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.
mr courtney-
it’s incumbent on you either to use words as they are defined – or if you wish to utter idiosyncratic verbalizations, you must define your terms.
on the internet, when you bark, people can tell you’re a dog.
Here is some other social commentary, with music! http://independentnewsofsound.wordpress.com ….. http://youtu.be/pR3g_WbtefU I’m an optimist.
Gnomish:
At November 28, 2012 at 9:28 am you say to me
I am not “a dog”. I am the Devil Incarnate, and I know this because warmists have said it in various forms of words all over the internet.
I keep searching for my horns but they have not started to grow yet. I regret this because I think they would be distinctive.
Richard
vukcevic says:
NASA GISS experts dismiss the CET as a local anomaly, but in their scientific wisdom tell us that a single tree from the Arctic circle in Yamal is an excellent representative of the global temperature trends.
IME such “experts” are rarely able to come up with an objective definition of “local” or “global”. (Similarly for “weather” and “climate”). When pressed they are likely to instead come out with non sequiturs.
LetsBeReasonable says: “… 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 have not seen the the UN report at DOHA, but if the report follows past reports from IPCC/U.N./NASA/Mann/Gore/… that Earth’s temperatures are increasing, and the increases are the result of man-made CO2, then I reject the report. The reason is sometime back I chose to analyze the historical global temperature records (using code I wrote), instead of taking the word of either side.
From my analysis it became clear that proponents of Global Warming were being unprofessional and dishonest with both the data and their claims. The proponents of Global Warming were lemon-picking data, adjusting the data towards warming, and were using inaccurate data to make long-term claims (which would require high accuracy).
LetsBeReasonable says: “It would appear that the temperature is increasing,”
Only according to the usual suspects of Global Warming. From the non-alarmists the earth’s temperatures have been declining for the last decade.
LetsBeReasonable says: “This melting will cause more CO2 and methane to be released into the atmosphere causing a positive feedback.”
Even if that is the case, the resulting positive feedback declines as the CO2 and methane levels are increased. As another poster pointed out, we are very near the ppm level of CO2 at which further increases will have negligible effect on Earth’s temperature.
See following CO2 vs. Temperature Plot: http://www.randombio.com/temperatures6.png
Or another way to look at the decreasing warming effect of CO2 as ppm of CO2 is increased: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/heating_effect_of_co2.png?w=640
Mario Lento says: “Why has every ice age … increasing to maximal points … following not leading temperatures?”
It is mother nature’s way of thumbing her nose at Gore, Mann, & Hansen… 😉
Darren Potter says:
November 28, 2012 at 10:09 pm
I reckon LBR (hint in the name really?) is a bit of a warmist, the way the posts were worded did seem a little ‘pointed’ don’t you think? But anyways, we were pleasant and accomodating, and if they actually do bother to do some research, he/she may enlighten themselves further and may even one day be grateful!.
Darren Potter says:
November 28, 2012 at 10:09 pm
“I reckon LBR (hint in the name really?) is a bit of a warmist, the way the posts were worded did seem a little ‘pointed’ don’t you think? But anyways, we were pleasant and accomodating, and if they actually do bother to do some research, he/she may enlighten themselves further and may even one day be grateful!.”
LBR was friendly and perhaps really believes and is affected by code terms such as “settled” “consensus” taking the “cautionary road” and that “CO2 is at least causing some warming and warming is bad.” It’s going to be difficult to change people’s minds who are rooted in a camp. Most of us, I believe, are sort of in a camp, but really I hope we are the people who seek truth…
I would have thought after 17 years of no more warming trend, some people would stop, and think… what happened to the correlation? Wait, the IPCC said that 90% of the warming up through 1998 was as a result of CO2. But but, then is 90% of all of the not warming also caused by CO2? Can you really have it both ways?
Mario Lento says:
November 29, 2012 at 8:53 am
”..I would have thought after 17 years of no more warming trend, some people would stop, and think… what happened to the correlation? Wait, the IPCC said that 90% of the warming up through 1998 was as a result of CO2. But but, then is 90% of all of the not warming also caused by CO2? Can you really have it both ways?”….
No, no – I think you must have misread the IPCC mantra! – when it’s warming it is because the CO2 is rising which far outweighs any natural warming effects that may be present within the climate. When it is not warming, it is because the natural variation has suddenly overtaken the mighty CO2 warming effect, which itself has suddenly become all weak and feeble, allowing the natural cooling variation to wipe it out and hide it almost completely.
LOL