Lies, Damn Lies, and Anoma-Lies

Greenhouse warming theory is like a Russian matryoshka doll; there is always a deeper fraud inside.

Excellent analysis, David. This corresponds with my understanding as well.

What if the average is itself an anomaly?

Happens often when you manipulate intensive variables in isolation.

A while back, I think it was on the Blackboard, I had expressed my “hair on the back of neck up” when people talk anomalies. Anomalous to what and when is my first question. Secondly, why is it that ALL anomalies are bad? History is choked full of anomalies.
Anyhow, Zeke H. explained to me, in many, many, many words how an anomaly is a normalization of a data-set, and I fell asleep and gave up (I am not sure in which order).
This post will be in my bookmarks. Thank you David!

And where the simple anomaly number really makes a difference is in the Arctic. Suppose for example that the Arctic warmed by 2 C over the last 60 years. It would make a huge difference if the low and dry temperature of 245 K warmed by 2 C and the high and more moist temperature of 275 K also warmed by 2 C, or if the lower, dryer temperature warmed by 4 C and the high temperature was unchanged. I believe it is the latter that is closer to the truth. And if the warming of cold and dry air is driving global anomalies, we must take these with a grain of salt.

I get the point of the post, and I agree that the method is lacking.
My comment won’t exactly be on point. But, is it really settled that co2 increases will cause temperature increases? I don’t think it is.
Reginald Newell, MIT, NASA, IAMAP, co2 and possible cooling
1 minute video

Short and sweet David.
Just think how the discrepancies multiply if you consider tha the actual range of temperatures on eart’s surface is much greater than the numbers you chose for your example locations.
Vostok Station has been measured officially below -128 deg F, and with anecdotal evidence of nearby higher altitude points as low as -130 or -90 deg C, 183 K, while at the exact same time, tropical desert locations have air temperatures over 135 deg F, and surface Temperatures of maybe 140 F or +60 deg C, 333 K.
The S-B Total radiant emittance then covers a range of more than 11:1, and Temperatures near those extremes ca and do exist at exactly the same moment, since the dark of the Antarctic winter night, is the northern summertime. Even more dramatic is the result if you calculate the peak of the spectral radiant emittance over that temperature range, which is where the bulk of the radiant energy is emitted.
That goes as T^5, not T^4 which gives almost a 20 : 1 ratio. And at those highest Temperatures, the wavelength of the peak emission hasmoved from around 10.1 microns at 288 K to around 8.75 microns, which is further inside the “atmospheric window” making CO2 even less important.
There is also another issue. The disciples of the greenhouse gremlin, are willing to swear on a stack of bibles, that earth’s atmosphere DOES NOT radiate ANY “black body” radiation, since gases cannot do so; only solids (rocks) and liquids (oceans) do. Well clouds are water or ice, so clearly clouds can and must emit thermal continuum radiation depending on the cloud Temperature per the S-B law. Otherwise only the surface can emit thermal radiation, so the non cloud part of the atmosphere can only emit the LWIR spectra of the various GHGs, which is NOT spectrally dependent on Temperature to a first order.
So earth’s external emission spectrum, should reflect the earth surface Temperatures, with their higher value and shorter wavelength range; not some 253 K signature spectrum.
Well of course, the non cloud atmosphere does radiate a thermal continuum spectrum, characteristic of its Temperature, and quite independent of its composition; but its density is so low, that even the total atmospheric optical absorption density doesn’t come close to the total absortion required of a “black” body. The deep oceans absorb 97% in about 700 metres,with around 3% surface Fresnel reflection, so they make a pretty good imitation of a black body radiator.
So when James Hansen re-adjusts the historic baseline Temperatures for “discrepancies”, as he seems fond of doing, does he apply the exact same fudge factor to the actual historic Temperature readings taken back then. That would seem to be essential to do, or else there would be a fictitious discrepancy generated anomaly change, every time he discrepancizes the baseline reference ??

Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings and commented:
” averaging anomaly data from dramaticaly different temperature ranges provides a meaningless result.”

Absolutely spot on – I’ve been aware of this irreconcilable “anomaly” for several years. Average temperature does not give average radiation, and vice-versa. The inherent error over the surface of the Earth may well be equal (or greater) in magnitude to the “warming effect” of a doubling of CO2.
However, Kiehl & Trenberth 2009 didn’t calculate outgoing surface radiation from an average surface temperature, as is often supposed. They used a method of gridded temperature data over the surface to calculate outgoing radiation for reach grid, averaging the results (though that has it’s own problems, too detailed to go into here).

The “consensus” literature proposes that direct effects of CO2 result in a downward energy flux of 3.7 watts/m2 for a doubling of CO2.
So, how does the IPCC justify their claim? As seen from space, the earth’s temperature is not defined at earth surface, nor can it be defined at the TOA (Top of Atmosphere). Photons escaping from earth to space can originate at any altitude, and it is the average of these that defines the “effective black body temperature of earth” which turns out to be about -20 C (253 K), much colder than average temperatures at earth surface. If we plug that value into the equation we get:
253K = 232.3 w/m2
254K = 236.0 w/m2
236.0 – 232.3 = 3.7
——————————————————————————-
So the direct effect (before feedbacks) of doubling CO2 raises the earths surface T how much less then 1 degree?
Great article BTW. Also it should be pointed out the CO2 in the atmosphere does, as the IPCC shows, increase the residence time of LWIR energy. However it DECREASES the residence time of conducted energy which must stay in the atmosphere longer if it cannot radiate away. Our atmosphere is full of both conducted and radiated energy. additional CO2 accelerates the escape to space of conducted atmospheric energy.

The “consensus” literature proposes that direct effects of CO2 result in a downward energy flux of 3.7 watts/m2 for a doubling of CO2.
So, how does the IPCC justify their claim? As seen from space, the earth’s temperature is not defined at earth surface, nor can it be defined at the TOA (Top of Atmosphere). Photons escaping from earth to space can originate at any altitude, and it is the average of these that defines the “effective black body temperature of earth” which turns out to be about -20 C (253 K), much colder than average temperatures at earth surface. If we plug that value into the equation we get:
253K = 232.3 w/m2
254K = 236.0 w/m2
236.0 – 232.3 = 3.7
——————————————————————————-
So the direct effect (before feedbacks) of doubling CO2 raises the earths surface T how much less then 1 degree?
Great article BTW. Also it should be pointed out the CO2 in the atmosphere does, as the IPCC shows, increase the residence time of LWIR energy. However it DECREASES the residence time of conducted energy which must stay in the atmosphere longer if it cannot radiate away. Our atmosphere is full of both conducted and radiated energy; additional CO2 accelerates the escape to space of conducted atmospheric energy.

“I would agree, to a degree, because comparing to an average is a weak method, but more generally an anomaly is an abnormal value when compared to a history of values.”
“something that deviates from the normal” Collins english dictionary. How do you know what the “normal” is?. How do you measure it? What are historical values? I asked at RC some years ago and got a Gavin reply. It was that reply that persuaded me of their utter stupidity.

I think the main implication of this piece is that Climate Scientists are going to need MUCH bigger super computers.

In richard Feynman’s book he gives the following story:
“Anyhow, I’m looking at all these books, all these books, and none of them has said anything about using arithmetic in science. ..
Finally I come to a book that says, “Mathematics is used in science in many ways. We will give you an example from astronomy, which is the science of stars.” I turn the page, and it says, “Red stars have a temperature of four thousand degrees, yellow stars have a temperature of five thousand degrees . . .” — so far, so good. It continues: “Green stars have a temperature of seven thousand degrees, blue stars have a temperature of ten thousand degrees, and violet stars have a temperature of . . . (some big number).” There are no green or violet stars, but the figures for the others are roughly correct. … Then comes the list of problems. It says, “John and his father go out to look at the stars. John sees two blue stars and a red star. His father sees a green star, a violet star, and two yellow stars. What is the total temperature of the stars seen by John and his father?” — and I would explode in horror.”
Are anomalies the same as this but with minus signs instead of plus signs?

Having defined your problem with anomalies, please describe “a suitable method for discussing temperature data as it applies to the climate debate?”

Long story short, if the goal of measuring temperature anomalies is to try and quantify the effects of CO2 doubling on earth’s energy balance at surface, anomalies from winter in Winnipeg and summer in Khartoum simply are not comparable. Trying to average them and draw conclusions about CO2′s effects in w/m2 simply makes no sense and produces a global anomaly that is meaningless.

I’m not sure I agree. While there is significant regional variation, global temperature variation remains remarkably small. For example, only about half a degree covers temperature readings across all years for Aug 24th (i.e. the most recent UAH CH 5 readings). The same is true for all other days in the year. UAH (and RSS, GISS and Hadley) appear to be using sufficiently robust statistical sampling methods such that the anomalies are meaningful.

Entropic man says:
August 27, 2012 at 2:49 am
“It feels cold today.”
“I believe this summer has been fine, overall.”
Touchy, feely stuff like that?
Followed by, “Send me your first born so I may save your grandchildren. Or else.”

Having defined your problem with anomalies, please describe “a suitable method for discussing temperature data as it applies to the climate debate?”
I will not talk for the author of the post.
But the only “suitable” way to deal with the dependencies between the temperatures and the energy flows is to take the Temperature field as it is in reality with all its spatial dependencies.
In other words you can obtain correct flows only by first computing then integrating T^4(x,y,z) where x, y and z are the spatial variables.
As soon as you begin with spatial averagings of temperatures (e.g making disappear the x,y and z) of any kind BEFORE you compute the flows you fall in the problem I described above and your answers about energy flows will be wrong.
The maximal “wrongness “will be realized when the spatial averaging of temperatures takes place over the whole globe what is called the global temperature average.

You can also think of it in terms of 1 Watt/m2 = 1 Joule/second/m2
Now we have “time” in the equation. We have 1 joule of energy moving through an infinitely thin area of a metre by a metre each Second.
And 1 joule is the equivalent of 3,018,412,315,122,250,000 solar photons and 15,092,061,575,611,200,000 Earth temperature long-wave photons (per second).
Now we have to start thinking about energy accumulation/loss per second.
On average, the Earth warms up or cools down by only 0.0075 joules/m2/second over any period of time (Day, Night, or Seasonal change throughout the year). At the height of the day, 960 joules/m2/second are coming in from the Sun, but the air temperature is only recording a change in energy of 0.008 joules/m2/second.
So, at the height of noon-day Sun, 2,897,675,822,517,360,000,000 solar photons are coming in per second but only 24,147,298,520,978,000 worth of those solar photons are accumulating in the air temperature. 99.9992% of the energy in the solar photons is going somewhere else per second. Either building up in the land, soil, vegetation or they are being re-emitted back to the upper atmosphere or space – basically as fast as they are coming in.
This is, of course, an infinitely thin layer or area of 1 m2. Now we have to start thinking of the volume (rather than area) of air that is being recorded by a thermometre. Now it gets even more bizarre.
Just a different take on it. Not something a climate model thinks about.

I am no scientist. What struck me about this (excellent) piece , is that there has been no warming for the last 13+ years.
Even using their shonky anomaly methods, they still cannot rustle up any warming. It makes me wonder what the true situation is

Entropic:

Having defined your problem with anomalies, please describe “a suitable method for discussing temperature data as it applies to the climate debate?”

It’s really very simple, you have an offset to absolute temperature that only depends on the the mean annual cycle of the period that you baselined over. So, assuming e.g. a monthly series, just add that back in at the end to get the annualized version of the series.
Anomalization/deannualization of time series is common in many fields, e.g., most famously econometrics. Anomalization is just a mechanism for removing the short-period fluctuations in order to remove the otherwise visually obscured longer-term forcings, and a convenient technique for reconstruction.
I decided not to comment on the quality of the paper other than to say I don’t agree with the general assessment made in the comments.

John Finn: “A simple energy balance model demonstrates the figures.”
Indeed. For example we have the following from http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090123131816AAeXRwL
“I have seen asphalt on the apron of a race track get to 138 degrees
Source(s):
Race engineer using an infrared gun at Bristol Motor Speedway in 2008”
Which, if you care to do the math, gives an emission of 689 W/m^2. That this is vastly higher than the estimated 390 W/m^2 is obviously a consequence of all the Mad-Max petrol burners making lap times.
This is, of course, farcical. But then we note that Bristol, TN has a latitude, an the Earth has an axial tilt and albedo. Assume that the axial tilt of the Earth was pointed directly at the sun at the time of the measurement, and that the measurement was taken at solar noon. Then if we use the Bond albedo we find that the inbound radiation is 922 W/m^2. And we might wish to thank our lucky stars that we have all that evil CO2 blocking inbound radiation. As otherwise the given black-body temperature would be 183 degrees (Fahrenheit obviously.)
This is a little bit stupid of course. And mostly for the reason that we’re using Bond albedo. Which default as the geometric albedo as corrected for scattering and other issues across the illuminated hemisphere of the sphere. This then is corrected by all other manner and means based on actual measurement. The problem is that, for this example, we really want the geometric albedo of the Earth on a day of a given cloudiness over a square meter of asphalt.
And the reason we want this is that the Bond albedo is farcically high and inappropriate for something like a simple radiation balance model for a patch of land in Tennessee. But if we simply take the other boundary condition and treat only the albedo as being that of asphaly, at 0.1, then we find the inbound insolation on the apron is 1196.94 W/m^2. Which dictates that we ought see a temperature of 226 degrees.
So our simple radiation balance model can do no more than state that GHGs and geometry are responsible for reducing the insolation received by the apron somewhere in the range of 25 to 42%. Making any statement about predicted temperature is a nonsense for something so trivial as a bit of tarmac as we have a predicted range of 43 degrees; the least point of that prediction being still 45 degrees higher than empirical measurement. And the actual temperautre being 79 degrees warming that the 59 degree temperature we would predict based on a the wonderous notion of 390 W/m^2.
So yes, depending on your assumptions we can make statements about a 3.7 W/m^2 forcing within a window of modelling errors spanning a 806 W/m^2 range of uncertainty in a simple energy balance model.

Baa Humbug;
+35 C = 318K = 579.8 w/m2
+34 C = 317K = 587.1 w/m2
The 579.8 w/m2 and 587.1 w/m2 in the above are backassward.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
CEH;
+34 C = 317K = 587.1 w/m2 is not correct
+34 C = 317K = 572,5 w/m2
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Gents, you are both correct. I used temps of +44 and +45, and transposed the results to boot, good catch both of you.
That said, the point doesn’t change.

John Finn;
Yes – the 3.7 w/m2 for a doubling is the forcing at the TOA.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No, it is not. I refer you to the definition in IPCC AR4 WG1 Chapter 2:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch2s2-2.html
Which reads:
“The definition of RF from the TAR and earlier IPCC assessment reports is retained. Ramaswamy et al. (2001) define it as ‘the change in net (down minus up) irradiance (solar plus longwave; in W m–2) at the tropopause after allowing for stratospheric temperatures to readjust to radiative equilibrium, but with surface and tropospheric temperatures and state held fixed at the unperturbed values’.”
So for starters, the definition is NOT at TOA, it is at the tropopause, and it is the sum total of change in net (down minus up). You then have to contemplate what they mean by “net”. The supposed 3.7 w/m2 doesn’t happen at TOA or at any other single point in the atmosphere, it is a value derived from the change in energy flux from top to bottom of the tropospheric air column. No single altitude would yield that number, only a tiny fraction of it.

Very well written post (wish I was smart enough to absorb it).
You even drew Kate into the discussion 🙂

Great article. I learned a lot. And I enjoy the comments section as well. The back and forth exchange of ideas, all in a civilized, adult manner is wonderful. Watts Up With That? is the best climate science site on the internet. Everyone who has contributed should be proud of themselves. I look forward to learning much more about climate science from people like David and others who don’t have to do this, but do it anyways. Thanks !

David M. Hoffer,
If “that” was all you wanted to say about surface temperature anomalies, then you could have simply said the heat content of the Earth’s atmosphere is a function of the energy fluxes and the chemical makeup of the Earth’s atmosphere. This effects the heat content of the atmosphere near the surface which when combined with the chemical makeup of the atmosphere near the Earth’s can be used to estimate temperatures. Which is all trivial compared to the heat content of the oceans as someone indicated above.
Sorry, I agree with ericgrimsrud above.

“doubling of CO2, at equilibrium, changes neither the amount of energy absorbed from the sun, nor does it change the amount of energy radiated by earth back out to space. What it changes is the average altitude at which energy is radiated to space. This, combined with the lapse rate, changes the temperature gradient from earth surface to TOA.”
Correct in my view. With varying effects on the temperature gradient through the various atmospheric layers.
The change in atmospheric heights results in an air circulation response but an infinitesimal change compared to the solar induced (modulated by the oceans) natural changes such as from MWP to LIA to date.
The atmosphere always reconfigures itself to ensure that energy in equals energy out if anything other than surface pressure and insolation seek to disturb the energy budget.

Thank you, David Hoffer, for a very clear essay on how tenuous is the link between temperature anomaly analysis and the reality of heat. Indeed, to do the science properly, it is important to measure anomalies of heat over the earth, not temperature. It is clear that the average[(K*T^4)] is not equal to K*(average[T])^4.
Not only does temperature vary by latitude from equator to pole, it varies by time of day and night at every location. Even taking the simplest average of (Tmax+Tmin)/2 by location is committing the error described by David.
But how big is the error? Take Denver, predicted 8/27/12: Tmax = 93F = 34C, Tmin = 68F = 20C. If you average temps, you will get 300.10 deg K. But if you convert to heat via Boltzman, (503.99, 419.73) you get an average of 461.36 W/m2 and an equivalent temperature of 300.34 deg K. So there is only a difference of a quarter of one degree Kelvin between the average of the temps and the temp of the average heat. This is a pretty standard difference over time at any one location, at least on seasonal basis. So maybe we can live with the average of temps, at least within each location.
Where I think there is an underappreciated element of error is that we forget that Tave at each location is never a measured value. It is a calculated “average” of the min and max values. Forget about TOB issues. The simple fact that you “average” 34 and 20 to get Tave = 27K implies that the uncertainty of that average is up to 7 deg K.
Take 30 of those daily Tave estimates to get a Tave for a month, and the uncertainty on that monthly Tave is 1.3 deg K. That is quite an error bar; the 80% confidence on the Tave is plus or minus 2.0 deg K, with its own weak simplifying assumptions about the shape of the curve between the min and max non-randomly sampled points.
Now, you attempt to string 30 years * 12 months/yr of Tave looking for trend y=mx+b hoping to find m 0 at statistical significance for each location. Sometimes you find it, sometimes it is insignificant. But when you add a 1.2 deg K uncertainty to each Tave point, even over 30 years, it will be very difficult to disprove a slope m = 0.0 deg/K/decade at statistical significance. Even when you can disprove 0.0, the uncertainty on m will still be uselessly large.
The statistical abuses do not end there. When the modeler’s grid their temperature data by month and grid cell, each and every data point contains uncertainty of the Tave derived from the min-max original data points. The resulting weighted gridded Tave must contain an uncertainty derived from the control points and with added uncertainty from the weighting method. Every adjustment to a data point adds to uncertainty because there is uncertainty in the adjustment and statistical variances at least add (unless you have SOLID evidence that sources of error negatively correlate in nature).

MikeB;
So both you and John Finn are correct, for the purpose of calculating the surface temperature response.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Technically neither of us are correct, because the IPCC not only admits that RF and surface temperature responde cannot be directly linked (see my comment upthread) but they actually consider multiple models of surface temperature response as depicted here:
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/figure-2-2.html

Use actual values from a very large series of readings (lets say N).
Add the actual values and find their average (Nav) by dividing by N
Raise the individual values to the power of four and add them together.
Divide by N
Take this new value and extract the 0.25 root to get a new average (Nr)
You will find Nr much higher than Nav.
I would suggest that Nr is the more physically realistic value

TomVonk says:
August 27, 2012 at 4:06 am
So there is a huge difference between the 4th power of an average and and average of 4th powers.
This is true but NOT very obvious. Even grade 12 physics students may not appreciate the difference and get an answer wrong because of it. I would like to illustrate this fact in a different way by answering the following question: How much does the kinetic energy of a 2 kg mass increase when the speed goes from 1 m/s to 3 m/s? The formula for kinetic energy is E = 1/2mv2. So the correct answer to this question is change in E = 1/2(2)(3)2 – 1/2(2)(1)2 = 9 – 1 = 8 J. The wrong answer is to assume the change in speed was 2 m/s, so the change in energy is E = 1/2(2)(2)2 = 4 J.

Scarface says: @ August 27, 2012 at 9:02 am
…Well, the more I read and learn about it, I would dare to say that the science is septic.
___________________________________
That is the most precise summing up of the state of climate science I have seen so far. (I am glad I had just finished off my glass of iced tea before reading that given I am still laughing)

David Ball says:
For the lay people out there, it is impossible to know if something is an anomoly if you have no understanding of what is “normal”.
You misunderstand the concept. The use of anomalies as critiqued by David is not intended to measure ‘man made’ or as an objective measure of ‘unusual’ or as deviation from an ideal. It is just a method of expressing measurements as differences from an arbitrary baseline, so that change can be assessed across sites that have different baseline values. It is not normative.
As David points out, there can be problems with the use of temperature anomalies for various purposes, but there is nothing intrinsically wrong with expressing temperatures as anomalies from an aribtrary baseline.

Stephen Rasey says:
August 27, 2012 at 9:23 am
@Monckton: when the climate has finished responding to a given forcing (typically after 1000-3000 years):
Whoa! Where did “1000-3000 years” to equilibrate come from?
When we have a KE=8 volcanic eruption, we get “a YEAR without summer”. A year — not a millennium. On a planet with day-night temperature swings, with seasonal cycles, any instantaneous forcing is quickly blended into the atmosphere. The evidence from volcanos are that the relaxation from the impulse is on the order of a couple of years, not millennia. Speculation that forcings are carried into the deep ocean for 1000 years are just that: speculations of disparate advocates trying to square the circle of their own making.
—————————
A volcano provides an impulse which propogates across the planet in a few weeks and then persists until the material injected into the atmosphere is removed, usually within a year or so.There is not time for a large heat loss from the ocean, so the effect of the eruption shows mainly in air temperatures and damps out quickly.
The forcings under discussion are sustained over decades. Since water has a high heat capacity, only a sustained increase in air and land surface temperature will produce a significant and long-term change in sea temperatures

@Entropic Man
Perhaps we should be clearer about what we call a forcing. In evaluating a system response, you should consider the output from an impulse. A volcano is a clear impuse at a climate scale and the data supports a response and relaxation time of just a couple of years.
The addition of a marginal 10 GT of CO2 into the atmosphere in a summer is another forcing. Since 450 GT are cycled per year through the biosphere, I would argue that the system response is also likely quick.
But I disagree that an extra 10 GT/year of CO2 is ONE Forcing. That is a step change input, not an impuse. It is equivalent to repeated, continuous forcings. If you argue that this step change is one forcing, then you must hold that a volcano is two forcings, one positive, one negative, an absurd concept.
So it seems that “forcings” is a term used for impulses (i.e. volcanos), balances (solar constant, CO2 in atmosphere), rates (x GT CO2/year added to atmosphere), and accelerations (Y GT CO2/year^2, CO2 balance in atmosphere under non-zero rates of addition.) To call all them forcings seems a bit imprecise.

Excellent article. I hope to see more articles from you. I have followed your posts for some years and you have an excellent understanding of the climate debates and of scientific method.

Stephen Rasey says:
August 27, 2012 at 1:07 pm
@Entropic Man
Perhaps we should be clearer about what we call a forcing. In evaluating a system response, you should consider the output from an impulse. A volcano is a clear impuse at a climate scale and the data supports a response and relaxation time of just a couple of years.
The addition of a marginal 10 GT of CO2 into the atmosphere in a summer is another forcing. Since 450 GT are cycled per year through the biosphere, I would argue that the system response is also likely quick.
—————————
We may be playing with semantics here.I attempted to distinguish between a short term change like the release of gas and ash from a volcano and the longer term changes associated with a change such as increased CO2.
The volcano generates a short term decrease in surface insolation, detectable for a year or two as a downward blip in the air and surface temperature record which quickly damps out. The high thermal inertia of the oceans means that they are hardly affected.
A change such as doubling CO2 over 100 years produces a gradual increase in energy flow, with each increment of CO2 producing a small increment of air and land temperature, with little or no lag. In the short term this will be hard to distinguish from the normal short term variation, but becomes apparant over decades.Sea temperature will lag considerably behind,acting to slow the overall rate of change and leading to a delay of up to 100 years before the system reaches equilibrium for the new CO2 concentration.
You do see differences in CO2 in a season. The Hawaian data shows a seasonal minimum in CO2 during the Northern Hemisphere Summer, though its effects on seasonal temperatures in the two hemispheres are hard to pick out of the noise.

“As I said in the article itself, my point was not to debate the physical processes themselves, but to demonstrate that temperature anomalies as measured at the surface are unsuitable for tracking those processes.”
Well put David. Thanks for the interesting article. It’s nice to see a guest post from you, I always enjoy your comments.
Rich Dommer

@Entropic
I remind you the issue was Monckton’s statement: when the climate has finished responding to a given forcing (typically after 1000-3000 years):
That implies to me that the system response to an impulse is 1000-3000 years. Volcano data implies a much faster response. Now, if you want a, 200 year string of gigantic input forcings, well I grant you it might be 1000 years before the system settles down, especially since it is a non-linear biologic system.
But “finished responding to a given forcing”? 1000 years seems to me to be a little long for ‘a given forcing.” That was my point. Making the forcings huge doesn’t invalidate it.

Monckton of Brenchley says:
August 27, 2012 at 4:48 pm:
“The real problem with the IPCC’s projections lies in its assumption of strongly net-positive temperature feedbacks that are not warranted either by theory or by any empirical method.”
=======================================================
A simple logic requires the supporters of the “greenhouse gases warming” concept to agree with the notion of “net-positive temperature feedbacks”, because it is already a part of the concept.
As a second step they need to see that the “net-positive temperature feedbacks” would lead to a pretty much endless increase in temperatures and are therefore absurd.
Then they have no other choice than to conclude that the premise (greenhouse gases warming) is false. This method is called “reductio ad absurdum”.
And please, Christopher, do not rush to write a reply, take some time and think over it.

This sounds like the case of confusing average temperature and average energy. It is similar to confusing average voltage with average energy in a situation where all voltages are positive.
You may have seen a rating that says 110 Vrms. RMS is short for [square]Root of the Mean[average] Square[ed values.] This usage is based on the fact that energy flow (power) is proportional to the square of the voltage if the resistance remains constant. So that the square root of the average value, usually averaged over time, of the squares of the observed voltages gives a single constant voltage that would dissipate the same energy as the actual values did. In this case negative values are allowed for the voltages. This term is often used to specify the direct current (DC) voltage that is equivalent to an alternating current (AC) voltage applied.
Most radiation calculations are based on the local equilibrium requirement that net energy flow coming in must be equal to the net energy flow going out. As energy flowing out is proportional to the fourth power of the temperature, the sum of all energy flows is proportional to the sum of all temperatures raised to the fourth power. If one takes the average of these values over the surface of the Earth, one gets a nominal average energy flow or power per unit surface area required to sustain equilibrium.
An inverse calculation from this energy-flow calculates the equivalent *uniform* absolute surface temperature required for equilibrium, this result is, of course, not an arithmetic mean temperature. It is the fourth-root of the average of all absolute temperatures after each has been raised to the fourth power. This might be called a ‘QRMQ’ (Quad-Root of the Mean Quad power) average. You probably would not want to plan your daily activity on such an average, nor, for that matter, would you want to do this on the basis of an overall simple arithmetic average.
I doubt if you will ever see a published paper that will have numbers like 271 Kqrmq, but that is what is meant by overall absolute temperatures derived from average radiated power.

As Tim C said,
“I agree that global annual-average surface temperature is not a very good metric by which to measure global warming or cooling – but what is to replace it?”
Our “defined” method of measuring our “global average temperature” is useful because it provides a single number that reflects temperature CHANGES that occur on Earth with time. As long as the defined method (whatever we choose to use) includes a very large number of surface measurements recorded throughout the world and the measurement sites are selected to be distance from obvious local sources of heating or cooling, the so called “temperature change” thereby obtained is very likely to be useful. As long as one sticks to this criteria for the defined method, the observed “temperature change” thereby obtained is very likely to very useful in monitoring climate changes.
By injecting fundamental physical equations, such as the Stephan-Boltzman equation, into this discussion appears to be meaningless and inappropriate to me.
Again, these discussions seem to be designed more to “impress” the lay readers of this website than to clarify. Again an explanation to the contrary would be welcomed by those of us who do not see a legitimate point in this post. l

Michael Lowe
OMG, that Feynman story is so funny!

What I meant, of course, was that the S-B equation has nothing to do with the extra surface level warming – of about 30C (global average) – that is caused by the greenhouse effect.

That 33K for the “greenhouse effect comes from the same kind of mis-application of the SB equation.
A blackbody lit on one side by 1000 W/m^2 and dark on the other has temperatures of 364 K and 0 K which gives an average of 182 K.
A blackbody lit on both sides by 500 W/m^2 has a temperature of 306 K on each side and an average of 153 K.
QED.

The following chart shows the calculated effect of increasing the CO2 content from 300 to 600 PPM on energy flowing out of the troposphere in a static environment without feedback effects. This was calculated by MODTRAN a program developed by the Air Force to test their equipment.
File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ModtranRadiativeForcingDoubleCO2.png
As can be seen, this huge increase in CO2 just produces a slight widening of the CO2 ‘hole,’ which is like a one-foot diameter tree in the middle of a ten-foot wide stream. It can be seen that the CO2 band is almost fully saturated and masks most of the effect of the CO2. This shows the raw effect without feedbacks. The IPCC has postulated that the atmosphere has a dangerously high positive feedback factor that doubles or triples the raw effect. Others, (Dr. John Christy,) have argued that feedbacks, if any, are more likely to be negative.
Some economists are predicting that high extraction costs for increasingly more difficult to obtain carbon fuels will begin to curtail their use after a generation or two, so we can expect at most, one full anthropogenic doubling of CO2 in the atmosphere.
The Fate of All Carbon
by David Archibald
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/13/the-fate-of-all-carbon/
In the past, the climate has gone through wide temperature shifts without human intervention and there is every reason to expect that it will continue to do this in the future.

Dr. Eric Grimsrud wrote:
“Our “defined” method of measuring our “global average temperature” is useful because it provides a single number that reflects temperature CHANGES that occur on Earth with time. As long as the defined method (whatever we choose to use) includes a very large number of surface measurements recorded throughout the world and the measurement sites are selected to be distance from obvious local sources of heating or cooling, the so called “temperature change” thereby obtained is very likely to be useful.”
It was demonstrated to you that the average “temperature” can go up while energy balance went down. The idea of this construction does not change if you are using only two areas, or “large number of surface” areas (unless you invoke additional unproven assumptions about statistics of temperature field). It is easier to construct a case when the “global average temperature” goes up which energy balance also goes up. Upon little thinking it must be obvious that there could be cases when the energy balance stays unchanged, but the “global average temperature” can go either up or down. It also be that the energy content does change, but the “global average temperature” stays constant. As one can see, the “global temperature change” is not a “proxy” for change in planetary energy balance. Then how it can be possibly useful, Dr. Grimsrud?

Is Boltzmann’s Law the correct law to use?
I do not think so because the important bit is the statement ”at equilibrium” we get a black body response but the planet is never at equilibrium, one reason we get weather.
The effect of CO2 in atmospheric heating, as proposed by the GHG theory, is understandable but wrong since the laws of thermodynamics must not be violated. It is also an observed fact that the mid troposphere heat anomaly, proposed by the GHG theory, has never been found despite daily checks with radiosonde. The radiation ”window” should close with rising atmospheric CO2, another GHG bit of theory, to raise temperatures at the surface. satellite observation shows no such change.
The planet has no temperature average so anomalies are of no real use. Also temperature is a poor metric for climate since no account of heat content is made and that is due to water content of the air mass under study. It is heat that drives atmospheric systems and processes.

Make that ‘something’.

Reblogged this on The GOLDEN RULE and commented:
Reblogging, as I have said before, is a form of laziness, from an editorial point of view. Yet, when another blog/person publishes a post that I agree with and says basically what I would like to say myself, it makes sense to do it the easy way and simply promote the said post by reblogging.
An attempt will be made to come back to this post with, comment and links to posts and comments I have made in the past. Much of what David says is in tune with previous comments on this blog. It is nice to get some supporting, scientific input.

Can we assume that a true global average surface temperature would be the average of temperatures measured at every square inch of the planet?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
For the purposes of understanding energy balance, no we cannot. Different temperature distributions could result in exactly the same “average temperature” while delivering very different power fluxes. To understand what is happening from an energy balance perspective, one would have to first convert each point in time temperature reading to w/m2, then average and trend that. Attempting to trend either temperature or temperature anomalies as a proxy for energy balance is not mathematically sound.

Sorry, but I still do have the impression that a measurement of the average global temperature and changes in it over time is of considerable value and even of primary importance.
For example, the fact that the average global surface temperature of Venus is near 400C and that of Earth is near 15C tells me a great deal about existing conditions on these two planetary surfaces. I understand that Venus once had Earth-like temperatures. If scientists existed there at that time and had monitorred the average surface temperatures of their planet, I suspect that those measurments would have been useful to them for seeing what has happening to their planet – even though those measurements might not have directly revealed the “energy balance” of Venus.
I am getting the feeling that a purpose of this threat is to diminish the perceived importance of simple, credible and easily understood surface temperature measurements – in favor of more obtuse measurements along with heavy doses of theory. Sorry, but when I think I might be running a fever, I will get out my theromometer first – before heading for the journals of medicine.

ericgrimsrud says:
August 28, 2012 at 8:41 am:
“Sorry, but I still do have the impression that a measurement of the average global temperature and changes in it over time is of considerable value and even of primary importance.”
===============================================
But look what you wrote 1 posting ago: “So we do the next best thing – we make such measurements at as many points on the planet’s surface as we can – and hope that those measurements provide a valid measurement of the “true” global average.”
HOPE! You can hope whatever you wish, but selling a hope as a scientific fact is a scientific/political fraud.

ericgrimsrud says:
August 28, 2012 at 8:41 am
Sorry, but I still do have the impression that a measurement of the average global temperature and changes in it over time is of considerable value and even of primary importance.
In physics, I find it is often easy to take an extreme case and see the truth there. Then apply that truth generally. So let us assume we have two thermometers, one of which is 100 m down in the Pacific ocean and the other is 100 m up in the air at any location. Now let us assume the two thermometers read 24 C at a certain time. So the average is 24 C. Now let us assume that exactly one year later, the same thermometers were read and the one in the Pacific read 22 C and the one in air read 28 C. The average would now be 25 C. Now considering that the heat capacity of all the water on Earth is about 1000 times that of air, can you really say the thermal energy of the Earth went up and we need to take drastic steps to reduce it? Or is it more appropriate to take a weighted average of 22 in water and 28 in air to arrive at a weighted average of 22.03 or whatever it turns out to be?

ericgrimsrud says:
August 28, 2012 at 10:19 am:
“Greg, Good to hear from you again. Am glad that you think there is more that mere “hope” associated with our AGW problem.”
=============================================
What “AGW problem”, Eric? You have just devalued the “measurements” of “GW”, in your own words: “So we do the next best thing – we make such measurements at as many points on the planet’s surface as we can – and hope that those measurements provide a valid measurement of the “true” global average.”
And it is not the “best” thing, Eric, in science it is the worst thing.

Anomalies are just the best, least biased, most objective and most comparable method for averaging temperature over time and space, whether it be for a state, country or planet. The goal of using anomalies is to compare changes, not to say how or why they occurred. So, i don’t understand how a critique of anomalies is related to CO2 (or possibly, sun spots). If we are going to talk about climate, it’s importantl to be able to quantify whether factors such as temperature and precipitation are increasing or decreasing over a region or even the whole planet. Rather than giving up on studying climate, we use anomalies. If you really believe that calculating anomalies are a problem, then describe an alternative.

Lord Monckton,
I am not that sure that the IPCC adjustments for anomalies are adequate. If the AQUA sea surface data is correct, the average true temperature of ~70% of the Earth’s surface is approximately 21.1 C, 294.25K with a S-B equivalent radiant energy of 425Wm-2. The revised surface energy estimate is 396Wm-2. That would require a fairly large adjustment for the use of anomalies on land especially at a higher average elevation.
Since the models started diverging circa 1995 when the northern oceans reach a relative equilibrium with the southern oceans, that could explain a large portion of the error. It is at least worth looking into more closely.
And 1951-1980 choice of baseline appears to be the worst possible now that there is satellite data to use.
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/08/degrees-of-confusion-another-modest.html

It “is” the baseline, of course.

ricgrimsrud says:
August 28, 2012 at 8:41 am
Sorry, but I still do have the impression that a measurement of the average global temperature and changes in it over time is of considerable value and even of primary importance….
I am getting the feeling that a purpose of this threat is to diminish the perceived importance of simple, credible and easily understood surface temperature measurements – in favor of more obtuse measurements along with heavy doses of theory. Sorry, but when I think I might be running a fever, I will get out my theromometer first – before heading for the journals of medicine.
____________________________
I thought you were a chemist and therefore should understand enthalpy and the concept of measuring the correct parameter.
Here is an easy real life example.
1.) If I want to figure out the maximum weight a horse/pony can carry do I just measure the height? (easy)
2.) Do I look at the circumference of the cannon bone, the length of the back, weight and the age of the animal? (correct)
I have animals that are tall and have long weak backs that can not carry near the weight my short coupled, big boned stocky Shetland can. Given the ponies with weak backs will bite, balk or buck the incorrect analysis has fast feedback. Too bad “Climate Scientists” don’t get bitten in the rear when they make stupid mistakes.
(I am a chemist who finally quit in disgust after being asked to falsify data one too many times.)

As I said in the article itself, my point was not to debate the physical processes themselves, but to demonstrate that temperature anomalies as measured at the surface are unsuitable for tracking those processes.

I just want to say thank you David. I am amazed that you point about temperature being an unsuitable parameter is actually contested. It makes me think the calculations have been done correctly and they show information the IPCC would rather the public at large does not know, otherwise why fight the point?

Gail Combs;
It makes me think the calculations have been done correctly and they show information the IPCC would rather the public at large does not know, otherwise why fight the point?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
Well, I think that for the models themselves, they probably are handled correctly. Monckton of Brenchley certainly seems to think so. I’ll be looking into it myself to see exactly how they handle it, but if Monckton said the sky had turned purple with flourescent polka dots, I’d go outside and look for myself before disputing him, so I’m taking his word for it at the moment. Temperature trends like those presented by NASA/GISS and HadCrut on the other hand are simple area waited averages. They don’t take into account SB Law nor humidity, so are of little value in my mind to quantifyenergy balance. Nor do they take into account heat of transition, so all that ice that is melting in the arctic and being created in the antarctic also skew the numbers and aren’t picked up in any way by simple temperature trending.
That said, I don’t see a deliberate attempt to manipulate the numbers in this regard. I’m a big fan of never attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetance.

To Ericgrimsrud
I am not sure that you really understood what is criticised here. In the original post but mostly in the comments.
Of course no sane person denies the EXISTENCE of an average. Of any average.
You have N numbers? Just add them up and divide the result by N. Here you go. Works for people’s weights, tomatoe diameters, temperatures. Any list of numbers you want. Trivial and uninteresting in most cases.
The point is this your statement :
Sorry, but I still do have the impression that a measurement of the average global temperature and changes in it over time is of considerable value and even of primary importance.
And as it has been abundantly demonstrated here, including in my post, this statement is obviously wrong.
So again I will give a list of questions on which the global temperature average and its variations does NOT answer, can NOT answer and even worse, can mislead to give wrong answers.
– The value of the internal energy and the sign of its variation
– The value of radiation flow and the sign of its variation. Not even its average.
– The value of the convective heat transfer and the sign of its variation. Not even its average
– The value of humidity and the sign of its variation. Not even its average. Here just for fun, the following statement may be true :”The average temperature increased and the average humidity decreased”.
– And more.
Science is science because it can lead to correct predictions, preferably about the future.
Because the global temperature average and its variations can not aswer the questions above, it can lead to absolutely NO prediction. Amusingly not even to its own.
So how do you call a parameter which is useless, misleading and irrelevant to anything that is important ?
Well about every scientist will call it garbage.
You apparently call it a parameter “of primary importance” what is exactly the opposite and of course obviously wrong.
And the reason why it is garbage is precisely because a given global temperature average corresponds to an infinity of dynamical states and to an infinity of possible evolutions that mutually contradict themselves both in value and in sign.
The only possible use of a global average is a tautological inferrence “If the global temperature average increased/decreased then T2 is greater/smaller than T1”.
I hope you agree that this inferrence is trivial, quite stupid and with no added value.

sergimk, “This makes no difference when considering how much the world has cooled/warmed from 1965 to 2012 All those different baselines will come up with the same result.”
True, there would be no difference in the amount the world has warmed or cooled by changing the baseline of the already averaged GMT, but it would make a difference as to what is suspected of causing the warming or cooling when the individual regions are compared with different base lines as I did in the link. For example in the 1940s, there is an abrupt drop in temperature in the tropics then a steady decline in temperature in the northern hemisphere. Is that consistent with man made aerosol cooling? Since the amplitude of the NH swing is so much larger than the rest of the world, selecting a baseline period where the NH is in a valley would show a larger increase in temperature than would be shown be selecting a neutral portion of the NH swing. The 1951 to 1980 baseline selection indicates more warming than a 1931-1960 baseline.
So I would think it would be worth the effort to determine what should be normal before declaring how abnormal things are.

BillD, Using a consistent baseline would be nice. Since the satellite period limits what can be used as a baseline, what do you do?
http://redneckphysics.blogspot.com/2012/08/baseline-impact.html
It does matter as far as visual impact and the further the anomaly values vary from the baseline the greater the potential error.
Then the downside of a consistent baseline would be limiting the fun of cherry picking 🙂

ericgrimsrud says:
August 29, 2012 at 7:56 am
It is fishy because you are clearly trying to misunderstand. Judging from your posts, I cannot figure out if it is on purpose, or through ineptitude. After reading all your posts, I have come to the conclusion it is the latter, ….

Venter says:
August 29, 2012 at 8:18 am
I agree wholeheartedly. However, there are thousands of “lurkers” who frequent this site. I post stuff for people like ericgrimsrud, knowing full well that he will NOT read it, but many lurkers who are interested in learning ALL about this subject, will. I believe David M Hoffer posts a lot for this very reason. It is why Anthony has ALL the weather and sun data on his sidebar. Even some that may conflict with our presumptions. THAT is science. We have the courage to face and seek out ALL the information. What ericgrimsrud is doing is politics, not science.

ericgrimsrud says:
August 29, 2012 at 7:56 am
Excuse me once more, but there seems to be something fishy behind this post.
If the earth had warmed up from something like 15 C to the temperature of Venus, then I would agree with you. However it is presumed that a warming of only 0.7 C occurred in the last 150 years. And when you factor in how much of this 0.7 C is due to faulty weather stations, the UHI effect, thermometers disappearing, and the warming of extremely dry and cold air in the north polar region and how GISS handles it, then it is a very legitimate question to ask how much energy the earth really gained over the last 150 years.

To ericgrimsrud
Mission accomplished – we then would no longer have any measurement that reliably tells us whether the Earth’s temperature is changing !!!
You apparently decided to stubbornly misunderstand so that one wonders why you even posted here first place.
Nobody needs global temperature averages to know that tempeatures change. They trivially do, do so since 4 billions of years and will do so for the next 4 billions of years and beyond.
Perhaps somebody finds it fun to put a number on it . You could compute a geometrical average too, why not ?
The point what everybody is trying to explain to you is that this information about a global average is irrelevant aka useless.
I notice that you carefully avoided to engage my detailed explanation of why it was useless.
It is useless because it explains nothing and predicts nothing.
It cannot even be used to falsify theories because an infinity of theories where an infinity – 1 will be wrong will show the same averages.
So while it may have a value to satisfy the curiosity of somebody who wonders whether temperatures change or not and is not bright enough to already know that they do, it is of no value whatsoever to a scientist who asks questions about the dynamics of the system.
The parameter which encodes the relevant information is the whole temperature field – its average is irrelevant to everything.
For this reason it is of course important to measure temperatures and their distribution but it is absolutely not interesting to compute their arithmetical (or geometrical for that matter) averages. They are just mathematically accurate but physically meaningless numbers.

richardscourtney;
Interesting comment. I came do very nearly identical conclusions via a somewhat different line of reasoning. The problem is disentangling two different processes.
We know from ERBE data and other sources that the arctic regions are net emitters of radiation and the tropics are net absorbers. For this to be true, energy must be transferred from tropics to arctic regions via air and water currents. We can actually measure those too, so no doubt that this is what happens.
So now the conundrum. When we observe a change in temperature in the arctic region, how do we quantify how much is due to direct effects of CO2 increases, and how much is due to changes in the amount of energy being transported from tropics to arctic regions?
The more I dig into the physics at this point, the worse it gets. For starters, the putative 3.7 w/m2 from CO2 doubling isn’t uniform. CO2 only has 150 w/m2 of upward bound LW to work with in the arctic regions, it has a whopping 450 w/m2 to work with in the tropics. So, the distribution of the 3.7 w/m2 direct effects of CO2 cannot be uniform. From there the math gets ugly. From an energy retention perspective, the change due to CO2 doubling in the tropics must be much higher than it is in the arctic regions, but because of the relationship to T^4, the temperature change is lower. Talk about counter intuitive! But worse still, the movement of energy from tropics to arctic regions must necessarily be driven by temperature differential which creates the high/low pressure cells and convective cells and so on that move air and water which in turn move energy around. So if the temperature differential between tropics and arctic zones gets reduced, then we’d expect LESS energy to be moved? Again, counter intuitive, because although less air and water gets moved, the energy density is higher…. at which point my head starts to hurt….

Data has been replotted for base periods from 1931 to 1995. The results are plotted here:
http://climateandstuff.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/the-effect-on-slope-using-base-period.html
Using a base period of
1931 0.087K per decade
and 1961 0.077K per decade
So 1961 to 1991 seems a fair period to normalise to.

I am a lurker and I agree with ericgrimsrud, this article is fishy. And I believe it is justified to be said about an article which starts in the very beginning with a rather stron accusation of “lie”. Under this premise, there is no need to get personal towards Eric, David (August 29, 2012 at 8:58 am), since you set the tone yourself already.
So, again, why is this article fishy, also in my view: Because David denies a well developed method any possible merits. And David offers no better alternative. So, behind all scientific elaborations, he is on the simple rethoric trip to replace something with nothing. As far as I am aware, scientists are well aware that they have to work a lot with assumptions and uncertainities and that they nevertheless have to try to link factors based on this. This does not make them liers, and I believe this is still better than trying to assume – nothing.