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.
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.