zero frequency spectral component(the average) is corrupted by aliassing noise. Well enough of sampled data theory; I wish they would teach it in Climatology 101.
So now to your assertion that:- “”” We can demonstrate that increasing levels CO2 will retain more heat in the lab. “””
Well I am sure you can; you can also deemonstrate in the lab that adding an iodine crystal to a crucible containing a sliver of white phosphorous will create a cloud of white smoke. Well so what ? To argue that different CO2 concentrations in a test flask heat differently in the lab is just plain silly. But let me ask you a couple of questions about those experiments.
I presume (correct me if I’m wrong), that these laboratory definitive experiments were made with CO2 amounts in the 0.028% to say 0.04% concentrastion (mole or volume as you wish), and with the normal complement of on average 1% H2O concentration; and that the heating source for the experiments was an approximately black body radiator operating at a temperature of around 288/15/59 K/C/F. And of course I qam sure that your test flask also contained things like oceans to absorb the “heat” from the CO2; and also perhapos some clouds; which would result in tests that were at least somewhat like the experiments that Gaia does in her laboratory.
What earthly use is a lab experiment that monitors heating induced by a totally unreal LWIR source ?
As to your final point about many CO2 measuring stations measuring increases in CO2 in the atmosphere. Yes of course no one disputes that; nor that the CO2 measured at Mauna Loa varies cyclically over the year, with the level falling 6 ppm in about five months, and then climbing back in the next seven months; nor that at the South Pole; that annual cyclic variation is only about 1 ppm p-p, and is out of phase with ML; nor that at the North Pole, that cyclic annual variation is about 18 ppm p-p.
That the global variations in CO2 can be so disparate, is proof positive, that the CO2 in the atmosphere is anything but well mixed, as is asserted by climatologers; and the fact that the arctic environment can remove 18 ppm of CO2 in just five months, and does so ever year, also porves that the decay time constant simply does not jibe with CO2 remaining in the atmosphere for 200-1000 years as climatologers claim. Well then there is also the fact that despite there being as much as 7000 ppm of CO2 in the atmosphere in the past; yet the temperature has never been more that 7 deg C hotter than it is now; yet IPCC claims it may increase by as much as 11 deg C in the next 100 years.
Yes Nigel; there is little dispute about those things you cited; but they have little to do with the total Temperature regulation of the earth’s surface environment.
When you laboratory experiments with CO2 variations, also include clouds and oceans in the experiment; then you might have something to hang your hat on.
If you have some suitable Physics process that shows how CO2 can drive the earth surface temperature up to the 450 deg C of Venus; well the Venusians are much closer to the sun so let me make it easy for you, and lets just shoot for 200 deg C instead of 15 deg C. Show us how to do that Nigel; and take as much CO2 to do it as you like; I’ll find you as much CO2 as it takes.
I’ll be fishing down at the beach while you do this; so warn me when you get to around 100 deg C because I don’t want a sudden steam bath.
You see Nigel it is the simple extrapolation from ‘CO2 absorbs IR’ to ‘we are all going to fry’ that nakes some of the skeptics reject the whole AGW scenario. Not me though; I’m not a skeptic; CO2 has almost nothing to do with the temperature of the earth; and you are welcome to look at all the proxy temperature and CO2 data you like to find examples of where CO2 changes have caused temeprature changes. And please don’t for get to include what time lag there is from CO2 change to Temperature change, in your data. I realize that CO2 can capture LWIR in much less than one millisecond; so the effect could be nearly instantaneous; or their might be several thousand years ‘thermal’ time constant delay to contend with; but I’ll let you peg the time lag.
The problem is that it is generally inappropriate to use a “best line of fit” for cyclical processes, and then act like the fact that you’ve drawn a line over some recent data points means that there will be an endless divergence from a previously cyclical process, along the line that you happened to draw.
That is not science, that is alarmism dressed up in a lab coat.