Many Climate Reconstructions Incorrectly Attributed to Temperature Change.

Guest essay by Dr. Tim Ball

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set climate research back thirty years, mostly by focusing world attention on CO2 and higher temperature. It was a classic misdirection that required planning. The IPCC was created for this purpose and pursued it relentlessly. Through the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) they controlled national weather offices so global climate policies and research funding were similarly directed.

IPCC’s definition of climate change narrowed the focus to human causes, but they exacerbated it by ignoring, downgrading or misusing variables. Most important and critical was water in all its forms and functions. The obsession restricted focus to higher temperatures and increased CO2, which directed funding of impact analyses, whether economic or environmental to cost only, instead of cost/benefit. Climate studies only considered temperature, usually and incorrectly attributing changes caused by precipitation to temperature. This practice was most evident in paleoclimate reconstructions, either done by IPCC participants or chosen for inclusion in the IPCC Reports.

It is almost a maxim that if the people at the Climatic Research Unit (CRU), who effectively controlled IPCC science, were looking at a topic it was because it posed a threat to their predetermined hypothesis.

Tom Wigley took over from Hubert Lamb as Director of the CRU and guided much of the early research and then remained the major influence as the leaked emails revealed. He completely redirected CRU from Lamb’s objective, which was the need for data before any understanding could occur;

“the first and greatest need was to establish the facts of the past record of the natural climate in times before any side effects of human activities could well be important.”

Lamb was at odds with and appears to regret hiring Wigley and wrote about the different direction Wigley took the Unit. He wrote,

“Professor Tom Wigley, was chiefly interested in the prospect of world climates being changed as a result of human activities, primarily through the burning of wood, coal, oil and gas reserves…”

That became the focus of the CRU and subsequently of the IPCC. It was a predetermined hypothesis that led to manipulated climate science. The leaked CRU emails disclose Wigley as the eminence gris to whom all his old pupils and colleagues at CRU turn to for advice and direction.

A classic danger in climate research and an early threat to claims of a human signal was that they could be dismissed as a result of auto-correlation. The issue was identified in 1944 in Conrad’s classic Methods in Climatology. A 1999 article The Autocorrelation Function and Human Influences on Climate by Tsonis and Elsner commented on Wigley’s attempt to prove a human influence was not due to autocorrelation. They note,

This (Wigley’s) result is impressive, and there may indeed be a human influence on climate. However, the use of the autocorrelation function as a tool for such comparisons presents a problem. Climate models, whether forced or unforced, constitute dynamical systems. If these models faithfully represent the dynamics of the climate system, then a comparison between an observation and a model simulation should address whether or not these two results have the same dynamical foundation.

In Quantitative approaches in climate change ecology Brown et al., identify the issues.

We provide a list of issues that need to be addressed to make inferences more defensible, including the consideration of (i) data limitations and the comparability of data sets; (ii) alternative mechanisms for change; (iii) appropriate response variables; (iv) a suitable model for the process under study; (v) temporal autocorrelation; (vi) spatial autocorrelation and patterns; and (vii) the reporting of rates of change. While the focus of our review was marine studies, these suggestions are equally applicable to terrestrial studies. Consideration of these suggestions will help advance global knowledge of climate impacts and understanding of the processes driving ecological change.

The two lead items in Brown et als list for resolving problems of auto-correlation are also central to understanding the corruption and misdirection of the IPCC.

(i) data limitations.

As Lamb identified, lack of data was and remains the most serious limitation. The situation is completely inadequate for temperature, supposedly the best measured variable. How can two major agencies HadCRUT and GISS produce such different results,

clip_image002

supposedly from the same data set? Paul Homewood produced the following Table comparing results for four data sources for the period 2002 to 2011.

GISS and UAH differ by 0.36°C, which is enormous in nine years. Compare it to the 0.6°C increase over 140 years, a change the 2001 IPCC claimed was dramatic and unnatural.

Data is even worse spatially and temporally for water in all its forms, especially precipitation. In a classic understatement the 2007 IPCC Report says,

Difficulties in the measurement of precipitation remain an area of concern in quantifying the extent to which global- and regional-scale precipitation has changed.

They also concede that,

For models to simulate accurately the seasonally varying pattern of precipitation, they must correctly simulate a number of processes (e.g., evapotranspiration, condensation, transport) that are difficult to evaluate at a global scale.

The lack of data is worse than temperature and precipitation for all other weather variables. There is insufficient data to determine inferences of auto-correlation.

(ii) alternative mechanisms for change.

Ability to determine mechanisms and their implications is impossible without adequate data. Besides, we don’t understand most mechanisms now so considering alternatives is difficult. Many mechanisms are identified but there are many more still unknown. Donald Rumsfeld’s quote is appropriate.

“… there are known knowns; there are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, there are things that we now know we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – there are things we do not know we don’t know.”

Contradiction between results from different authorities, such as the temperature data, proves the point. The IPCC bypassed the problems with a limited definition that allowed them to ignore most mechanisms. Often the excuse was quite bizarre, such as this from Chap

ter 8 of the 2007 report.

Due to the computational cost associated with the requirement of a well-resolved stratosphere, the models employed for the current assessment do not generally include the QBO.

IPCC did what Einstein warned against. Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.

Beyond Auto-correlation?

Autocorrelation is a danger in climatology but what has happened in IPCC goes beyond. In major reconstructions of past climates, temperature series are created from data and processes that are primarily due to precipitation.

Dendroclimatology

Many of them began as chronologic reconstructions. Tree rings began as dendrochronology; an absolute dating method that assumed a new ring is created every year. Age of the Bristlecone Pine made them valuable for this purpose at least. A. E. Douglass founded the discipline of dendrochronology in 1894 and later used tree ring to reconstruct solar cycles and precipitation; the latter became the purpose of all early climate reconstructions.

Available moisture explains most plant growth as farmers and gardeners know. Koppen recognized this in his climate classification system that required classification first on precipitation (B Climate) then on temperature (A,C, and D Climates).

Gross misuse of tree rings to argue the Medieval Warm Period (MWP) didn’t exist was exposed because of inappropriate statistical manipulation. The conclusion used in the 2001 IPCC Science Report claimed the tree rings (the effect) showed no increase in temperature (the cause). In reality with climate change there is a change in all weather variables, hence the auto-correlation problem.

The degree of change to each variable is a function of the latitude as major weather mechanisms migrate toward or away from the poles. For example, during the Ice Ages the Polar climate region expanded primarily at the expense of the middle and low latitude climates, particularly in the desert zone, approximately between 15 and 30° latitude. The low latitude deserts become wet regions in what was traditionally called Pluvials. In the early days it was thought there was no evidence of the Ice Age in the tropical region associated with the Hadley Cell circulation.

Moisture is a controlling factor even in harsh temperature conditions at the tree line. Research at Churchill, Manitoba showed the major predictors of growth were rainfall in the Fall of the preceding year and winter snow amount.

The spruce tree in the photo (Figure 1) is at the tree line at Churchill. It is approximately 100 years old. The lower branches are larger and are on all sides because they are protected from desiccating winter winds by snow; above that powerful persistent arid northeast winds prevent branches growing. Local humor says you cut three trees and tie them together for a complete Christmas tree.

Tree growth, especially annual, is primarily about moisture not temperature. The amount of moisture required by the plant and the amount available both vary with wind speed. At the tree line the ability to trap snow is critical to survival. Small clumps or outliers exist beyond the tree limit as long as they trap snow. Similarly, an open area within the tree limit will remain treeless if denuded of snow by the wind.

clip_image004

Figure 1: Spruce Tree at Churchill Manitoba (Source: The Author)

Speleology (Stalactites/ Stalagmites)

Stalactites (ceiling) and stalagmites (ground) are another example of precipitation created features claimed to represent temperature. They are created by rainwater, which is a mild carbonic acid because of dissolved atmospheric CO2 that absorbs calcium as it filters through limestone. As the water drips from the ceiling calcium deposits accumulate to create the stalactite. Where it hits the floor more calcium accumulates to create a stalagmite. Growth of both features is a direct result of changes in precipitation at the surface.

Glacial Stratigraphy and Ice Cores

Seasonal or annual records in stratigraphic form are collectively called rhythmites. An early use of rhythmites in climate reconstruction was a specific form called varves and related to annual sedimentary layers in proglacial lakes. In 1910 Swedish scientist Gerard de Geer provided an important chronology for glacial sequences of the Holocene. The thickness of the sediment layer is a result of temperature, but also how much rain fell during the summer that changed the melt rate of the snow and ice.

Seasonal layers in a glacier often reflect temperature change, but are also modified by precipitation. Glacier movement is used as a measure of temperature change, but it is also about precipitation change. Thickness of each layer varies with the amount of snow. (Yes, droughts also occur in winter). When sufficient layers form to about 50 m depth the ice becomes plastic under pressure and flows. Ice is always flowing toward the snout within the glacier. Amount of advance or retreat of the glacier snout is as much about snow accumulation above the permanent snowline as temperature. A snout can advance or retreat without a change in temperature.

Meltwater from a glacier is a function of temperature, but also precipitation. When rain falls on the glacier it increases the melt rate of snow and ice dramatically. This is likely a major explanation for the rapid melt and vast proglacial lakes associated with melt of the ice during the Holocene Optimum. Dynamics of a continental glacier are a slow build up as snow layers accumulate, followed by a relatively rapid melt as snow turns to rain.

The amount of CO2 in the ice crystals varies with the temperature of the water droplet and raindrop, just as seawater CO2 capacity varies. This means glacier meltwater has a higher concentration of CO2 and as it trickles down through the ice layers modifies the ice bubbles as Jaworowski explained in his presentation to the US Senate Committee (March 2004).

This is because the ice cores do not fulfill the essential closed system criteria. One of them is a lack of liquid water in ice, which could dramatically change the chemical composition the air bubbles trapped between the ice crystals. This criterion, is not met, as even the coldest Antarctic ice (down to -73°C) contains liquid water[2]. More than 20 physico-chemical processes, mostly related to the presence of liquid water, contribute to the alteration of the original chemical composition of the air inclusions in polar ice[3].

IPCC maintained focus on the Carbon Cycle, but the Water Cycle is more important, especially as it relates to the dynamics of change. Put a dehydrated rock in a chamber and vary the temperature as much as possible and little happens. Add a few drops of water and the breakdown (weathering) of the rock is dramatic. Any climate experiment or research that excludes water, such as the list of greenhouse gases in dry air, is meaningless. Water exists everywhere on the planet.

Precipitation occurs over the oceans but we have virtually no measures so we cannot determine the diluting effect on the salinity and gaseous content of the critical surface layer. How much does precipitation as a 10 percent carbonic acid solution affect the CO2 measures of that layer? Snowmelt has a higher percentage of CO2 concentration.

Wind speed and direct

ion are major determinant of water distribution in the atmosphere and therefore across the world. It alters the impact of temperature, as we know from wind chill or heat index measures. What is the effect of a small increase in regional, hemispheric or global wind speed on the weather and climate?

Atmospheric pressure varies with temperature that determines the weight of the atmosphere pushing on the surface. How much do these changes affect sea level? We know it is considerable because of storm surges that accompany intense low-pressure systems.

The list of variables unmeasured, unknown or excluded from official IPCC science invalidates their models and their claims. Water in all its forms and functions is the most egregious. It also illustrates the degree of auto-correlation confronting climate research and understanding. It appears Wigley and therefore the IPCC knew of the problems but chose to sidestep them by carefully directing the focus – a scientific sleight of hand.

###

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of

Excellent article. Globaloneywarming is not science but a whole lot of stupid and fraud.

William Astley

If observations do not agree with the warmists’ agenda, they change the data, with no explanation, with no scientific logic to justify the change in the data. Science is by definition, the process of working to explain anomalies and paradoxes (a paradox is an anomaly which invalidates a theory or hypothesis and indicates there either fundamental theory errors or there is something that has been missed in the controlling variables.) Anomalies and paradoxes disappear when the science is corrected. The discovery of anomalies and paradoxes is the catalyst, often a necessary step in the process to solve the scientific puzzle.
http://icecap.us/images/uploads/NCDC_MaturityDiagramSince20080517.gif
The warmists are in denial, reality Vs their models. The plateau with no warming, the latitudinal paradox, the almost complete lack the predicted and required (if AGW forcing works as per theory) warming in the upper tropical troposphere, the fact that there are cycles of warming and cooling that match the same latitudinal warming observed in the last 100 years that we are observing now that correlate with solar magnetic cycle changes and that do not correlate in any manner with CO2 changes, and so on.
The observations support the assertion that roughly 90% of the warming in the last 100 years was due to solar magnetic cycle changes, rather than the increase in atmospheric CO2. The papers that allege to show the sun did not cause the warming in the last 100 years did not try to understand how the sun caused the warming. Something did cause the warming and the observations do not support the assertion that forcing mechanism was CO2.
The observations support the assertion that the sun has changed cycle to cycle, that there are multiple fundamental assumptions about the sun that are incorrect.
Likewise the observations support the assertion that the AGW forcing saturates due to a missing parameter in the upper troposphere. i.e. The laws of physics still work for greenhouse gases the reason why there is no tropospheric warming in the tropics is due to the missing parameter.

Craig Hamilton

Its good to see some of the assumptions of dendroclimatology being checked. But if water is a controlling variable at the tree-line, so should the other two factors of photosynthesis: sunlight and CO2. Temperature has never been shown to affect growth other than a miniscule effect on growing season length. However, sunny days are warmer in summer, which would tend to confound any efforts to correlate temperature and growth. Ambient levels of CO2 were climbing throughout the proxy calibration period of the early 20th century. It seems impossible to disentangle the effects of this CO2 enrichment from those of higher temperatures. In the latter part of the century, tree growth diverged from both, suggesting that some limit had been reached and trees were no longer starving for CO2.

dp

Regards climate science, discovery, analysis, accuracy, repeatability, thoroughness, and with a critical eye to minimizing uncertainty, we find this endeavor to be hard. Therefore we have elected to do it wrong.
Regards, the IPCC
/humor

Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.
Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850 and the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s. It wasn’t wigly or cru or the ippc
REPLY: You might want to calm down, wipe your monitor clean of spittle, and resubmit with all your points spelled correctly – Anthony

bw

Understanding the “Global Climate” is not possible using traditional science. This is due to the requirement that any scientific hypothesis must be tested against a control.
Physicists, engineers, geologists are reduced to “modeling” the Earth with computational based tools that amount to drawing cartoons.
Biologists are more experienced at understanding biological systems at the planetary scale, ie “Ecosystems” with their uniquely non-linear behavior patterns.
The Earth is a biological system, built upon billions of years of biochemical evolution.
I doubt there is a physicist anywhere that could describe how planetary albedo responds to surface biology over long time scales.

Brian H

Dr. Ball;
Perhaps your best yet. Very well written, to the point. Carry on carrying on!

DaveG

Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things. Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850 and the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s. It wasn’t wigly or cru or the ippc”
Steven Mosher = Mr.Know nothing, can’t even spell. You don’t come up to Dr Ball’s knees, and he is a short guy.

RichardLH

“How can two major agencies HadCRUT and GISS produce such different results,”
I think that it is remarkable that they do agree so well in some regards though.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut4gl/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/hadcrut4gl/mean:720
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/plot/gistemp/mean:220/mean:174/mean:144/plot/gistemp/mean:720
If a 15 year Gaussian rather than a 10 year one had ben the analysis done early on then things may well have been looked at differently.

RichardLH

Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“Ball … doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.”
And there I was thinking that they both measured Global temperature!

François GM

Mosher says: the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s.
—————-
CO2 raises temps in closed systems i.e. in test tubes, but clearly not significantly in an open system such as our atmosphere.
As to GISS and UAH, you know very well that Tim wasn’t comparing these two, but HADCRUT with GISS.

Werner Brozek

Table comparing results for four data sources for the period 2002 to 2011.
GISS and UAH differ by 0.36°C, which is enormous in nine years.

The actual difference in trend between GISS and UAH is extremely small from January 2002 to December 2011. They do have different base periods, and perhaps the base periods should be uniform across all data sets, but that is a different issue. See:
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/plot/uah/from:2002/to:2012/trend/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/plot/gistemp/from:2002/to:2012/trend

Genghis

Water in all its forms is obviously the most important climate factor.
The dry lapse rate is 9.8 C/km. The moist lapse rate is 5 C/km. What that means is that a moist atmosphere is warmer than a dry atmosphere. Increased levels of CO2 tend to increase the lapse rate thereby cooling the atmosphere, relative to a moist atmosphere.
It appears that what isn’t said is more important than what is said by the warmers.

CRS, DrPH

Great post, thanks!!

(i) data limitations.
As Lamb identified, lack of data was and remains the most serious limitation.

…this reminds me of one of my favorite Climategate email threads:

The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment and it is a
travesty that we can’t. The CERES data published in the August BAMS 09 supplement on
REDACTED shows there should be even more warming: but the data are surely wrong. Our
observing system is inadequate.

http://foia2011.org/index.php?id=198

Policycritic

the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s

Which was the same decade that an economist wrote that barter was the first money system (sea shells, rocks, wives, wampum, whatever) and everyone has believed it since as gospel truth. It was never corrected when in the 1950s the translation of the Sumerian tablets with their complex markings of debits and credits showed the highly sophisticated monetary system created 5,000 years ago to keep track of payments and transactions for harvests and trade over the period of a year. The tablets also displayed the financial ‘forward planning’ process used by the various Sumerian governments in the management of their agriculture, industry, and taxes. (History Begins at Sumer: Thirty-Nine Firsts in Recorded History by Samuel Noah Kramer.)

Schitzree

“GISS and UAH differ by 0.36°C, which is enormous in nine years. Compare it to the 0.6°C increase over 140 years, a change the 2001 IPCC claimed was dramatic and unnatural.”
Hey, I’m with Mosh on this one. Comparing UAH Sat Lower Trop Temps against GISS Weather Station Surface Temps was way wrong. You might as well throw HADSST in as well, you’ll find a similar ‘difference’. We wouldn’t accept that kind of apples to oranges comparison from warmists, so we sure as hell shouldn’t be making them ourselves.

Werner Brozek says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:59 pm (Edit)

Table comparing results for four data sources for the period 2002 to 2011.
GISS and UAH differ by 0.36°C, which is enormous in nine years.
The actual difference in trend between GISS and UAH is extremely small from January 2002 to December 2011. They do have different base periods, and perhaps the base periods should be uniform across all data sets, but that is a different issue. See:

OK.
So, remove that 0.4 baseline difference between GISS and UAH, and you get ???
(Hint: The two become nearly identical. But, if the other records were also re-zero’ed based on the last twelve years of monthly data, you also get a “uniform” identical record when the group is compared together. )
The last twelve years are different month-to-month only because of the baseline difference, which reinforces the idea that we getting consistent information from difference analytical data lists. Perhaps not independent data sources, but the difference methods are creating consistent monthly data.
ONLY the computer simulations are crashing and failing.

Alan Robertson

Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.
Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850 and the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s.
____________________________
Ah, Steven- art thou in the cups?
Are you suggesting that Arrehenius prediction of 5-6C degrees/doubling of CO2 is anything but unfortunate (or laughable)? Catch up!

Alan Robertson

I apologize to all- I responded to Mosher and further disrupted this thread, which i now understand was his intent all along, to distract from the truths put forth by Dr. Ball.
All apologies.

DR

@Mosher
We were told for decades the greenhouse effect would boil the planet, that at the equator it would cause unprecedented temperatures throughout the lower atmosphere and all sorts of catastrophic “stuff” was going to happen.
Instead of personal attacks, perhaps you could explain why the surface is warming faster than the lower troposphere, which is not what we were told should happen. After all, it’s simple high school physics right?

schitzree

Er, for the record, When I say “I’m with Mosh on this one”, I mean on the ‘don’t compare GISS to UAH’ part, not the ‘ human cause of climate change was identified 100 years before humans produced enough CO2 to possibly effect climate’ part. I can only assume that Mosher was worried about making an argument based on facts instead of snark, so handicapped himself by shooting himself in the foot.

DR

Who else remembers the myriads of magazine articles such as this and countless TV specials and news reports about how the “greenhouse effect” was going to cause heat to be “trapped” in the troposphere back in the late 80’s and 90’s……and believing it? I mean, who wouldn’t believe NASA with all them super smart scientists; they surely had to be right.
Remember Mosher, this is all high school physics we were told back then. We’re still told it is basic high school physics today, but was there a new hypothesis constructed to replace the one we were indoctrinated with 25 years ago? Has the science changed?
http://is.gd/pZdujx

James of the West

Mosher makes a valid point regarding baselines for comparison. Everyone makes typos on spelling from time to time.
I think people should be open to criticism and correction and respond each time on merit, avoiding personal attack. Stick to the science or we will reduce the value of the debate.

Climatologist

Wigley, Hansen, and Schneider damaged climate research almost beyond repair.

Felix

The WMO does not control national weather services. Funding for climate research in the U.S. is mainly from the NSF and many other major countries similar funding agencies. The idea the the WMO directs climate research funding is absurd. And the CRU does not control the IPCC. I’m afraid you all are going down the conspiracy theory path.
The IPCC reports give extensive discussion of the hydrologic (water) cycle.

“Steven Mosher says: December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.
Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850 and the first prediction that more co2 would raise temps was made in the 1890s. It wasn’t wigly or cru or the ippc” [sic, the whole paragraph]

Fair enough. Now about Steve Mosher knowing that this article is about “climate reconstruction” not comparing temperature series. Which part of climate reconstruction is GISS or HADCRUD? Dr. Ball listed them as examples in divergence where they supposedly present the same results albeit calculated differently.
Human cause of climate change was identified in 1850? Do tell? What’s with all of the funding nowadays if they already knew it back in 1850. And that first prediction that CO2 would raise temps back in 1890s; exactly how much did they predict the temperature to rise? Per ppm molecule of CO2? Or would you prefer to relabel these as postulates, not predictions?
Now about Dr. Tim Ball’s article above regarding climate reconstructions…?
Good article Dr. Ball!
It’s interesting how all of the weaknesses ascribing temperature influences to chronologies ignore previous works rather than build upon them. First they start with the assumption that all chronologies are temperature specific and all temps are CO2 caused… Where lies natural temperatures minus man’s influences? No one knows, especially not the CAGW believers as they’re too busy demonizing CO2.

Steve Case

I’ve always wondered about the tree ring studies and how they are supposed to be a proxy for temperature when trees obviously will respond to changes in precipitation and CO2 concentration – probably more than temperature.

john robertson

Has the MET reproduced the missing weather station data yet?
We were told it would take up to 3 years from early 2010 when the british authorities acknowledged that yes the CRU had lost or destroyed the data they had been entrusted with.
Without that data every claim of knowledge of climates past, made by these people is unsubstantiated noise.
Having fumbled my way thro the Harry Read Me, and from reports of others far less rusty in old codes, has the CRU ever explained what data sets they used? Or how they reached the conclusions they made?
How can any proxy “temperature” sets be said to correlate with past temperatures,when these past temperatures are still non-reproducible?

u.k.(us)

Probably best to sit on the sidelines when your host reads the “riot act”.

michael hart

Does QBO stand for “Quasi-biennial oscillation”? I can’t see it defined in the article.

PiperPaul

When the snipe hunt costs hundreds of billions of dollars per year it’s time to actually determine if the snipe actually exists. But wait, that leads to yet more boondoggle, government-paid research!

Hoser

I’m still reading. Compelled to say… And there are unknown knowns, the things we think we know, but actually don’t. If you lie to yourself, you can produce lots of these. Aren’t we discussing a great collective lie, and a great crumbling example of an unknown known?

Still curious why we don’t see anything put out that references the CRN for data since it would require no adjustment.

old engineer

Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
“Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period…”
=========================================================================
I have to agree with Steven on this. No where does Dr. Ball indicate that he has adjusted the anomalies from the different sources to same base period in his table under “(i) data limitations”. As far as I can tell from a quick check of the data listings, he hasn’t adjusted them.
The base periods for three of the sources are:
UAH – 1981 to 2010
GISS – 1951 to 1980
hadCRUT4 – 1961 to 1990
This comparing of anomalies using different base periods seems to be a common error by many here at WUWT.
The anomalies are calculated by subtracting the temperature from the average temperature over the base period. Thus, to compare the temperatures from different organizations, the anomalies must be brought to a common base period, and that base period should be stated with the data or graph.

David S

I am pleased to see a global warmists (like Steven Mosher) actually read this web site. Most warmists won’t even read anything that doesn’t fit their argument. It is only through the knowledge and understanding that we will be able to get through their (his) thick heads that they have backed the wrong side. To me the most important thing to highlight in the article is not that the impact of water on the climate system has been excluded from models but that the answer to the climate question was predetermined and assumed and all the science is manipulated to fit that answer. Science surely is about using data and information to determine an answer not using an answer to determine what the data and information is. That is why warmists end up with using different facts because they have to adapt the facts to achieve the predetermined answers that they have (wrongly) presumed.
Be thankful that Steve Mosher has read this web site because whilst his natural bias currently precludes him from seeing the truth he will eventually see the light. If all people ( not just all warmists, including the large number not committed ) then we would have no issues , the warmists case would collapse. It has been ignorance and the ability of friendly media that has been able to keep the warmists propaganda going when the empirical evidence is so contrary.

Non Nomen

>>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set climate research back thirty years, mostly by focusing world attention on CO2 and higher temperature. It was a classic misdirection that required planning. The IPCC was created for this purpose…<<
Can anyone tell who is or was the mastermind behind this scam?
There must be a name or names!

dp

Mosher is an old hippy with old hippy contrarian views but who has nothing of substance to say but says it often. And as you have all probably observed, this last he does well. Nobody says less better than Mosh when he’s wound up. Mosh is in that crowd that is famous for being famous. Nothing personal to his credit to draw on, his accolades fall from his always being in the right place with platitudes fit for a king and meant for a dunce. But platitudes they are. His contribution to climate science is quite alike that of the contribution of the weasel to the hen house. His role is only to steal the buzz, to hush what everyone else is talking about.

climateace

Mr Ball seems to be entirely missing the point that if it rains a lot but the sun don’t shine then the crops won’t grow.
In other words, every single cropping farmer knows more about this sort of stuff than Mr Ball.

Martyn

“Gross misuse of tree rings” Ah yes, Dendrocriminology.

AlecM

Perhaps Wigley should be prosecuted for scientific fraud.

Peter Miller

At the end of the day, this is all about having pre-determined conclusions that you need to ‘prove’ in your models or ‘research’.
So if the data won’t support the required conclusions, then you change the data – GISS is a classic example of this, or you interpret the data by using extreme bias on some parts of the data – Mann et alia.
I cannot understand why anyone would feel the need to have a hissy fit over any of the contents of this reasonable and rationally argued article.

Stephen Richards

Steven Mosher says:
December 27, 2013 at 5:11 pm
Ball doesnt even know how to put different series on the same basis period and doesnt even know that giss and uah measure fundamentally different things.
Finally the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850
Steven, you are fast becoming the resident looney. A fall from intelligence such as yours I have never witnessed.
“The human cause of climate change was NOT IDENTIFIED in 1850. It was postulated. If you remember all IPCC reports focus on the AGW since the 1950s.
Get a grip man. !!!!

While I do agree with most of what Dr. Ball has written (precipitation is not temperature, even if somewhat related), I have strong objections against the following alinea:
The amount of CO2 in the ice crystals varies with the temperature of the water droplet and raindrop, just as seawater CO2 capacity varies. This means glacier meltwater has a higher concentration of CO2 and as it trickles down through the ice layers modifies the ice bubbles as Jaworowski explained in his presentation to the US Senate Committee
That may be right for the edge of icefields, where temperatures are around freezing: melting in summer and freezing in winter. That is very seldom for coastal ice cores in Antarctica (one remelt layer in 70 years for the Siple Dome ice core at average -21°C) and non-existing for the high altitude inland ice cores like Vostok and Dome C at -40°C).
Even in the Vostok ice core there are microspots of liquid water, but only where contamination (dust) is incorporated in the ice layers. That doesn’t influence the CO2 levels to any detectable extent, neither influences the temperature proxy (dD or d18O) measured in the ice water molecules).
That is far from the objections that the late Jaworowski proposed (in 1992), but which were largely refuted by the work done by Etheridge e.a. on three Law Dome ice cores (in 1996). See:
http://www.ferdinand-engelbeen.be/klimaat/jaworowski.html
The fact that the late Jaworowski still used the same refuted arguments years later in his 2004 letter to the US Senate Committee doesn’t plead for his knowledge after 1992…
Moreover, what closed the door for me is that he insisted that CO2 can migrate from inside the ice core bubble air at 180-300 ppmv to the outside air at 360-380 ppmv at measuring time through cracks in the ice caused by drilling and relaxation. That is physically impossible, it is the reverse. If there is any migration it is always from higher levels to lower levels…
So, let the late Jaworowski rest in peace, together with his ideas about CO2 in ice cores. His ideas were already completely outdated the moment that he wrote his letter to the US Senate Committee.
For more knowledge about ice core measurements, see:
http://courses.washington.edu/proxies/GHG.pdf
the gas distribution models are confirmed by the distribution of the 14CO2 spike from the atomic bomb tests 1950-1960:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/96GL03156/abstract

Stephen Richards

Be thankful that Steve Mosher has read this web site because whilst his natural bias currently precludes him from seeing the truth he will eventually see the light.
David, Mosher moved from the light to the dark during a period of several months some tears ago. He won’t be coming back.
You may have noted that the most fervent islamist terrorists are the recently converted.

Stephen Richards

Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:17 am
Are you assuming a constant, non-changing mix of air in the ice bubbles?

Geoff Barnes

Non Nomen says:
December 27, 2013 at 11:55 pm
>>The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) set climate research back thirty years, mostly by focusing world attention on CO2 and higher temperature. It was a classic misdirection that required planning. The IPCC was created for this purpose…<<
Can anyone tell who is or was the mastermind behind this scam?
There must be a name or names!
————————————————————————————————————————-
Non Nomen, I reccommend you check out Sir Maurice Strong, ex-Canadian oil billionaire and founder of the UN IPCC. He's been a VERY naughty boy!

FerdiEgb

Stephen Richards says:
December 28, 2013 at 1:23 am
Are you assuming a constant, non-changing mix of air in the ice bubbles?
Once the bubbles are closed, there is no measurable change in composition. That can be seen in the fact that CO2 “closely” (with a lag of 800 to several thousands of years) follows temperature changes with the same ratio over 800,000 years (at about 8 ppmv/°C).
If there was substantial migration, the ratio between CO2 peaks and temperature peaks would fade over time for each interglacial 100 kyr back in time, which is not the case.
There were attempts to calculate the theoretical migration speed from the extra CO2 levels in the vicinity of remelt layers at the relative “warm” Siple Dome ice core, but even these give very low migration speeds: a worsening of the resolution from 20 to 22 years at low depth (2.74 kyr old) to 40 years at full depth (70 kyr old):
http://catalogue.nla.gov.au/Record/3773250

Bill Illis

In Antarctica, it takes about 30 years for solid glacial ice to form. This ice does seem to then faithfully record the CO2 levels of the period thirty years previous.
But this process does not work at Greenland. Ever see the CO2 or CH4 numbers from Greenland? They are available but have not been published and are never used. The scientists just gave up due to the random results.
So the reliability of ice core gas measurements does seem to depend on local conditions.

@Mosher:
Robert W Wood in 1909 proved the GH effect of Arthenius 1896 was a failure.

Man Bearpig

Steve Mosher: …. giss and uah measure fundamentally different things …
Well yes they do, but you would not know that by looking at the GISS world temperature maps. In fact the UAH is probably the more accurate and that shows trends that could be described as being with normal distributions.
The problem with GISS is that it is adjusted and the results of Climategate meant that no body trusts these scientists ‘fudge factors’ and all – we will not forget, ever. To consider that at one point I was taken in by all this BS when it was called ‘Global Warming’ but thanks to exposes like the great global warming swindle and FOIA’s climate gate I know the real truth as do millions of others.
Steve, why do they keep having to change the name of this, Global Warming, Climate Change, Climate Disruption, Weather Weirding? eh ?