by Walter Starck (in Quadrant Online)
The average temperature for the Earth, or any region or even any specific place is very difficult to determine with any accuracy. At any given time surface air temperatures around the world range over about 100°C. Even in the same place they can vary by nearly that much seasonally and as much as 30°C or more in a day. Weather stations are relatively few and located very irregularly. Well maintained stations with good records going back a century or more can be counted on one’s fingers. Even then only maximum and minimum temperatures or ones at a few particular times of day are usually available. Maintenance, siting, and surrounding land use also all have influences on the temperatures recorded.
The purported 0.7°C of average global warming over the past century is highly uncertain. It is in fact less than the margin of error in our ability to determine the average temperature anywhere, much less globally. What portion of any such warming might be due to due to anthropogenic CO2 emissions is even less certain. There are, however, numerous phenomena which are affected by temperature and which can provide good evidence of relative warming or cooling and, in some cases, even actual temperatures.
These include growth rings in trees, corals and stalactites, borehole temperature profiles and the isotopic and biologic signatures in core samples from sediments or glaciers. In addition, historical accounts of crops grown, harvest times, freezes, sea ice, river levels, glacial advances or retreats and other such records provide clear indication of warming and cooling.
Recent Warming Nothing Unusual
The temperature record everywhere shows evidence of warming and cooling in accord with cycles on many different time scales from daily to annual, decadal, centennial, millennial and even longer. Many of these seem to correlate with various cycles of solar activity and the Earth’s own orbital mechanics. The temperature record is also marked by seemingly random events which appear to follow no discernable pattern.
Over the past 3000 years there is evidence from hundreds of independent proxy studies, as well as historical records, for a Minoan Warm period around 1000 BC, a Roman Warm Period about 2000 years ago, a Medieval Warm Period (WMP) about 1000 years ago and a Modern Warm Period now developing. In between were markedly colder periods in the Dark Ages and another between the 16th and 19th centuries which is now known as the Little Ice Age (LIA). The warmer periods were times of bountiful crops, increasing population and a general flourishing of human societies. The cold periods were times of droughts, famines, epidemics, wars and population declines. Clearly life has been much better in the times of warmer climate, and there is nothing to indicate that the apparent mild warming of the past century is anything other than a return of this millennial scale warming cycle.
Good News Unwelcome to Alarmists
This rather good news about a possibly warmer climate has not met with hopeful interest from those who purport to be so concerned about the possibly dangerous effects of anthropogenic global warming (AGW). On the contrary, their reaction has overwhelmingly been a strong rejection of any beneficial possibility. It is apparent that their deepest commitment is to the threat itself and not to any rational assessment of real world probabilities or the broader consequences of any of their proposed remedies.
Fabricating a Hockey Stick from Hot Air
This blanket rejection of any possibility other than the hypothetical threat of AGW has led to some strange behaviour for people who modestly proclaim themselves to be the world’s top climate scientists. Not only have they ignored and dismissed the hundreds of studies indicating the global existence of a Medieval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age, they have set out to fabricate an alternate reality in the form of a graph purporting to represent the global temperature for the past thousand years. It portrays a near straight line wiggling up and down only a fraction of a degree for centuries until it begins an exponential rise gradually starting at the beginning of the 20th century and then shooting steeply up in the latter part of that century. This hockey stick-shaped graph was then heavily promoted as the icon of AGW. It appeared on the cover of the third climate assessment report of the IPCC published in 2003 and was reproduced at various places in the report itself.
Among the emails between leading climate researchers released in the Climategate affair were a number which revealed a concerted effort to come up with some means to deny the existence of the MWP. The implement chosen to do this became known as the Hockey Stick Graph.
The methodology used to construct the graph involved the use of estimates of temperatures from a very small sample of tree growth rings from the Yamal Peninsula in far northern Siberia and ancient stunted pine trees from near the tree line in the High Sierras of California. This data was then subjected to a statistical treatment later shown by critics to produce a hockey stick form of graph even when random numbers were used as raw input data. To make matters even worse, the same tree ring data also indicated a significant decline in temperature for the 20th century, but this was hidden by burying it in a much larger number of data points from instrument measurements. The resulting study was published in the prestigious scientific journal, Nature in 1998. Remarkably, this very small, highly selected and deceptively manipulated graph was proclaimed to be an accurate representation of global temperatures and the extensive body of contrary evidence was simply ignored.
full essay here: http://www.quadrant.org.au/blogs/doomed-planet/2012/11/speak-loudly-and-carry-a-busted-hockey-stick
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Thanks Mario and Darren, I appreciate you taking the time to explain this to me. From what you both say, my interpretation appears to agree with your explanation. It would appear that the temperature is increasing, despite the negative feedback from water vapour via cloud formation as the permafrost is melting where previously it was frozen. This melting will cause more CO2 and methane to be released into the atmosphere causing a positive feedback. This is a worrying development. Any thoughts on this issue? I would like to hear your thoughts.
LetsBeReasonable says:
November 28, 2012 at 12:08 am
“Thanks Mario and Darren…From what you both say, my interpretation appears to agree with your explanation. It would appear that the temperature is increasing, despite the negative feedback from water vapour via cloud formation as the permafrost is melting where previously it was frozen…”
No I do not agree that it would appear the temperature is increasing. The temperature is going up and going down and seemingly has been flat since 1997. The idea that measuring the air temperature provides us with the energy balance of the earth is silly. And we do not know, nor can we measure, the sum of the feedbacks with any type of certainty.
What I explained was the logarithmic “warming” effect which CO2 is theoretically claimed to have. There are many many things changing… I do not subscribe to the idea that CO2 or Methane is known to be responsible for what the climate is doing now, will do in the future and has done in the past.
Here’s a question for you that I can not answer. Why has every ice age in documented history begun suddenly after temperatures were increasing to maximal points and while CO2 was on the way up… following not leading temperatures?
LetsBeReasonable says:
November 28, 2012 at 12:08 am
”..It would appear that the temperature is increasing, despite the negative feedback from water vapour via cloud formation as the permafrost is melting where previously it was frozen. This melting will cause more CO2 and methane to be released into the atmosphere causing a positive feedback. This is a worrying development. Any thoughts on this issue? I would like to hear your thoughts.”
This sounds rather like some spoon-fed alarmist rubbish, to be honest, and is based mostly on wide ranging ‘assumptions’. If you are going to mention some of these things, it is probable that you have no grasp of the real scale of the Earth’s Carbon/CO2 cycle for example. The oceans contain many many times more CO2 than the atmosphere, along with methane clathrates, etc, etc. The ocean waters do act as sinks (absorbers) of CO2 but can also be emitters. Similarly, the worlds biomass contains vast quantities of carbon, much of which would be released via methane and co2 should significant changes occur or contrastly can act as sinks by absorbing CO2 (say from planting massive forests, or sudden algal blooms). These changes could be quite large ‘locally’ but are mere snips in the grand scale – it does not mean that they will ‘tip’ the climate into meltdown!
With respect, I think you need to do a lot of reading to understand the scale of the subject matter, and the massive changes previously undergone in the earths climate, before repeating such ‘worrying developments’ (your words) that you have heard (or indeed wish to promote?).
gnomish:
At November 27, 2012 at 6:24 pm you claim I was wrong.
That is all the confirmation anybody needs that I was right.
The assertion that “H1tler was a fascist” is untrue, is daft, and is irrelevant to this thread, so it could be expected that you would agree with it.
Richard
Re Mario Lento says:
November 27, 2012 at 7:46 pm
Or like the balanced Australian with a chip on both shoulders?
richardscourtney says:
November 27, 2012 at 5:15 pm
In politics, actions speak louder than words. And the ultra-right always pretends to be socialist.
Your position depends on a narrow European definition of “right” and “left” established by the “left” there that lumbers the “right” with every social evil, especially authoritarianism.
Which is ironic as both right and left in Europe are fundamentally authoritarian, and the rest of the “social evils” seem to be distributed pretty generally.
When you’re talking, for example, to an American, your statement comes across as nonsense, as it’s based on a definition that is locally irrelevant.
Just so you know.
LetsBeReasonable:
At November 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm you say and ask me;
Answers to your questions depend on what you mean by “significant”.
The ‘lack of warming’ over the last ~16 years is statistically significant according to the “margin of error” claimed by providers of the data sets. Similarly, the periods of ‘lack of warming’ from ~1880 to ~1910 and from ~1940 to ~1970 are statistically significant.
Shorter periods of ‘lack of warming’ exist in the data sets but they are not statistically significant.
The recent period of ‘lack of warming’ differs from shorter periods of ‘lack of warming’ in the data sets in that it is statistically significant and they are not. I explain the significance of this difference at November 26, 2012 at 2:46 am in the thread at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/
Simply, the recent ‘lack of warming’ demonstrates that natural climate variability is sufficient to overwhelm any effect of recent rise in atmospheric CO2 and, therefore, recovery from the Little Ice Age is the most likely explanation of recent global temperature rise.
The ‘methane feedback’ scare is completely without evidence and is improbable. Atmospheric methane concentration varies in the air for completely unknown reasons and in unpredictable ways. Melting of permafrost has been happening in Greenland and elsewhere without observation of the speculated “positive feedback loop” on temperature: n.b. global temperature has not risen for ~16 years.
Richard
In my post at November 28, 2012 at 1:41 am where i wrote
“The assertion that “H1tler was a fascist” is untrue …”
If course, I intended to write
“The assertion that “H1tler was not a fascist but was a socialist” is untrue …”
Clearly, I should not write while angry at outrageous falsehoods. Sorry.
Richard
Kevin, I take you don’t accept the UN report presented today at DOHA. I accept what it had to say because I haven’t seen any evidence to the contrary.
I must admit I do dismiss arguments that the earth’s climate has gone through changes in the past because when the conditions existed, modern humans weren’t around so it is immaterial if the climate was hostile to humans. I am concerned about the liveability of the earth now and in the next 50 years.
I accept you premise that there are huge sinks of carbon etc, my concern is with the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. It is growing steadily and the rate will increase with the positive feedback mechanism of the permafrost melting.
I hope you are correct that it will not ‘tip the climate into meltdown’, but we are not sure what the effect of a rapid increase in greenhouse gases in the atmosphere will be, and that is why it is a worrying development.
Speaking for myself, I don’t dismiss ALL of the instrumental record; just those badly sited thermometer – you know, the ones in car parks etc, etc.
As for global warmth and prosperity take a closer look at ALL of the Holocene and you “can’t fail to see”. The Holocene actually says it all. During ice ages there were more desserts. Finally, take a look at a photo of the Earth from space and look at the biosphere and green areas. Look at species concentration from the equator up to the poles. You “can’t fail to see”.
Richard, I did mean statistically significant, so thank you for your explanation. Do I take it, that over the period from 1880 to present, the temperature change would also be statistically significant.
As you have pointed out the temperature rise over the last 16 years is not statistically significant, I wonder why the melting of the permafrost is occurring. Could the melting be keeping the earth’s temperature constant?
Merovign:
At November 28, 2012 at 2:08 am you respond to my true statement saying
you reply saying
Perhaps it “comes across” to you as “nonsense” but that does not stop it being true. Indeed, H1tler was a European so in this context only the European meanings of “left” and “right” have meaning (regardless of how the American right wants to distort them).
The claim that “H1tler was a socialist” is as offensive as a claim that “H1tler was a Jew” and for precisely the same reason; i.e. he rounded-up both and tried to exterminate them.
Richard
Here in the United Kingdom we are experiencing severe nationwide flooding which naturally is commanding a large proportion of TV news bulletins. Not once have I heard anyone talk about the excessive rain being caused by Global Warming or Climate Change. Most unusual for the BBC who are normally very quick to attribute unusual weather patterns to Climate Change. Perhaps the stinging criticism of biased reporting that they have suffered in recent months is having an effect after all. I did hear one reporter get close to it when he said “These are all time record floods for the last hundred years!”
LetsBeReasonable:
At November 28, 2012 at 2:41 am you reply to me saying and asking;
You raise several issues and I will try to provide adequate but short answers.
Firstly, I strongly commend you to read the entire thread which I linked at
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/11/25/skeptical-science-misrepresents-their-animation-the-escalator/
In that – still ongoing – thread AGW-advocates and climate realists are debating the issues which you raise so you can compare their arguments for yourself.
The temperature rise since 1880 is statistically significant according to the claims of confidence provided by compilers of the data sets. However, those claims are wrong. A group of us attempted to publish a paper on this but it was blocked by nefarious method. The entire issue is explained in my submission to the UK Parliamentary Inquiry (i.e. whitewash) into climategate. Appendix B of that Submission is a draft of the paper and the Submission can be read at
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmselect/cmsctech/memo/climatedata/uc0102.htm
The permafrost has been melting because the Earth warmed over the last century. Indeed, this melting is some of the evidence that the Earth has warmed.
Think of it this way.
A person who climbs a hill remains at his greatest elevation when walking across the plateau at its top. Similarly, the global temperature rise before 2000 has stopped but global temperature is still high so the hottest recorded years are recent.
Higher temperatures means less permafrost and melting takes time.
However, as you say, the melting of permafrost could be inhibiting temperature rise (just as melting Arctic ice inhibits Arctic summer temperature rise). If so, then this melting would be a negative feedback which acts to inhibit ‘runaway’ global warming; n.b. not a positive feedback.
In this context, I notice that at November 28, 2012 at 2:33 am you say to Kevin
It seems that you need some context of how global temperature has varied both during the time of human existence, so I suggest that you click on this link
http://www.greenworldtrust.org.uk/Science/Images/ice-HS/noaa_gisp2_icecore_anim_adj.gif
The effect of atmospheric CO2 is so trivial that it cannot rise global temperature above the level it had only 2,500 years ago in the Minoan Warm Period and, therefore, your fears oabout effects of rising CO2 are unfounded.
Of course, I know that telling somebody “Don’t worry” doesn’t help, but I am not doing that: I am asking you to look at the evidence because that may allay your fears.
Richard
Walter,
Good article but you have fallen into the trap of stating the mean earth surface temperature to be 0.7degC per hundred years when it is plainly 0.4degC per hundred years.
The Hadley Centre are not known for their climate skepticism (witness Climategate) so take a look at their data:
http://www.thetruthaboutclimatechange.org/tempsworld.html
This graph shows a regression line of 0.41degC per century.
All climate alarmism results from cherry picking start and end dates and then using the raw temperature samples for those two dates.
It is pure pseudo-science.
George Lawson says:
November 28, 2012 at 2:44 am
Perhaps if they dredged the rivers as they used to and maybe stop building on flood plains, these things wouldn’t be so bad. Did anyone ever tell them, the clue’s in the name, FLOOD PLAIN!
DaveE.
Spot on! Excellent post, many thanks.
This is what some of us have been saying for years. About time it was aired on a website that is science based.
LetsBeReasonable says:
November 28, 2012 at 2:33 am
I accept very little produced by the UN or its supposed review body the IPCC !! You should check out who is producing this kind of stuff before ‘accepting’ it yourself! The IPCC and all its machinations have been well shown to be far from balanced in its pesentation and review of the ‘science’ – check out Donna Laframboise’ presentation on WUWT-TV when it is linked up!
As Richard says; it is not for the skeptics to decide what is worrisome and what is not – that’s likely a personal matter for each individual to assess! Suffice to say, that as a qualified geologist and engineer, I do not buy into the science as currently presented – it is deliberately vague and untestable.
Whilst we always welcome genuine questioning – we see too many folk simply re-iterating the warmist/alarmist type mantra, without actually being in full understanding of the basics, and it does become tedious when folk will not read stuff for themselves! I myself did not ‘disbelieve’ until I looked into it all myself a few years ago and there is no one more skeptical than me at the moment!
regards
Kev
Sfo,
Funny you should mention Burt Rutan, because Walter Starck strikes me as being a rather similar character: http://www.coralrealm.com/gd/walterstarck.html
Wonder if they know each other.
Permafrost melted in 1944 also. These things happen naturally and get blown up out of proportion always
http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/11/28/1944-shock-news-permafrost-melting-as-far-as-the-eye-can-see/
Enthalpy! Enthalpy! Enthalpy! Enthalpy! Enthalpy! Enthalpy! Enthalpy! Enthalpy! Enthalpy! It is not enough to measure temperature, pressure must be measured as well. That’s the only way we can truly know if greenhouse gases are trapping more heat on the planet or if volume or moisture are causing temperature variation within a constant equilibrium (net 0)
David Socrates says:
November 28, 2012 at 5:26 am
“Walter,
Good article but you have fallen into the trap of stating the mean earth surface temperature to be 0.7degC per hundred years when it is plainly 0.4degC per hundred years.”
Look again at the opening paragraph. You seem to have forgotten the word “purported”. So whether that purported temperature is 0.7°C or 0.4°C is surely irrelevant to the debate.
One reason for not being worried is that it was as warm in the NH for far longer than recently during the MWP but no runaway heating occurred then. Here’s a link to a chart from the NSF on NH temperatures from 200 AD to the present:
http://www.nsf.gov/news/mmg/media/images/monsoon1_h.jpg
See: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/09/25/remember-the-panic-over-methane-seeping-out-of-the-arctic-seabed-in-2009-never-mind/ , which contained these quotes:
Here are quotes from other threads:
Average temperaturee of the earth…sounds like a computation with a lot of numbers.
George Lawson says:
November 28, 2012 at 2:44 am
Here in the United Kingdom we are experiencing severe nationwide flooding which naturally is commanding a large proportion of TV news bulletins. Not once have I heard anyone talk about the excessive rain being caused by Global Warming or Climate Change. Most unusual for the BBC who are normally very quick to attribute unusual weather patterns to Climate Change. Perhaps the stinging criticism of biased reporting that they have suffered in recent months is having an effect after all. I did hear one reporter get close to it when he said “These are all time record floods for the last hundred years!”
You must have been listening at a different time than me. I have been hearing engineers on the BBC chattering on about climate change and the need to spend more money (now, there’s a surprise) on sea and flood defences, and how these floods are going to become more frequent, more rain, warmer wetter winters, heavier rainfall, all attributable to climate change, blah, blah, blah. I turned the radio off in disgust, but I suppose it is one way for engineers to try to get more work when the construction industry is fairly moribund.
LetsBeReasonable says:
November 27, 2012 at 7:01 pm
Thanks Richard for your input, I found it interesting. I am wondering if the slight cooling since 1997 may lie with in the margin of error?
To add to what Richard has already said, I would like to make the following comments. Ross McKitrick said that you cannot find the significance on non warming. You can only find the significance of warming. So if it is stated that the world warmed 0.12/decade over 15 years, you can calculate that this warming may NOT be significant at the 95% level, however it could be significant at the 90% level. But if the warming is 0.0000 over 16 years, what does that really mean? To me it means that there is a 50% chance that it cooled and a 50% that it warmed. It seems irrelevant whether the error bars in the warming or cooling was 0.0001 or 0.1 or 1.0 or 2.0 C/century. But we can be 100% sure the temperatures were NOT 100% flat over the 16 years, even though our slope could in theory be flat.
Also, Santer said that if the slope is flat for 17 years, that is very significant, whatever that means. We are rapidly closing in on that.