Atmospheric Oscillations do not Explain the Temperature-Industrialization Correlation (PDF)
(Statistics, Politics, and Policy, Volume 1, Issue 1, July 2010)
Abstract
Gridded land surface temperature data products are used in climatology on the assumption that contaminating effects from urbanization, land-use change and related socioeconomic processes have been identified and filtered out, leaving behind a “pure” record of climatic change.
But several studies have shown a correlation between the spatial pattern of warming trends in climatic data products and the spatial pattern of industrialization, indicating that local non-climatic effects may still be present.
This, in turn, could bias measurements of the amount of global warming and its attribution to greenhouse gases. The 2007 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set aside those concerns with the claim that the temperature-industrialization correlation becomes statistically insignificant if certain atmospheric circulation patterns, also called oscillations, are taken into account. But this claim has never been tested and the IPCC provided no evidence for its assertion. I estimate two spatial models that simultaneously control for the major atmospheric oscillations and the distribution of socioeconomic activity. The correlations between warming patterns and patterns of socioeconomic development remain large and significant in the presence of controls for atmospheric oscillations, contradicting the IPCC claim. Tests for outlier influence, spatial autocorrelation, endogeneity bias, residual nonlinearity and other problems are discussed.
Conclusions
Direct testing refutes the IPCC’s assertion that “the correlation of warming with industrial and socioeconomic development ceases to be statistically significant” upon controlling for atmospheric circulation patterns.
The correlations are quite robust to the inclusion of atmospheric circulation indicators, confirming the presence of significant extraneous signals in surface climate data on a scale sufficient to account for about half the observed upward trend over land since 1980.
As discussed in the underlying papers by deLaat and Maurellis and McKitrick and Michaels, socioeconomic activity can lead to purely local atmospheric modifications (such as temporary increases in local particulates and aerosols) as well as land-surface modifications and data inhomogeneities, and these can cause apparent trends in temperature data that should not be interpreted as general climatic changes. As was noted half a century ago by J. Murray Mitchell Jr., “The problem remains one of determining what part of a given temperature trend is climatically real and what part the result of observational difficulties and of artificial modification of the local environment.” (Mitchell Jr., 1953).
The results herein show that this longstanding concern is likely still relevant, and the hypothesis used by the IPCC to dismiss it cannot be supported by the data. A substantial fraction of the post-1980 trends in gridded climate data over land are likely not “climatically real” but result from data quality problems and local environmental modifications.
Download the full paper here:
http://ross.mckitrick.googlepages.com/CircEffects.rev.pdf
h/t to populartechnology.net
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If the post 1980 terrestrial record is so contaminated, is it not surprising that the satellite -based record is substantially the same?
This, and its brothers, drives a feeling of despair that the whole AGW army is staffed by people who have never undertaken the hard work of scholarship — or did not have the capacity to — yet have driven the whole world to distraction by sophisticated manipulation of propaganda of the most base kind.
Ross McKitrick et al must share this despair I feel; probably even more deeply as we watch the unwinding of wisdom.
To quote the article: “The correlations between warming patterns and patterns of socioeconomic development remain large and significant…”
Well, I have been a glider pilot for a good time of my life. Among glider pilots it’s an open secret, that “patterns of socioeconomic development” are indeed VERY relevant: We call them “industrial thermal lift” or “urban thermal lift”.
Both are very useful when flying in otherwise rather calm weather, because both deliver a SUBSTANTIAL, very reliable and predictable source of lift for engine-less glider planes.
Roger Carr,
I take a different view. I don’t think the AGW army is lacking in scholarship or capacity. I think however, that they are willing to gloss over inconvenient problems with their hypothesis in order to further their cause of protecting the environment and promoting cleaner, renewable, and sustainable energy. And maybe to punish greedy consumers a little bit, too.
In the end, their position might end up the correct one, and we could see rapid warming due to CO2 over the next several hundred years. But right now, it seems that their case is not nearly as strong as they might lead you to believe. But for them, the end justifies the means.
Moving towards peer review publication I trust?
richard telford says: “is it not surprising that the satellite -based record is substantially the same?”
It isn’t.
GISS show meteorological stations temperature increase about 1 deg C 1980 to end 2009.
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/graphs/Fig.A.gif
UAH show LT temperature increase about 0.4 deg C over the same period.
http://vortex.nsstc.uah.edu/public/msu/t2lt/tltglhmam_5.2
There are some significant differences along the way as well, with the LT tending to show much larger variation over short periods, in spite of the lower overall increase.
And remember, there is the additional challenge that the CO2-driven global warming is supposed to flow from the LT to the surface.
Scott B. said: “I take a different view. I don’t think the AGW army is lacking in scholarship or capacity. I think however, that they are willing to gloss over inconvenient problems with their hypothesis in order to further their cause of protecting the environment and promoting cleaner, renewable, and sustainable energy. And maybe to punish greedy consumers a little bit, too.”
I’ve found that the tendency to gloss over inconvenient problems or contrary data is unfortunately all too common, even if the only thing at stake is the interest of the researcher in his or her findings and pet theories. It’s something I believe we all, engineers, scientists, etc. have to guard against, I know it’s unpleasant to have a stubborn bit of data that undermines what is, in your own mind, a grand and elegant hypothesis. You worked hard on it, you just want it to be right. But to be honest with yourself and advance science you have to be the person working hardest to shoot down your own theory, not ignore contrary evidence. Feynman lectured and wrote about this often, and he was absolutely right.
Take the normal tendency of people to gloss over things they don’t want to hear, add in a healthy (or unhealthy) does of ego, and then wrap it up with the self interest (grants for going along with the orthodoxy, ostracism if you don’t), self righteousness because you’re “saving the planet” and some green guilt and it is all too easy, sadly, for science to become corrupted and “inconvenient truths” to be swept under the rug.
I suppose it’s understandable to anyone who has studied human history, but it’s still depressing and dangerous, as well as infuriating.
Done already:
There’s an interesting back story about the publication of this article, that can be found here:
http://1488276005495550431-a-1802744773732722657-s-sites.googlegroups.com/site/rossmckitrick/gatekeeping.pdf?attachauth=ANoY7cq4n7ozeffrnfW0T5vPXyuX4zWV-k8bhQl5KA-IGkQHw_f0H6OmJBbc-Q1SmrvRjH8zOyWkVFiBll2pogwWIIOKidZWc-l6qbHfMPG9hCdJIaMX4LzdraB2dN2iYuyKJZuu1kHouF9yMdDJJ1q0_mMhZMbcUb2no5o_ecc_LYP73kbhKBu3SKFtdoVhJqXEbVculywAcklkSxY2C7b5nKS7umKPWA%3D%3D&attredirects=0
“But this claim has never been tested and the IPCC provided no evidence for its assertion.”
That about sums up the IPCC.
Other ingredients in the stew:
1. The inclination of certain judgmental personality types to “play parent” (I’m OK, you’re not OK).
2. Faddism — akin to the hot-topic wowie-zowie attraction of string theory, artificial intelligence, swine flu alarmism, etc.
3. Scientism: Overvaluing the measurable and the readily apparent (what’s under the streetlight) and marginalizing the holistic, subtle, and obscure. E.g., devaluing “anecdotal” / historical evidence of earlier warm periods and Arctic ice retreats; ruling out the possibility of there being internally generated multi-decadal natural variation and of climate being a complex/chaotic system at every level (in favor of a bean-counting “forcing” system with a “tipping point” rather than a natural thermostat); and failing to tease apart the influence and interaction of forcings and feedbacks (which Roy Spencer has done in ch. 5 of his book, The Great Global Warming Blunder).
4. Guild solidarity in the scientific community: Knee-jerk rank-closing by scientific pooh-bahs on behalf of their besieged comrades in climatology. This has had the effect of giving the anthropogenic conjecture the blessing of “science.”
5. Modernism: “Science” says so, and who wants to be on the other side (with the flat-earthers)?
Mike Jonas says:
August 8, 2010 at 4:13 am
May I recommend you buy a new pair of spectacles: you clearly cannot read the axis labels on the GISS graph.
This WUWT post is the key to the skeptical scientist and the reason Anthony has put together a huge surfacestations quality effort. Ross and Steve have just published a paper which shows that the trends in models are outside of the satellite temperature measurements by 2 to 4 times. I think it’s one of the most important results in climate science that I’ve seen this year.
http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/08/07/time-to-fix-the-thermometers/
If you combine Ross, Steve, Chad’s work at the link with even a slightly reduced trend from UHI (surfacestations project), models need to be recomputed to match observations. More importantly, because the warming we’ve measured is less than predicted, the conclusions need to be revised.
Thank you Ross and Anthony for another spotlight on reality.
Ross McKitrick-
Thank you for your efforts.
I will study your work with great interest.
I still don’t see why there’s ANY need for density or gridding in this context. If you want long-term measurements, just find one reliable and constantly rural site in the Northern Hemisphere and one in the Southern. Don’t interpolate across geography or time, don’t adjust anything for anything. Just measure.
Has Roy Spencer’s new work on UHI from March been published yet?
WUWT post on it:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/10/spencer-global-urban-heat-island-effect-study-an-update/
This looks like a really valuable contribution from Ross. I look forward to studying it a bit more carefully.
But whilst there is much to agree with here in the comments (and without wishing to be boring), I must insist that this isn’t just some arcane academic dispute.
Sure, some of the “climate scientists” may just be “glossing over” things “to further their cause of protecting the environment”.
These probably aren’t BAD people. (Although I sometimes wonder).
But they ALL are fully aware that the media and the politicians and big business are using their “hypothesis” to justify spending (literally) trillions on changing to a so called “low carbon economy” using technology that basically doesn’t work.
So what are we to make of the character of “scientists” who go along with this for the benefit of their careers, in the face of the obvious fact that, as Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out, the “war on global warming” is, in reality, a war on the poor.
So I’m afraid I have very little patience with the self deceiving hubris and hypocracy of these characters.
Amino Acids in Meteorites says:
August 8, 2010 at 6:48 am
“Has Roy Spencer’s new work on UHI from March been published yet?”
I’ve been wondering the same thing. It would go well with this study. Apparently, though, he’s been busying himself with other nice pieces of work.
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2010/06/warming-in-last-50-years-predicted-by-natural-climate-cycles/#comment-262
Mike Jones, UAH is showing temperatures at a substantially higher mean elevation than the surface temperature record. Compare RSS to ground if you want a cleaner comparison, since this product is intended to be “near surface”. What you’ll find is a strong agreement between the two…. I think this level of agreement is “too good,” because I expect more amplification from measurements in the surface layer than immediately above it. Hence surface temperatures in Peru isn’t the same thing as measuring at the same elevation above mean sea surface.
From the article [with link added]:
“The results herein show that this longstanding concern is likely still relevant, and the hypothesis used by the IPCC to dismiss it cannot be supported by the data.”
Martin Brumby says:
August 8, 2010 at 7:47 am
“These probably aren’t BAD people. (Although I sometimes wonder).
But they ALL are fully aware that the media and the politicians and big business are using their “hypothesis” to justify spending (literally) trillions on changing to a so called “low carbon economy” using technology that basically doesn’t work.
So what are we to make of the character of “scientists” who go along with this for the benefit of their careers, in the face of the obvious fact that, as Dr. Roy Spencer has pointed out, the “war on global warming” is, in reality, a war on the poor.”
I agree with everything I re-posted from you, except the first statement.
The odyssey of this paper itself speaks volumes to the character of the CAGW orthodoxy and the depths they would sink to in order to preserve the appearance of their scientific authority. Self interest is one thing, self interest at the expense of lives and quality of life to where it adversely effects virtually every person on the planet is something else entirely.
In my book, yes, this makes them “BAD” people, to put it very mildly.
This paper reminds me to ask Anthony whether his paper on the Surface Stations project is still planned for publication. Or has the team’s preemptive strike from NCDC managed to scuttle it.
“(IPCC) set aside those concerns with the claim that the temperature-industrialization correlation becomes statistically insignificant if certain atmospheric circulation patterns, also called oscillations, are taken into account.”
Surely IPCC isn’t saying that temp-industrialization corellation becomes statistically insignificant if ….. This could be construed to mean that CO2 becomes statistically insignificant once “oscillations” (natural) are taken into account.
I’m wondering what we are going to do with current scientific establishments and prominent publications given their egregious partisan position with Global Warming science and the increase is hysteria from them – the blacklist becoming peer reviewed publication, etc. I think we will have to create new scientific societies and publications – how can we just give them a pass and remain members and be submitting papers to these horribly blocked and censored publications. I will find it hard to trust what I read on any topic in Nature, Scientific American, National Geographic, the newspapers…. oh well newspapers are already in a death spiral. Even when the NYT begins reporting on the new Ice Age it won’t rescue them.