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.
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
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.