This is part 8, essentially a wrapup see all other parts 1-7 here: http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/
Guest post by Ken Stewart, July 2010
“…getting seriously fed up with the state of the Australian data.”
(Harry the mystery programmer, in the HARRY_READ_ME file released with the Climategate files.)
He’s not the only one. In a commendable effort to improve the state of the data, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology (BOM) has created the Australian High-Quality Climate Site Network. However, the effect of doing so has been to introduce into the temperature record a warming bias of 41.67 %. And their climate analyses on which this is based appear to increase this even further to around 66.67%.
This post is the summation of what I believe is the first ever independent check on the official climate record of Australia. It is also the first ever independent check on the official record of an entire continent.
I will try to keep it simple.
Here is the official version of “the climate trends and variations in the Australian instrumental record” published for the Australian public, the government, and all the world at http://www.bom.gov.au/climate/change/aus_cvac.shtml
Trend Map, 1910-2009:
Time Series Graph using their handy trend tool:
0.1 degree C per decade, or 1 degree per100 years.
In the BOM website appears this explanation:
The temperature timeseries are calculated from homogeneous or “high-quality” temperature datasets developed for monitoring long-term temperature trends and variability …….. Where possible, each station record in these datasets has been corrected for data “jumps” or artificial discontinuities caused by changes in observation site location, exposure, instrumentation or observation procedure. This involves identifying and correcting data problems using statistical techniques, visual checks and station history information or “metadata”.
and
“High-quality” Australian climate datasets have been developed in which homogeneity problems have been reduced or even eliminated.
I have given a very brief summary of this process in http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/05/12/the-australian-temperature-record-part-1-queensland/
(I should point out that this method was changed somewhat by Della-Marta et al (2004) who also used a distance weighting method as well and included some urban stations and stations with much shorter records.)
Torok and Nicholls (1996), authors of the first (published) homogenization, rightly state that
“ A high-quality, long-term surface air temperature dataset is essential for the reliable investigation of climate change and variability.”
Here is the map showing the 100 currently used High Quality stations that supposedly meet this requirement:
Before my first post, I asked BOM to explain some of the odd things I had noticed in the Queensland data. Amongst others, this statement by Dr David Jones, Head of Climate Monitoring and Prediction, National Climate Centre, Bureau of Meteorology, in an email dated 25 April 2010, caught my eye:
“On the issue of adjustments you find that these have a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature because these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network (as would be expected given they are adjustments for random station changes).”
This statement has been the yardstick for this study.
Not having access to the list of stations, the metadata, the software used, or the expertise of BOM, the average citizen would normally accept the published results as they stand. However I wanted to have a closer look. Surely the results of any adjustments should be easy to compare with the previous record.
I downloaded annual mean maxima and minima for each of the sites from BOM Climate Data Online, calculated annual means and plotted these. Frequently, two or three stations (some closed) were needed for the entire record from 1910-2009, and even then there sometimes were gaps in the record- e.g. from 1957 to 1964 many stations’ data has not been digitised. (But 8 years of missing data is nothing- many stations have many years of estimated data “filled in” to create the High Quality series). I also downloaded the annual means from the High Quality page, and plotted them. I then added a linear trend for each.
I have exhaustively rechecked data and calculations in all 100 sites before compiling this summation. I have decided to amend only one, Bowen, by creating a splice by reducing early data and omitting some data, so that the trend matches that of HQ. This is on the basis of no overlap at all, but makes the plot lines roughly meet. Unsatisfactory, and Bowen should be excluded. The net effect on the Queensland and Australian trends is negligible (0.01 C).
Let’s look at Dr Jones’ assertion for the whole of Australia.
“…a near zero impact on the all Australian temperature …”
WRONG.
We can look at the record in a number of ways- here is the graph of the average raw and adjusted temperatures for all 100 stations. The discrepancy is obvious. 
That’s 0.6 degrees C / 100 years for the raw data. The adjusted trend is 0.85.
Before anyone complains that anomalies give you a more accurate picture of trends across a large region, I also calculated anomalies from the 1961-1990 mean for the all Australian means (0.6 raw to 0.85 HQ increase)
and for all 100 stations (slightly different result): (0.6 raw to 0.9- 50%)
But the figure BOM publishes is 1.0C- that’s a two-thirds increase!
We can also look at the average adjustment for each station: + 0.23 degrees Celsius. (The table of all 100 stations is too large to include).
Or we can find the median adjustment (+ 0.275 C), and the range of adjustments:
So much for “these tend to be equally positive and negative across the network”.
We can also look at the “quality” of the High Quality stations.
Urban vs Non-urban:
“Please note: Stations classified as urban are excluded from the Australian annual temperature timeseries and trend map analyses. Urban stations have some urban influence during part or all of their record.” (http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/hqsites/site_networks.cgi?variable=meanT&period=annual&state=aus)
In Part 1 I showed how 3 Queensland sites listed as urban by Torok and Nicholls (1996) are now non-urban. Della-Marta et al resurrected a number of others in other states.
The full list is: Cairns AMO, Rockhampton AMO, Gladstone MO, Port Hedland AMO, Roebourne, Geraldton AMO, Albany AMO, Alice Springs AMO, Strathalbyn, Mount Gambier AMO, Richmond AMO, Mildura AMO, East Sale AMO, Cashmore Airport, Launceston Airport.
15% of the network is comprised of sites that BOM is at pains to assure us are not used to create the climate record.
Long records:
“… the number of stations is much smaller if only stations currently operating and with at least 80 years of data are considered. To increase the number of long- term stations available, previously unused data were digitised and a number of stations were combined to create composite records… all stations in the dataset (were) open by 1915.” (Torok and Nicholls)
Torok wanted 80 years of data: Della-Marta et al and BOM have settled for much less. There are six stations with no data before 1930 (80 years ago), but BOM has included these. Some are truly dreadful: Woomera- 1950; Giles- 1957; Newman- 1966.
As well, many of the sites have large slabs of data missing, with the HQ record showing “estimates” to fill in the missing years.
Here is a graph of the number of stations with data available for each year.
Note that only 70% of raw data is available for 1910; 90% by 1930; another drop from 1945 to 1960; and the huge drop off in HQ data this decade!
Data comparison:
“Generally, comparison observations for longer than five years were found to provide excellent comparison statistics between the old and new sites…… Comparisons longer than two years, and sometimes between one and two years, were also found to be useful if complete and of good quality… Poor quality comparisons lasting less than two years were generally found to be of limited use.” (Della-Marta et al, 2004)
Wouldn’t “excellent comparison statistics” be essential for such an important purpose? Apparently not. There are many sites with less than five years of overlapping data from nearby stations (up to 20 km apart). A number of sites have no overlap at all.
This results in enormous gaps in the temperature record. Here is the map of the High Quality network, with sites deleted if they are (a) listed as urban in 1996 (b) sites with less than 80 years of observations (c) sites with less than 5 years of comparative data overlap- or sometimes all of the above!
The sites left are concentrated in Eastern and South-Western Australia, with an enormous gap in the centre. Check the (admittedly very aprroximate) scale.
And finally…
Claims made in the State of the Climate report produced by BOM and CSIRO in March 2010.
Since 1960 the mean temperature in Australia has increased by about 0.7 °C . The long term trend in temperature is clear…
TRUE. But the raw data shows the mean temperature since 1910 has increased only 0.6 C.
Australian average temperatures are projected to rise by 0.6 to 1.5 ºC by 2030.
REALLY? That would require between 5 and 12 times the rate of warming seen in the raw temperature record, or between 3 and 7.5 times that shown by BOM’s published figures.
Much of Australia will be drier in coming decades
MAYBE NOT. See http://kenskingdom.wordpress.com/2010/03/20/political-science-101/
Our observations clearly demonstrate that climate change is real.
TRUE- that’s what climate does.
CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology will continue to provide observations and research so that Australia’s responses are underpinned by science of the highest quality.
“Highest quality”? REALLY?
Conclusion
This study shows a number of problems with the Australian High Quality Temperature Sites network, on which the official temperature analyses are based. Problems with the High Quality data include:
- It has been subjectively and manually adjusted.
- The methodology used is not uniformly followed, or else is not as described.
- Urban sites, sites with poor comparative data, and sites with short records have been included.
- Large quantities of data are not available, and have been filled in with estimates.
- The adjustments are not equally positive and negative, and have produced a major impact on the Australian temperature record.
- The adjustments produce a trend in mean temperatures that is roughly a quarter of a degree Celsius greater than the raw data does.
- The warming bias in the temperature trend is 41.67%, and in the anomaly trend is 50%.
- The trend published by BOM is 66.67% greater than that of the raw data.
The High Quality data does NOT give an accurate record of Australian temperatures over the last 100 years.
BOM has produced a climate record that can only be described as a guess.
The best we can say about Australian temperature trends over the last 100 years is “Temperatures have gone down and up where we have good enough records, but we don’t know enough.”
If Anthropogenic Global Warming is so certain, why the need to exaggerate?
It is most urgent and important that we have a full scientific investigation, completely independent of BOM, CSIRO, or the Department of Climate Change, into the official climate record of Australia.
I will ask Dr Jones for his response.
(Thanks to Lance for assistance with downloading data, and janama for his NSW work. Also Jo Nova for her encouragement.)
Smokey:
According to you, what is the forcing which is currently causing this ‘recovery from the Little Ice Age’?
Icarus
“According to you, what is the forcing which is currently causing this ‘recovery from the Little Ice Age’?”
As the fable Greek myth goes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icarus), be careful you don’t fly too high and get too close to it, otherwise your wings might melt and you’ll come tumbling down to the ground.
Now perhaps Icarus you could now tell us what ‘forcing’ caused temperatures throughout many parts of the world, particularly in the Northern hemispshere to be greater during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period?
Sorry didn’t finish that last sentence off . It should say
“Now perhaps Icarus you could now tell us what ‘forcing’ caused temperatures throughout many parts of the world, particularly in the Northern hemispshere to be greater during the Holocene Climatic Optimum, the Minoan Warm Period, the Roman Warm Period and the Medieval Warm Period than they were towards the end of the 20th century?”
Bernard J
How old are you?
Were you around in the 20s, 30s and 40s? What evidence (citations please) do you have that the ‘phenomena’ you describe are unique to the late 20th century warming period?
During the last century and a half we experienced a series of warming and cooling periods. Of these cyclic warming (1910 to 1940) followed by cooling (1940 to 1970), followed by warming (1970 to 2000) periods only the last of these was associated with a significant rise in GHG/CO2 emissions due the post-WW2 industrial expansion. Also the late 20th century warming trend is neither greater than nor statistical any more signifcant than the 1910 to 1940 warming trend.
How do we know this? Well Phil Jones told us.
Indeed the ‘good Dr Phil’ said this to Roger Harrabin during a Q&A email exchange earlier this year following Climategate (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8511670.stm)
The very same ‘good Dr Phil’ back in March 2009 also advised the lead authors and reviewers of IPCC AR4 (including Susan Solomon, Kevin Trenberth who were seeking to make out that Greenland ice sheet melting was having a signiifcant effect on late 20th century sea-level rise) that it would be a very bad idea to try include (within the IPCC AR4) a reference to a paper published by Chylek and Lohmann which attempts to find a GHG warming signal (with due allowance for the effect of the NAO taken into account) in Greenland.
The ‘good Dr Phil’ proceeded to rubbish this claim and in fact sent the ‘team’ a series of charts that show that it was somewhat warmer in SW Greenland during the 30s/40s (particular during the winter months) than it is today. So according to the ‘good Dr Phil’ we shouldn’t be worrying about sea level rises due to melting Greenland icesheets (someone needs to tell Al Gore that as well) as they didn’t seem to cause us much of a problem back in the 20s/30s so why should they now? In one of his emails he even attached aerial photos of a Greenland glacier that was retreating during the 20s/30s but has since stopped retreating and indeed is now growing again.
So much for ‘unprecedented’ (not according to Phil Jones) Arctic warming during the late 20th century – even the ‘good Dr Phil’ seems to know that the 2007 sea ice extent low was not unusual when one actually takes the trouble to go and actually look for evidence of Arctic warming prior to the post 1979 satellite era!
Now back to the pesky 20th century warming and cooling periods. Perhaps you could have a quick look at the following link.
http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/2010/01/18/mapping-global-warming/
and in particular at Figs 7,8, 9 and 10. Note the legend for these maps given in Fig 1. All 4 maps show the warming/cooling trends in degC/century for individual WMO stations (with duplicate data for the same station appropriately combined into a single series for each WMO station ID and ‘imod’ combination). In particular please contrast Fig. 8 (1910 to 1940 warming period) with Fig 10 (1970 to 2010 warming period) and be sure to make due allowance for the relative lack of global coverage for the 1910 to 1940 period relative to the 1970 to 2010 period.
Can you see any significant differences particularly in the Northern Hemisphere during these two (IMO remarkably similar)warming periods? Note these are ‘raw’ data warming/cooling trend maps for the GISS land surface temperature dataset (basically GHCN with USHCN v2 and SCAR) and there has been no ‘anomlisation’ or ‘gridding’ of this data (sorry Zeke H, Nick S, Ron B, Mosh and co.) just straight forward linear trend fitting to the individual station ‘raw’ temperature data.
For the 1910 to 1940 map notice the ‘dark red’ dots for SW Greenland, Iceland, Northern Scandinavia and Russia (see the ‘good Dr Phil’ wasn’t telling porky pies to his IPCC compatriots). Now scroll further down that article on ‘Digging in the Clay’ (http://diggingintheclay.wordpress.com/) and look at Figs 10 and 11 (which should be labelled Figs 11 and 12).
To quote from that thread/article
“Now Figure 10 is clearly dramatic! Just look at all those dark red dots (> 5 deg.C/century warming trend) in the Northern US and all of the Canadian stations, and similarly most of the former USSR i.e. Russia, Kazakstan etc, Mongolia and North Eastern China stations! Despite this clearly alarming warming trend, there is at the same time an observed cooling trend in much of central China and, puzzlingly, in much of the Balkans, Greece and Turkey? Looking at the Southern Hemisphere for this DJF seasonal period i.e. summer period in the SH, Western Australia appears to refuse to be warmed!
It is then even more puzzling to contrast Figure 10 with Figure 11 which shows the JJA seasonal period trends. Much of the alarming warming trend evident in the DJF trends for the Northern US and Canadian stations has vanished and in fact has been replaced for some of the Central US stations with a cooling trend. Similarly many of stations in central China as in Western Australia refuse to show any warming trend! It also looks as though if you want to get a good tan, then ‘the Med’ whether it be the South of France, Italy, Greece or Turkey is a good place to head for as temperatures are clearly rocketing up there in the summer. Don’t forget to pack your sun protection cream though!
Seriously though, these seasonal trend maps would appear to indicate that that much of the claimed global warming is hardly global at all. In fact it looks to be more accurately Northern Hemispshere warming, and for that matter primarily Northern Hemispshere WINTER warming! Clearly CO2 is choosey! It’s happy to only take full effect during the winter time in the Northern Hemispshere and even when it does it is also happy at the same time to allow some exceptions. It looks very much like Western Australians need to apply to Kevin Rudd for a carbon tax rebate.”
Perhaps some Australians (maybe some with the firsname Julia) visited DITC (and not just western Australians) and read that thread, saw those maps and decided to ‘spread the word’ back home? Maybe or maybe not or perhaps much more likely its just a coincidence that short afterwards the Australian ETS scheme was ‘postponed’ and my poor namessake was told to take an early bath by Julia. Sorry Kev!
So Bernard J, based on this evidence, can you please explain why we should consider the late 20th century warming trend (from 1970 to 2000) to be in anyway exceptional and that the ‘phenomena’ you describe unique to the late 20th century. Clearly you are going to have to cite references that justify your claim else otherwise it possible that the same ‘phenomena’ you describe could just as easily have occurred occurred during the 30s/40s?
Folks, how do these temperature reports tie into the temperatures reported by the likes of the CRU, NOAA, GISS, NCDC, etc? Or do they? In other words, are these Australian reports only of significance to Australia (bad enough) or of significance in the larger picture of the claimed worldwide average temperatures? Thanks in advance for helping me understand this!!
KevinUK: The Earth’s climate has *always* changed, throughout its history – long before we even existed. As we’re changing the very same things *now* that changed naturally in the past, in order to cause those climate changes, we are (of course) now seeing climate change in response to human activities. How could it be otherwise?
It was white, it was skinny, it’s trend was inordinate. It sat in an airport in the middle of Australia.
“Bernard J. says:
July 29, 2010 at 9:13 am
Where is this warmth, and the warmth that is altering our seasons, coming from?”
Certainly not through emissions of CO2. Are you aware the a 67 year cold record was broken this winter in Sydney, a few days before it was a 30 year cold record, and yet CO2 emissions continue to rise.
However, without you identifying the sites you are talking about 20 or 30 years ago and today, then it’s difficult to identify the “problem”. As I said, there are many factors in volved in salmon spawning/farming, temperature being one, chemicals in feed are another.
re: Patrick Davis says: July 29, 2010 at 11:36 pm
Peru is doing some pretty amazing record breaking too I gather – they have declared a national emergency because the cold is so extreme and so many people are dying from it, particularly at the highest altitudes. I’m not sure if all of S. Am. is having unusual cold or not, but parts of it sure are. Meanwhile this past winter approximately half of all the livestock in Mongolia was lost to extreme cold, and deep snows. IIRC, they also had a drought which made forage during the winter a bit scarce too, which contributed – but the cold was record setting also.
Icarus says:
July 29, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“KevinUK: The Earth’s climate has *always* changed, throughout its history – long before we even existed. As we’re changing the very same things *now* that changed naturally in the past, in order to cause those climate changes, we are (of course) now seeing climate change in response to human activities. How could it be otherwise?”
Reply: It could be that most of us here think that the effect of human activities re: the climate are insignificant (and possibly nill). This in comparison to the the effects of the sun and the response of the oceans and subsequently the atmosphere, thus climate and weather. It is you who say human activity is warming the planet. Prove it. With verifiable science! You will be the first.
If you doubt the effects of the sun, try this: Get in your sun-bathing gear. Go lie in the sun. No sunblock please. Report back what burns you first. The Sun? Or the CO2? But both radiate heat, although some think it may be doubtful for the CO2.
Happy Trolling,
Ralph Dwyer
Icarus says at 12:22 pm:
“Smokey:
According to you, what is the forcing which is currently causing this ‘recovery from the Little Ice Age’?”
I have to explain the following regularly to refugees from RealClimate, where they steer clear of the subject:
The CO2=CAGW hypothesis stated that rises in CO2 would lead to runaway global warming & climate catastrophe. That has been falsified, not least by planet Earth.
What you apparently misunderstand is that the proposer of a hypothesis is obligated by the scientific method to pick apart his own hypothesis, and to make his data, metadata, code, documented methodologies, etc., available to everyone who requests it… for the specific purpose of falsifying the hypothesis.
Whatever is left standing after all attempts at falsification is assumed to be accurate science, until increased knowledge requires a new hypothesis. A hypothesis will be elevated to a theory if it makes numerous repeated, accurate, testable and transparent predictions about the future.
That is how the scientific method works: everything must be made transparent. In the internet age, it only requires some mouse clicks to publicly archive all of the information so it is available to the public that paid for it. This is the weather we’re talking about, not nuclear defense secrets.
What you don’t want to accept is the fact that skeptics have nothing to prove. It is the proposer of the hypothesis who has the burden of showing that the current climate is outside of past parameters. But even Phil Jones knows that today’s global temperatures are simply a repeat of the past. And a very exact repeat at that.
The null hypothesis is natural climate variability. Unlike CO2=CAGW, one has ever falsified the null hypothesis.
That is an abbreviated explanation of the scientific method. But the alarmist crowd will not follow the scientific method. Michael Mann has refused to disclose his hockey stick methodologies for over 12 years despited scores of requests. What does that tell you?
So again: skeptics have nothing to prove. For more on the scientific method, see Sir Karl Popper: “…the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability.”
How can skeptical scientists meet those criteria when the alarmist scientists refuse to disclose their methods?
anthony holmes says:
July 28, 2010 at 4:50 am
Why measure temperatures at airports ? Surely the blowtorch effects of jet engines hitting the runway will make the ground absorb significant amounts of heat – enough to skew temperature readings to the warm side . Tens of thousands of liters of jet fuel being burned every day must make the temperature reading false – or am i missing something ?
**
You do, the ability to draw logical conclusions. Historically, the weather, including temperature, were measured at airports because the pilots needed the info. Today there are many other ways to measure temperature, including satelites. The ground based thermometers need not even be accurate, if consistently reading high or low. The trend will reveal itself regardless. On the coast, temperatures may be high with the wind blowing from the land, and drop when it comes in from the sea. Yet even then, without compensation the trend will reveal over time. However, feel free to stick a few thermometers onto the tarmac of your nearest airport. I then challenge you to do an accurate calculation of how much the plane engines contributed to the result. Perhaps wait for a volcanic explosion to close the airport, but then again what would be the influence of the aerosols?
KevinUK says:
July 29, 2010 at 1:23 pm
“Seriously though, these seasonal trend maps would appear to indicate that that much of the claimed global warming is hardly global at all. In fact it looks to be more accurately Northern Hemispshere warming, and for that matter primarily Northern Hemispshere WINTER warming! Clearly CO2 is choosey! It’s happy to only take full effect during the winter time in the Northern Hemispshere and even when it does it is also happy at the same time to allow some exceptions.”
**
It’s not that CO2 is choosey, it’s you. Look at the northern hemishere and what do you see? Right, a lot of land. Look at the southern hemisphere and what do you see? Right, a lot of water. Both absorb heat, but the ocean disperses it quickly to the water below. The ocean’s are not likely to present a thin layer of boiling water. Try it with a black surface on land. It is the weather that makes the exceptions, not CO2. Sorry, to spoil the happyness of CO2. Are you aware that global temperature is always preceeded by the word average? It’s like average income, some actually earn avarage income, but most either less or more. This was just my average comment.
Ralph Dwyer says:
July 30, 2010 at 10:20 am
Icarus says:
July 29, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“If you doubt the effects of the sun, try this: Get in your sun-bathing gear. Go lie in the sun. No sunblock please. Report back what burns you first. The Sun? Or the CO2? But both radiate heat, although some think it may be doubtful for the CO2.
Happy Trolling,”
Ralph Dwyer
**
Are you for real? Ever heard about the difference between UV and IR? Silly question, of course not. What’s the trolling bit? Is it a label for anyone putting up a counter argument? Or anyone who does not sing praise? I find that quite unkind. I don’t believe in the mantra “If you’re not with us, you’re against us. If that makes me a ‘troll’, well so be it.
Bernard J. says:
July 28, 2010 at 9:13 pm
Agree, have just started reading this blog over the last couple of days. I have great respect for the people at the BOM. What struck me though is how often a discussion on sceptical climate on blogs in general, use of local weather, state weather or even national weather, to reinforce or prove a global effect.
Smokey: Your claim was that we are currently experiencing a ‘recovery from the Little Ice Age’. According to the scientific method, what argument and evidence do you have to support that claim? What forcing is involved?
Icarus,
How many times does it have to be pointed out to you that according to the scientific method skeptics have nothing to prove? The burden is entirely on those pushing the CO2=CAGW
hypothesisconjecture. Natural climate variability fully explains all of the climate observations. That does not imply that we know all there is about the processes involved – but that is a completely different discussion.Those believing in the [repeatedly falsified] conjecture that an increase in a very minor trace gas will cause runaway global warming have the entire burden of showing that their conjecture explains reality better than natural variability. Without exception they have consistently failed.
We do not know all the factors involved in global temperature variability, just as we do not have physical evidence of the force that mediates gravity [presumed to be the Higgs boson]. That does not mean that that gravity does not exist.
If you had read Karl Popper’s explanation of the scientific method that I provided [or Richard Feynman’s cargo cult explanation], you would understand that unless a hypothesis is testable and falsifiable, it is not even science; it is merely a conjecture — an opinion.
You still do not comprehend the scientific method. Until you do, you will continue to be led down the wrong path, believing the increasingly preposterous conjecture that a beneficial and harmless trace gas, essential to all life on Earth, is going to cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe.
If it were not for the immense amount of public funds being funneled into the corrupt climate ‘science’ trough, the CO2=CAGW conjecture would long ago have been laughed off stage.
Smokey:
I’m skeptical of your claim that the current warming is a ‘recovery from the Little Ice Age’. I’m simply asking you to support that claim with valid argument or evidence. Can you do that, or not?
re:
Icarus, all you have to do is look at historical temperature records. After an ice age, things heat up. After temporary temperature drops that aren’t as significant as a full blown ice age, things still heat back up. The rate and degree of our current warming is nothing unusual or unprecedented throughout history. For that matter, the rate of increase hasn’t changed when compared to the years before man was releasing any significant amount of CO2.
Therefor, its far more likely that we are seeing natural variation yet again. Its far less likely to be some cause other than natural variation when there is nothing unusual about it. Occam’s razor – the simplest reason/cause is more likely to be correct. There’s just no reason to assume it is anything else. One of these days the Earth will move back into another ice age almost certainly – and we almost certainly won’t have caused that either.
When someone proposes a cause that is NOT in line with the historical record, then as others here have been trying to explain, its up to that person to prove their hypothesis. To take the stance that the warming isn’t natural variation and coming out of the little ice age, but is caused by man releasing CO2, one would have to show why there was significant warming before man began releasing much CO2 – and why the rate of warming hasn’t increased significantly since we started releasing a lot of CO2. No one has done that yet.
Currently we’re not even as warm as we have been several times in the recent past – e.g, the last 15,000 years or so since temperatures started warming up after the last ice age (Medieval Warm Period, etc.). These facts make it illogical to suddenly decide that our temperature variations are anything but natural, and the most recent coming from warm up post little ice age – just returning to temps closer to what they were prior to the little ice age.
Icarus says at 1:58 pm:
“I’m simply asking you to support that claim with valid argument or evidence. Can you do that, or not?”
Of course I can. Glad you asked. And I prefer the evidence based approach over your “valid argument” offer, which you will just argue over no matter how valid it is. So, let’s get started with some real world evidence:
click1
click2 [scary!]
click3
click4
click5
That is physical evidence that the planet has been through major changes regularly in the past. We are currently in the sweet spot, in one of the less frequent warm periods. We’re fortunate, but to attribute any changes to CO2, a minor trace gas to the warming since the LIA, is the Argumentum ad Ignorontiam fallacy that because we don’t know exactly what drives the climate, then it has to be CO2. Argument from ignorance isn’t part of the scientific method.
Fuzzylogic19 says:
July 30, 2010 at 11:28 pm
Ralph Dwyer says:
July 30, 2010 at 10:20 am
Icarus says:
July 29, 2010 at 2:35 pm
“If you doubt the effects of the sun, try this: Get in your sun-bathing gear. Go lie in the sun. No sunblock please. Report back what burns you first. The Sun? Or the CO2? But both radiate heat, although some think it may be doubtful for the CO2.
Happy Trolling,”
Ralph Dwyer
**
Are you for real? Ever heard about the difference between UV and IR? Silly question, of course not. What’s the trolling bit? Is it a label for anyone putting up a counter argument? Or anyone who does not sing praise? I find that quite unkind. I don’t believe in the mantra “If you’re not with us, you’re against us. If that makes me a ‘troll’, well so be it.
Reply: Hi Fuzzy! Cute name. Got anything constructive to contribute to the thread? Always stick your nose into other people’s business? And you presume I have no knowledge of the electromagnetic spectrum? I see, I’m in the presence of a superior intellect. How do I know this? I keep stumbling over these incapacitated people sitting on the floor with their feet in their mouths.
How about addressing the first part of my response to Icarus, which you apparently ignored? Can you? You’d also be the first! It’s a great challenge!
Oh, about me being “real”? That’d be me. I’m not hiding behind some cute moniker. I’ve got a handle for the CB, and I’ve got great character names for MMORPG. But I’m not role-playing here. This IS reality! So, what’s your real name, and what is your contribution to this discussion?
And the thing about the trolls, I keep meaning to say “Happy Trails” but it keeps coming out “Happy Trolling”. I apologise. /sarc off.
Happy Trails,
Ralph Dwyer
‘Rational Debate’:
To the best of my knowledge, glaciations are due to long, slow changes in the intensity and distribution of solar irradiance on the planet. Smaller climatic changes, likewise (Maunder Minimum etc). That being the case, if someone claims the same process is going on now, they should be able to demonstrate the changes in solar forcing which are causing the change in climate. I don’t think anyone argues that the climate experiences substantial long-term net changes without a sustained forcing from changing TSI or long-lived greenhouse gases or some other factor. Of course there are stochastic interannual variations (ENSO etc.) but these don’t tend to produce any net change over longer periods. Agreed?
Smokey:
To quote you directly, your claim was that “… the [current] rise in temperature is the result of the planet’s emergence from the Little Ice Age”. As evidence in support of this claim, you cite the fact that “the planet has been through major changes regularly in the past”.
How does this argument work, exactly? What do the past climate changes prove about the current warming? What forcing or forcings from those past climate changes are you claiming are in effect today, to cause the current warming?
Icarus, you are entirely missing the point. No one can demonstrate why ice ages and interglacial happen, because we haven’t lived through those transitions while we had the scientific method and ability to study and record data associated with such changes. We can piece together various records that make it pretty certain that those changes occurred, and we have an idea of how extreme they were, roughly when they occurred, etc. There are hypothesis about why those sudden changes occurred – Milankiovitch cycles, position in the Milky Way arm, etc. If you look at those records, you’ll see that in the geologic time scale those were rapid, sudden events, not a long slow change. Relative to our lifespans its a different story.
Smaller scale changes like the Medieval Warm Period are much more difficult to pin down in terms of cause. We almost certainly don’t know all of the ‘forcings’ associated with the huge swings of ice ages v. interglacials, let alone the far more frequent but far smaller swings that occur while you are in the relative plateau of interglacial or glacial periods.
We are, quite literally, in the infancy of our studies of these phenomenon. We are discovering that there are other natural cycles involved. Some of those on yearly scales, some decadal, others over hundreds or even thousands of years. There’s no question that there are some that occur that we don’t even have a clue exist.
Those on the SHORTEST timescales are the EASIEST to study and begin figuring out. The longer the timeframe, the less we know about even their existence, let alone causes. So, take a couple of the shortest ones and apply your question to them. What ‘forcings’ cause El Nino’s? What ‘forcings’ cause La Nina’s? I don’t believe anyone can tell you yet, because we just don’t know. But we sure know they occur. If you/we cannot even yet explain exactly how those occur and what causes the shifts between them, let alone how they interact with the longer scale cycles, how can you possibly expect anyone to give you scientific details on exactly how and why the longer scale cycles occur?
We know there is an impact between solar output and our climate – just how much effect, and exactly how it occurs is debatable and being studied. It had been thought that if we measured solar output on one frequency/band, that changes would be the same across the spectrum – turns out that may not be the case. We had thought that the cosmic ray spectrum was also pretty even, turns out that’s not the case. We’ve just learned there are ‘spacequakes’ that tie into our aurora borealis phenomenon. We had thought that cloud formation was an atmospheric thing, with the only Earth surface input being evaporation – but we’ve discovered that both plants and phytoplankton activity can actually spawn clouds. The latest is that perhaps up to between 50% to 60% of all recent ‘global warming’ may be due to black soot and not CO2 at all. The list goes on and on and on.
The historical temperature reconstructions, which we continue to revise, refine, add new relevant data to, etc., at a very rapid rate, tell us very clearly that there have been several periods during this interglacial that have been as warm or warmer than our present day temps. That data tells us that the degree and the rate at which our temps have changed in the last few hundred years is completely within normal, natural variations that have always occurred. We don’t have to know exactly why these temperature shifts occur to know that they do and have occurred repeatedly.
We also know that these historical increases in temperatures comparable to present day changes occurred all by their lonesome, without man’s industrial revolution adding significant amounts of CO2 to the atmosphere.
So, to suddenly decide that THIS temperature change, even tho it matches numerous historical changes before we were adding CO2 to the atmosphere, is for some reason unique (contrary to the records) and caused by us rather than those same natural cycles makes no sense. If you don’t understand now why your demand makes no sense – that somehow ‘forcings’ must be provided in order to ‘prove’ present day changes (which totally fall within historical norms) aren’t caused by CO2 , then I have no idea how to get these basic logical concepts across to you.
‘Rational Debate’: Smokey’s claim was that “… the [current] rise in temperature is the result of the planet’s emergence from the Little Ice Age”. I’m asking for the argument and evidence to support that very explicit claim. Pretty simple really. Just saying “the climate changed in the past” does not qualify as support for such a claim. Agreed? Perhaps Smokey might like to retract it and just say “Well maybe the current rise in temperature is caused by whatever caused the Little Ice Age but I don’t actually know”. That would at least be honest.