Image Credit: Compo et al., 2013
From the Huffington Post:
The thermometers got it right. The Earth is warming, another study is reporting.
Climate scientists recognize that changes in weather observation stations’ immediate surroundings — such as neighboring trees being replaced by heat-absorbing concrete — can eventually throw data from such stations into question.
But now, a new study directed by a researcher at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration that recreates climate history without the use of land-based observation systems shows the same thing that thermometers have been reporting.
“This shows that global warming over land is real,” said Gilbert Compo, a scientist at NOAA’s Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences at the University of Colorado.
“It is not an artifact of the observing system,” said Compo, lead author of the study, which he presented to the European Geophysical Union on Tuesday in Vienna. “It is happening.”
Compo and his colleagues used an alternate method to review the planet’s temperature history from 1871 through 2010.
They deployed what is called 20th Century Reanalysis (20CR), a physically based, state-of-the-art data assimilation system using barometric pressure records, ocean surface temperatures and other factors independent of land-based readings that can be skewed by changes in their surroundings.
Compo’s team came to a conclusion that supports land-based instruments’ reporting that, since 1952, the Earth has shown a 1.18 degree Celsius increase in air temperature over land.
Compo, in an email, stated that the actual number the 20CR analysis showed for warming since 1952 was 0.78 degrees Celsius, which he termed “statistically indistinguishable” from 1.18 degrees Celsius.
Here’s the associated study; Independent Confirmation of Global Land Warming without the Use of Station Temperatures and abstract.
I’ll leave it to WUWT’s readers to do their own distinguishing…
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The graph shows warming of about 0.8 degrees in the 20th century. That agrees with observations.
The graph shows almost no warming in the 21st century. That agrees with observations.
The only conclusion can inferred from the record is that the earth is getting mildly warmer and there is no acceleration of warming.
DocattheAutopsy says:
April 13, 2013 at 7:52 am
51% error is statistically insignificant. Got it.
===========
some fun with numbers. convert everything to K. Now you have 0.4 / 273.93 = 0.14% error.
We see this all the time in climate science. Change the scale and you can create anything you want with statistics.
The average temperature of the earth over the past 100 years has been stable to 0.8 / 287.65 = 0.27%. The thermostat in your house is very unlikely to hold your household temperature to such a fine limit. And yet we are supposed to see this as a sign of impending disaster.
It is surprising that we don’t all die from regular cycling of the furnace in winter and the massive amount of warming and cooling that results as compared to global warming..
University of Colorado – I-25 Corridor politic with Grant dollars into Wyoming -Cheyenne and Casper. An evolution of ‘time is on our side’ science suppressing cowboys simple politic.
There seems to be an unstated assumption that the UHI effect does not affect barometric pressure. I can think of several reasons that temperature and barometric pressure might be correlated, but I see no reason to assume that a localized heating of air at the 2 meter level, whether it has to do with large paved areas, changes in crops, or meetings of weather experts, would not affect the local barometric pressure. It has been my observation that air tends to circulate up from a warmed surface whether it is a small hotplate or a few hundred acres of freshly plowed farmland surrounded by vegetation covered land on a sunny day. I will make a SWAG here and postulate that this may be an indication that the heating of the air immediately above the warm surface has caused a localized decrease in barometric pressure so that the higher pressure air immediately surrounding it displaces it and forces it to rise.
It might be possible for someone to convince me otherwise, but first they would have to convince me that there was a possibility that they were credible enough for it to be worth my while to listen to them. When they are using computer models and picking the inputs, the first steps for them would be to demonstrate the validity and relevance of the inputs. (Does anyone out there know of any weather modeler that has actually looked at the raw data that was used to generate the reports that formed the basis for the chain of papers that he is relying on?) The next step would be to demonstrate the validity and relevance of the computer models.
The first computer that I built was based on the brand new Intel 8080 chip. I bought two state of the art 8 inch floppy drives to go with it. I managed to mess up the directory on the disk which came with them, so I had to rebuild the directory. Fortunately, they provided enough paper tape programs that I was able to access the disks and recover almost everything on them. This included a bunch of stuff that was marked as deleted and included the source, in basic, for their game called Moon Lander where the player was given information on velocity and remaining distance and fuel (it considered only vertical motion). The player had to input burn rate to bring the craft to a safe landing. The game became much more interesting for me after I modified it to require a log in so it could track your progress after a series of attempts. I managed to lose the game when upgrading from a 486 based PC to one with an AMD chip. Throughout those years numerous people were shown and amused by my first computer game. I was fascinated by the fact that, while it was often remarked that I had become very proficient at the game over the years, no one ever questioned whether the rules might be different if you logged in with my name. I was amazed by how different those rules could be without even one person becoming suspicious. A computer carries its own credibility for naive or gullible individuals.
I have been bitten by purchased programs ranging from schematic capture and layout packages to early mechanical design programs and have discarded literally thousands of dollars worth of software that had problems which kept me from relying on them. I have also written programs for modeling more than a few physical systems. The step of convincing me that a program or model is valid and relevant is very high.
Stacey says: April 13, 2013 at 6:38 am
The link is for Campo the article says Compo.
I say potato you say tomato let’s call the whole thing off .
I am so so happy because we have drowning men clutching at strawmen? 🙂
OtteryD says: April 13, 2013 at 7:35 am
Is it ‘Compo’ or ‘Campo’? This is significant to UK residents who watch ‘Last of the Summer Wine’ on TV. Both of them.
Definitely Compo, corrected, thanks.
Donald Mitchell says:April 13, 2013 at 8:22 am
You’re right, just watch hawks and notice where they catch updrafts.
“I don’t think anyone has disputed that the temperatures have warmed since the 1970′s. I don’t think anyone has disputed that the temperatures have warmed during the 20th century since the end of the Little Ice Age at the end of the 19th century.”
I do. More precisely I dispute that anyone knows.
michael hart says:
April 13, 2013 at 7:45 am
Phil Jones is a co-author on the paper.
==========
that explains the math.
Rob Ricket says:
April 13, 2013 at 7:22 am
One has to wonder how this amazingly accurate barometric pressure method of calculating temperature was calibrated? Meaning, if barometric pressure is a better barometer a temperature (pun intended) than a thermometer, why not replace all thermometers with barometers?
==============
How does a barometer even measure temperature year to year? Quite simply it cannot. Barometers measure pressure. If you warmed the entire atmosphere the mass would remain the same. It would simply expand to a greater height. However, the net gravitational difference would be insignificant and thus there would be no measurable barometric pressure in comparison to say for example the natural change we see in barometers every day due to solar heating and nighttime cooling. The noise in the daytime/nighttime signal alone would drown out the long term signal.
This doesn’t even begin to take into account the solar effects on the atmosphere which most definitely change the height of the atmosphere and thus the gravitational force on the atmosphere and thus the global barometric pressure.
“…state-of-the-art data assimilation…”
So, resistance is futile then?
see page 13 onward for an explanation of barometer variation before the age of climate change
A Barometer Manual for the Use of Seamen (1884)
Great Britain Meteorological Office
http://books.google.ca/books?id=7D4AAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA15&lpg=PA15&dq=tropics+barometer+reading&source=bl&ots=oGsbO7cTxs&sig=PJnbR6pMYfWcKbXs0PO-YtTNlfI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=RYFpUdKFBan1iwKA3YGgBg&ved=0CGgQ6AEwCQ
If CO2 is the cause of all warming since the LIA, and CO2 is well-mixed in the atmosphere (instantly transporting from Industrialized nations to the rest of the globe by some un-explained mechanism), then warming should be equal all over the place, not just “on land”.
Of course, using a single “global temperature” is ridiculous in the first place.
The body of the study talks about the 9 hour prediction algorithm used for typical predictions, not actual temp data. So what is the standard error of those predictions? At least for NE Oregon, re-using those predictions (or the algorithm they used?) as if they were accurate, is akin to polishing the proverbial turd. Bottom line, much of this research is basic sewer collection with a bit of scrubbing. And then they have the balls to ask us to drink the barely filtered affluent.
Phillip Bratby says:
April 13, 2013 at 3:53 am
Why do I always think of “Last of the Summer Wine”, a scruffy little unshaven fellow, wearing wellies, old trousers held up by string, a patched jacket and a knitted green hat?
James Hansen?
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/13/keystone-xl-nasas-james-hansen-risks-arrest-again/
More Procedural Certainty’ not Representational Certainty.
The MSN think if the math is right, the interpreted cause is right. So do emotionally involved scientists and activists. They think post-LIA warming I’d a Unique Solution problem. They think that observations lead to the model, not the model was built to conform to the observations. The think that the IPCC graphs are all forecasts validated by time, not hindcasts improved with time.
He with the loudest shriek has the most credibility in the climate change debate. Yesterday NOAA/A has the most feeds because of Hansen. Today, Hansen gone, the NGO Environment America says the 2012 Midwest drought was from CAGW, while NOAA says it wasn’t. EA is now the expert and NOAA is a tool of Big Business. Meanwhile, the developing nations choose cheap energy over the Gore threat of worse weather.
On
Ideology trumps reason, pragmatism and, the worst, the betterment of those other than his comrades-in-arms. The eco green who sees the world better without an SUV next door is not philosophically different from a Hutu who sees no Tutsi next door in the same way. It is his way or the highway for both, one being more direct then the other. Though with the call for Nuremberg-style trials by some eco-greens, you have to wonder how far apart these two groups are in places.
Curve fitting is still NOT science and I would add NOT a substitute for mathematics.
Bruce Cobb Says April 13, 4:34 AM
Yes!
IMHO: This is statistically indistinguishable from propaganda.
Colorado is unquestionably warming. The west face of the Rockies, and New England, are the parts of the US that show a long and strong warming trend. The rest of the country, and the rest of the world, are much more varied with 34-year cycles and 100-year cycles and strong cooling trends and meaningless wiggles of all sorts.
So if Boulder people want to call Colorado “The Globe”, then in fact “global” warming is real. The rest of the globe might argue with their hippie imperialism, though.
Folks you want to embrace this 0.4 degree Celsius lowering of the “measured global average temperature” for at least two reasons:
1. It disproves all of the published so called global average temperatures that came before it.
2. It places the global average temperature outside of the climate models error bounds in that wonderful AR5 figure.
A few more adjustments like this will have us still in an ice age.
One thing I still can’t understand:
How it comes that while there’s the downward trend in the Sea Surface Temperature since the peak of the solar cycle 23 (http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000.25/to:2013.3/plot/hadsst2gl/from:2000.25/to:2013.3/trend) there’s still an upward trend in the Ocean Heat Content (http://www.nodc.noaa.gov/OC5/3M_HEAT_CONTENT//heat_content55-07.png).
Where all the heat comes from? This looks to me something doesn’t ad up. Anybody?
The warming was real, but except the 1975-2005 period there is no relation with CO2. Compared to station records, the new approach shows like the early warming and 194X peak have been dumbed down.
Juraj V. says:
April 13, 2013 at 1:23 pm
“The warming was real, but except the 1975-2005 period there is no relation with CO2.”
What if:
the relation is opposite – due to warming of the ocean the CO2 is released due to its lower solubility in the water at the higher temperatures? (see: http://docs.engineeringtoolbox.com/documents/1148/solubility-co-water.png)
What if:
there aren’t any positive feedbacks (or are, but are cancelled by another negative feedbacks) to the CO2 forcing and the CO2 has in fact a negligible effect on the GHE?
“Compared to station records, the new approach shows like the early warming and 194X peak have been dumbed down.”
What if:
the temporary slowing of the warming (due to rising solar activity since the beginning of the solar cycle 15 see: http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/sidc-ssn/from:1855.95/to:1996.41/mean:132/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1855.95/to:1996.41/mean:132/normalise) after mid 1940’s was partially due to the accelerating frequency of the surface and atmospheric nuclear testing (as this:http://bos.sagepub.com/content/68/5/66.abstract can suggest) which peaked in 1962 with 140 Megatons detonated (see: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Worldwide_nuclear_testing.png), periodically getting loads of dust into the atmosphere causing dimming as the volcanic eruptions? – The solar activity first peaked in SC19 in 1958. Then it descended during 60ties-mid70ties and then it went again up during the solar cycles 21-22 almost at the level of the SC18-19 (the SSN average for SC18-19 is 82.9, the SSN average for SC21-22 is 80.9), causing warming until the mid 90ties and then sharply descending again causing the flat temperature trend throughout 2000s when SC23 had average SSN 53.9 and then beginning of cooling in 2010s when the SC24 has so far only 34.4 average SSN and it will be even lower at its end comparable to the activity in the solar cycle 14 (1902-1913), (-especially when we consider the Waldmeyer discontinuity proponed by L. Svalgaard) when there was the coolest temperature on the record?
ferdberple says:
April 13, 2013 at 8:43 am
This doesn’t even begin to take into account the solar effects on the atmosphere which most definitely change the height of the atmosphere and thus the gravitational force on the atmosphere and thus the global barometric pressure.
=========
thus what they may actually be measuring (if anything) is the effect of the sun on the atmospheric height.
The pressure data stations appear to be temperature data stations as well.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/climate/isd/index.php
Temperature and pressure are proportional in the equation of state of an ideal gas
p*V = nRT
Why would they then think to get rid of siting issues if they use data with about the same contamination ?
Warming over land is real? Have these guys refuted the Goodridge results? See
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-iJ1ToEyAA5s/T5DUxrXPfvI/AAAAAAAAAdU/-fpps1832rE/s1600/Goodridge+Chart+of+California.png
Goodridge, J.D. (1996) Comments on “Regional Simulations of Greenhouse Warming including Natural Variability” . Bull, Amer. Meteorological Society 77:1588-1599.
Just to make clear the point: there was zero warming over land, in California counties with less than 100,000 people, during the period from 1920 to 1994.
Fredster says:
April 13, 2013 at 5:35 am
“This paper had no correction for Urban Heat Island effect in the temp record and thus does nothing to address the UHI in the temp record.”
Doesn’t need a correction for UHI. Doesn’t use that data. JP