By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley
I have now had the opportunity to study SteveF’s remarkable essay at Lucia’s Blackboard, to which Anthony kindly draws attention in his footnote to my earlier posting on the absence of statistically-significant global warming for 17 years 4 months.
SteveF’s conclusion is that once allowance has been made for three naturally-occurring influences – volcanic aerosols, the ~11-year solar cycle and the el Niño/la Niña cycles – the HadCRUt4 warming rate from 1979-1996 was six times faster than from 1997-2012. In the abstract, to allow for uncertainties, he cautiously reduces this to three times faster.
Even if one were to take the unadjusted HadCRUt4 data, the rate of warming from 1979-1996 was more than twice as fast as the rate from 1997-2012.
I decided to look not only at HadCRUt4, as SteveF did, but also at the two satellite datasets, RSS and UAH. RSS showed warming at 0.7 Cº/century from 1979-1996 and cooling at almost 0.1 Cº/century from 1997-2012.
UAH, however, in contrast to both HadCRUt4 and RSS, showed warming in the later period, 1997-2012, that was thrice as fast as the warming of the earlier period, 1979-1996.
SteveF’s essay takes no account of the most substantial medium-term natural cycle that seems to influence global temperatures: the Pacific Decadal Oscillation. The cycles of that great Oscillation tend to exercise a warming influence for about 30 years followed by a cooling influence for about 30 years. This cyclical influence is visible throughout the HadCRUt4 global temperature record since 1850.
There was a remarkably sharp transition from the “cooling” to the “warming” phase of the PDO at the beginning of 1976 and a transition back to “cooling” late in 2001.
The HadCRUt4 warming rate from 1976-2001 was equivalent to almost 1.8 Cº/century (compared with warming at just 1.1 Cº/century from 1979-1996), but from 2002 to the present HadCRUt4 shows cooling at a rate equivalent to almost 0.5 Cº/century (compared with warming at almost 0.5 Cº/century from 1997-2012).
Much of the fall in the warming rate identified by SteveF, therefore, appears to be attributable to the PDO. It would be interesting to adjust the global instrumental temperature anomaly record not only for volcanic aerosols, solar cycles and el Niños but also for the cycles of the PDO, but that is above my present pay-grade.
What is far from clear is the influence, if any, from CO2. Its influence must be very small, for it seems easily overwhelmed by natural influences such as the PDO and the three phenomena studied by SteveF.
During the three “warming” phases of the PDO that are visible in the HadCRUt4 instrumental record since 1850, the warming rates were as follows: 1860-1880 less than 1.0 Cº/century; 1910-1940 1.4 Cº/century; and 1976-2001 1.8 Cº/century.
Superficially, there appears to be an inexorable and strikingly near-linear increase in the warming rates during successive “warming” phases of the PDO. Might this increase be attributable to the monotonic increase in CO2 over recent decades?
If the increase in warming rates were to continue, perhaps as a result of the growing warming influence from CO2, the warming from about 2040-2070 might be equivalent to 2.2 Cº/century; and from 2100-2130 2.6 Cº/century.
It would not be until around 2160-2190 that the warming rate would reach the IPCC’s currently-projected central estimate of 3.0 Cº/century. And, even then, the mean centennial rate after allowing for the “cooling” phases of the PDO would be considerably less.
However, the apparently tidy 1.0 to 1.4 to 1.8 Cº/century-equivalent increase in the rates of global warming during the “warming” phases of the PDO may not be attributable to CO2 at all. The true cause may be another and more sinister man-made phenomenon: Orwellian data revisionism.
Late in 2009, after the first Climategate emails had been sprung on a naively unsuspecting world, Roger Harrabin of the BBC, an acquiescent true-believer in the global-warming Party Line, was told by his superiors that for the sake of what little is left of the BBC’s reputation he should – just for once – ask Professor Jones of the University of East Anglia some critical questions about the temperature record.
Harrabin had never before stopped to think about whether the Party Line was true. That is the trouble with the Party Line: as Orwell points out in 1984, it is intended as a substitute for independent thought – or for any thought.
So he did not know what questions to ask. He asked me for help in framing suitable critical questions.
I told him to ask Jones whether there had been any statistically-significant global warming over the previous 15 years. He thought that was an absurd question. The Party Line said warming was occurring at a rate unprecedented in human history.
I told him to ask the question anyway. To his astonishment, Jones – albeit testily – admitted there had been no warming statistically distinguishable from zero for 15 years.
I also told Harrabin to ask Jones whether the rates of warming during the three “warming” phases of the PDO in the instrumental record since 1850 were statistically distinguishable from one another.
Harrabin got a further surprise when Jones told him that the three rates could not be distinguished from one another, statistically speaking. On the then HadCRUt3 version of the global dataset, the rates of warming were equivalent to 1.0, 1.6 and 1.7 Cº/century respectively. The uncertainties in the data during the first of the three periods, 1860-1880, were so large that the rate could not be distinguished from that of the later two periods.
Our CO2 emissions could not have influenced the second period of PDO-driven warming, but we could in theory have influenced the third. Yet in the HadCRUt3 dataset the two periods showed warming within 0.1 Cº/century of one another: far too little an increase to be statistically significant.
At a climate conference in Cambridge a few years ago, I asked Jones whether, given that the global warming rates in the three “warming” phases of the PDO could not be distinguished from one another statistically speaking, any anthropogenic influence was yet discernible in the temperature record. He said there was a discernible influence, but did not say where or how large it was.
Not long afterwards, and perhaps not coincidentally, he produced HadCRUt4. Suddenly the rates of warming during the second and third PDO “warming” phases were changed from 1.6 and 1.7 Cº/century respectively to 1.4 and 1.8 Cº/century respectively.
As with other such instances of data revisionism in the terrestrial datasets, the later period was changed very little because the satellites were watching and prevented cheating. But the record in the earlier period was pushed downwards, artificially steepening the apparent warming over the 20th century. It is as though we knew better than those who took the earlier measurements what measurements they ought to have recorded, all over the world.
Disentangling the true contribution of CO2 to warming from not only the numerous natural influences but also from the effects of data revisionism is near impossible. We shall have to wait and see. The one fact that is already clear, however, is that the warming rate predicted by the models on whose output the climate scare is founded is proving to be a hefty exaggeration.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
keeping with the “fish” theme, a laugh:
17 June: ABC Australia: Kirsty Nancarrow: Experts test how fish cope with climate change
Researchers from James Cook University in north Queensland and the Australian National University are hoping to prove mature fish can develop to cope with climate change…
PhD student Sandra Binning says the adult fish will be tested after one month to see how they are reacting to simulated changes in weather patterns.
“We know that with little fish that are very small we can rear them in different conditions and have them develop into athletes or lazy fish per se,” she said.
“Now this is exactly what we’re testing with this – whether we can take adult fish that have already been living out on the reef in conditions for many, many months, but whether we can take them into the lab and train them and try to get them to change and become better athletes…
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-17/experts-test-how-fish-cope-with-climate-change/4759954?section=qld
@cwon14. And, nonetheless, research (among other things) can exhibit all the attributes of what you consider a conspiracy and not be a conspiracy. Consider previous academic/scientific “fashions” such as Chomskyan linguistics or medical lipophobia, both backed by systematically bad science (and lack of). IMO, the error is in your definition of “conspiracy”.
Nick Stokes
Ducking between posts here and posts on the Trenberth wobbly charts at Lucia’s. Personally, and in regard to the Geckko (Comment #116055) The adjusters seem to have been active in the past and I do not at this stage, trust your unajusted to be what you say it is. I’d like an independent auditor/investigator to have full access to check the records.
You and Mosh can poo poo all you like at our suspicions, but such is the credibility deficit that has been built up by defenders of the faith, and I include you in that implicitly; only a truly independent and searching investigation will restore my respect for truly unadjusted or raw data written by the original collectors of the information.
As interest in weather keeps people active and searching through old records that survive in dusty receptacles all over the world (and here in Australia) much is being revealed and it doesn’t look good for your faithful position. Especially so, in Australia where you must cringe at the statements made by various climate commissioners and others with no climate experience or even common knowledge of weather.
Political change is in the air and who will be blamed, time will tell.
Climate/weather is a humbling subject of interest to us all. I tend to think that Professor Murry Salby has laid most of it, if not all, of the C02 meme to rest, perhaps you and a few Climate Commissioners should debate with him on his findings- public debate of course on the ABC – I’d like to see that. Perhaps a series of debates!!
I do appreciate the openess of your reply.
.
Mr. Arrak makes a point that Fred Singer has been making for some years: that the satellite data from 1979-1997 and from 1999-present show little global warming, but that over the entire period – this time including 1998 – there appears to have been significant warming thanks to the naturally-occurring Great el Niño of that year.
WUWT readers may like to have the numbers on this, which nicely illustrate Mr. Arrak’s point. I have taken the arithmetic mean of the RSS and UAH monthly lower-troposphere anomalies (permissible because the areas of coverage, though not identical, are close enough).
Over the 228 months January 1979 to December 1997, CO2 forcing was 0.4 Watts per square meter and the world warmed at a rate equivalent to 0.6 K/century.
Over the 173 months January 1999 to May 2013, CO2 forcing was 0.4i Watts per square meter and the world warmed at a rate equivalent to 0.9 K/century.
Over the 413 months January 1979 to May 2013, CO2 forcing was 0.9 Watts per square meter and the world warmed at a rate equivalent to 1.3 K/century.
The warming rate over the entire period of satellite record since 1979 seems significantly above the periods either side of 1998 because the Great el Niño of that year was an outstanding outlier. That outlier is not as strongly countervailed by the 1997 la Niña in the satellite data as it is in the HadCRUt4 dataset, so the outlier has a distorting effect, significantly but artificially increasing the apparent warming rate since 1979.
You call it revisionism.
I call it lying and missapropriation of grant money.
“… produced HadCRUt4. Suddenly the rates of warming during the second and third PDO “warming” phases were changed from 1.6 and 1.7 Cº/century respectively to 1.4 and 1.8 Cº/century respectively. ”
Was this the way of ‘dealing’ with your recent request for correction, once again pointing out the bogus statistical trick in AR4 ?
ie. finding some ‘plausible basis’ on which to modify the original data, to better’fit’ with what it’s being used to show.
One wonders how many data points had to suffer in the making of that conclusion.
F. Ross says:
June 16, 2013 at 7:34 pm
////////////////////////////////////////
See my comment at 05:26pm which further elaborates.
It is a mixed question of (i) the manner in which the offence is defined; and (ii) the evidence adduced in support of the allegation that the offence has been committed.
I have never had a traffic offence, so I have never had cause to look at the definition, and I have assumed that it is defined on the basis of miles per hour, not feet per second. Of course, it could be defined in terms of miles per hour or such equivalent expressed in any other unit of distance and interval of time. If it is defined along the latter lines then there would not be the same technical issue based upon the definition of the offence.
The reason why people do not get off is that they have no contrary evidence. The Police provide photographic evidence which, subject to the technical issue based upon definition, at first glance supports the charge against the motorist. The motorist has no objective evidence to counter that. But see my example at 05:26pm which gave the motorist objective evidence to counter the case and evidence presented by the Police.
Now consider an extreme example. Say one has a motoraway which has both a minimum speed limit (which applies at all times that the car is driving on the motorway) and a maximum speed limit. Lets say that the minimum speed limit is 40mph and the maximum speed limit is 70mph. As soon as you exit/leave the motorway, the maximum speed limit on that road is 30mph. So to summarise, it is an offence on the motorway to drive at less than 40mph and an offence on the road at the end of the motorway to drive at above 30mph.
Just at the end of the motorway, there is a traffic control camera. Its fied of vision covers the last 50 metres of the motorway and the first 50 metres of the road after the end of the motorway. You drive along the motorway at 40.01mph and at the precise point (measured to nanmetres) you reach the end of motorway sign, you brake and then proceed at 29.7mph. However, with reaction time and braking efficiency it takes say 2 seconds to slow from 40.001mph to 29.99mph. The camera takes a photo showing that you covered say the first 10 metres of the road after the motorway at 36mph, in breach of the maximum 30mph speed limit. Had you braked 2 seconds earlier (ie., before the end of the motorway), the camera would have produced a photo showing that you covered the last 10 metres of the motorway at 34mph, in breach of the minimum 40mph speed limitt?
Have you committed an offence? Has the evidence that the Police obtained proved that you have committed the offence? Would an objective observer (ie., the jury) accept the evidence produced by the Police as establishing that an offence has been committed?
As I said in my 05:26pm comment, I do not know the answer, but I certainly can see the runnable arguments.
It is like going to the Optician, who keeps trying different lenses until you see an image that suits you.
History of warming through the revisionist’s lense is rather depressing for the bit in the middle.
astrodragon says:
June 17, 2013 at 12:24 am
“You call it revisionism.
I call it lying and misappropriation of grant money.”
///////////////////////////////
Hansen has adjusted some of the data about a dozen, or so, times. What cause can there be in the late 20th century/early 21st century to adjust temperature measurements recorded say in the 1930s half a dozen, or even a dozen times?
Some adjustment may have been necessary. Methods and understanding may after some time be further refined and better understood, necessitated a further adjustment. But 6 to 12 adjustments? Come on folks! At the very least this suggests that Hansen does not know what he is doing, and/or the reasons for the adjustments are uncertain and questionable, and/or that he is down right incompetent having previously and repeatedly made so many incorrect adjustments.
Given the repeated nature of the adjustments, there can be no confidence in the accuracy of the homogenized data set. In fact, the one adjustment that is crying out to be made is that of and incidental to UHI, and this is one that Hansen copiously fails to properly and adequately get a grips with.
If every adjustment and every revision to that adjustment was to be properly audited by an independent scientist (with no skin in the game either way) I consider that it may well emerge that there is a strong case of misappropriation of grant money.
Given the essentially flat temperature trend between 1979 and say 1996/7 recorded in the satellite data set, that set suggests that there was no significant post 1979 warming, and raises the possibility that the land based thermometer temperature sets are polluted when they show warming during that period. That pollution being an artefact of adjustments, UHI, siting issues and station drop outs.
The best temperature record that we have is the satellite data set. Unfortunately, it is of short duration and this limits it effectiveness as to amking reasonable extrapolations of trends.
Of course, it is the ocean temperature data set that is the most relevant, but pre ARGO, it is riddled with uncertainties. The ARGO data set is presently of too short a duration to enable any worthwhile extrapolation (or to answer the Trenberth conjecture)
Dear Margaret Hardman,
Of course there is a conspiracy. It is as old as humanity itself.
It is called “He who pays the piper calls the tune.”
KenB says: June 16, 2013 at 8:23 pm
“The adjusters seem to have been active in the past and I do not at this stage, trust your unajusted to be what you say it is. I’d like an independent auditor/investigator to have full access to check the records.”
The system is open, you can check it yourself. I gave a link above to the current GHCN unadjusted, and said that it’s recent values consist of numbers transcribed from the CLIMAT forms submitted by national Met Offices. Here you can inspect those forms as submitted monthly over the last twenty years.
Nick
Almost next to useless, I think I will do my own research on the documents themselves, rather than wrestle with a system not designed for easy checking and validation and just 20 years?
As far as Australian records are concerned the BOM printed reports issued are easier to check, now can you direct me to existing reports where the alterations to the Australian Historical temperature records were approved and reasons given for that approval. Just askin!!
Ideology is an aspect that makes it difficult to engage in enriching discussions on climate change. Several months ago, the University of Kentucky hosted of forum on climate change with three excellent speakers who were all self-described conservatives. Liberals reported how they better understand that there are thoughtful conservative perspectives on, and solutions to, climate change, thus allowing for a broadened public discussion. In turn, conservatives in attendance learned the same thing. You can watch the recording of this event at http://bit.ly/135gvNa. The starting time for each speaker is noted at this page, so you can listen to the speakers of greatest interest to you.
PMHinSC says:
June 16, 2013 at 2:15 pm
“Speaking of conspires, I recently became aware that the WSJ, Guardian, and NYT (among others) have conspired to allow the word “data” to be either singular or plural. “Data” has always been plural (as in “data are”).”
For me “data is” is intolarable for the ear but I am told that it is common usage in the US, especially amongst people who have no classical education and have no clue of the origin of the word. It appears that the disappearance of the plural meaning of “data” may follow the same path as the word “agenda” which is now exclusively used in the singular sense, yet it is the plural form of agendum. Whether the horrific “datas” will come into use is questionable, although the word “agendas” has also become acceptable. So who knows.
KenB says: June 17, 2013 at 4:13 am
“now can you direct me to existing reports…”
No. If you’re going to maintain that GHCN unadjusted are faked and can’t be bothered looking up where they come from, then it’s just a waste of my time.
Imagine a global contest, established to settle, once and for all, the age old mystery of gravity. All over the world people design different experiments. Some drop feathers. Some drop lead balls. Some design little ramps with wheeled test vehicles zipping down for measurements.
As the results flow in, horror of horrors, the mystery is creating gobs of conflicted data. ‘Scientists’ with the highest soap box, tweak the conflicts to bring them into alignment with their own experiment, obviously the most brilliant and enlightened of them all. It’s supported by models that confirm the correctness of their theory.
Few think to go back to the experiments to search for underlying physical drivers to the conflicted data. It’s too hard you see. There are too many variables. It’s a chaotic contest.
Still, there is a reason for every conflict, and therein lies the science. You don’t get science from a model. You get confirmation of your biases; useful to root them out but useless for anything else.
Nick
Nice dodge too, I’ll do my own, and I still don’t trust yours!!
I’m sorry, adjusting the raw data is not justifalbe in any sense. It would be like going back and adjusting Major League Baseball home run records and saying that because Babe Ruth hit home runs in undersize parks by today’s standards that we have to “adjust” his home run totals down by 50! It rubbish!
IMO Nick Stokes has become a far worse than annoying yabut.
Every time a discussion addresses anything specific he dodges the essence with “yeah but look over here at something else” while picking nits and pretending it is the same as joining the discussion and debating the same issue.
It is not.
This thread is about “data revisionism”.
Many are discussing what appears to be unjustified adjustments to temperature record by various climate researchers.
Stokes says looks over here at these other records which he says are available and un-adjusted while having never acknowledged or addressed any data revision by anyone.
Nick, is it your pretense than no data revision by anyone has occurred?
And that anyone seeing any is either imagining or inventing the revisions?
If so say so.
If you can acknowledge there have been revisions explain why they are justified.
And do it slowly so us simple people can understand.
Dr. Deanster and others interested in Tmax and Tmin
Lots of info and links to other sources here:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/30/errors-in-estimating-temperatures-using-the-average-of-tmax-and-tmin-analysis-of-the-uscrn-temperature-stations/
Dr. Deanster
Further to Tmin and Tmax
Most of the temperature numbers we see are averages of averages of averages, such that no knowledge remains regarding patterns at the ;microclimate level. Sad, because all other trends, anomalies etc., are statistical artifacts, not reality on the ground. One of the few researches into local climate patterns on a station-by-station basis was done by JR Wakefield. His analysis and conclusions can be found here:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/25995131/Ontario-Surface-Temperature-Trends-no-Warming-happening
DesertYote says:
June 16, 2013 at 6:51 pm
J Martin says:
June 16, 2013 at 2:33 pm
@ur momisugly PMHinSC. Finding a different word for Data, almost invariably a plural is one thing. But what really annoys me is the use of the word ‘fishes’ as if it were the plural of ‘fish’ which it most definitely is not.
‘Fish’ is both singular and plural. ‘Fishes’ is most definitely not the plural of ‘fish’.
‘Fishes’ is the proper term to use for a group of types of fish. When I talk about the fishes I have kept, I am referring to the various species of fish, not the number of fish.
How about fishies as in
“Down in the meadow in a little bitty pool
Swam three little fishies and a mama fishie too
“Swim” said the mama fishie, “Swim if you can”
And they swam and they swam all over the dam”
Oh, I forgot about the work in Australia that confirms these conclusions:
http://www.bishop-hill.net/blog/2011/11/4/australian-temperatures.html
See also:
Gust of Hot Air blog.
@Steven Mosher
Silence or single word answers are taken as “I haven’t any real evidence, this was just another of my drive bys”
If “Nick Stokes” (Aus?) is a paid Govn’t AGW promoter he must be well paid, and I mean well paid as the cost of living in Aus is very expensive (Unless on Govnt “income”).