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 al’s 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,
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.
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.
###
Related articles
- Celebrated Physicist Calls IPCC Summary ‘Deeply Unscientific’
- A look at treemometers and tree ring growth
“the human cause of climate change was identified in 1850” – Mosh
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
In fact, the human cause of “climate change” was identified much earlier, by James Sprenger and Henry Kramer in 1486:
” Hopefully Mosh will weigh in here with his report once he’s recovered from the trip.”
He never did recover.
RACookPE1978 says:
December 27, 2013 at 6:27 pm
For the first part, you had a very convoluted way of saying you agree with me.
As for the last paragraph, the comment was interesting however it would have been more suited to my own article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/22/hadcrut4-is-from-venus-giss-is-from-mars-now-includes-november-data/
I plotted the last 4 years of both GISS and HadCRUT4 not expecting to find anything of significance, but was surprised to see that for 3 out of the last 4 years, the July numbers are very close but there is a huge gap in other months. Perhaps the Julys in one base period were indeed very different than in another base period relative to the March or September values.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/gistemp/from:2010/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:2010
Thank you very much for this insight!
Thank you for compliment.
From that article: (But specifically referring to the graph immediately following this sentence)
Now, look again at your graph, but see how every temperature plot (on a month-to-month level) follows a near-constant offset from each other. You’ve plotted the “zero slope” averages on that graph, but – if you were to “normalize” each of the different temperature curves so that every “slope” is displayed on top of each other, the individual temperature curves would also lay very, very closely on top of each other.
RACookPE1978 says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:14 pm
the individual temperature curves would also lay very, very closely on top of each other
I agree, which is why I originally said above:
“The actual difference in trend between GISS and UAH is extremely small”
Gail Combs
Well, that is the one thing he doesn’t mention and if he did it would have been irrelevant to the point about anomalies.
Since you recommended the linked article I assumed you may have understood some of it.
Rather than cutting and pasting what you don’t understand, it may raise the level of discussion if you were more selective. Try to understand some of it.
I prefer quality to sheer volume of garbage.
Pamela Gray says:
December 28, 2013 at 9:40 am
The validity refers to the trend line that would show an increase in temperature during the 20th century. It says nothing about the cause of that increase. Given that you accept the temperature measurements it indicates that there was a statistically significant temperature increase, albeit of a fraction of a degree. That is all.
Whether such an increase is due to rising CO2 or something else can not be determined from a simple plot of temperature against time.
Of course GISS and UAH are measuring different components/areas, such that any comparison needs to be made with extreme caution. However, that said, 2 points arise:
1. where is the warming that GISS measures going if it does not go into the atmosphere being measured by UAH?
2. why should the ground (near ground – weather station height) warm at a greater rate than the mid atmosphere being measured by UAH?
Does the divergence shed any light on the cause of the warming being measured? For example,
(i) if the ground surface is warming faster than the atmosphere, does this suggest changes in solar (by which I include changes in cloudiness and transparency of the atmosphere) is the more significant cause?
(ii) if warming is the result of GHGs, would one expect to see first a warming of the atmosphere which warmer atmosphere then leads to warming of the ground surface?
Just
TB,
Umm, sorry but a tree growing in a forest, is growing in a microclimate, nothing like the tree growing in the clearing, also as the forest grows up around the sapling in the clearing, competition means its growth rate will decline presenting as a cooling climate while the tree growing in the forest will have a different growth pattern entirely steadier, more likely
Dr. Ball has rightly been criticised for failing to recognise that the differences in anomalies are due to different baselines. Anthony should also admit oversight in going ahead and authorising this post. He of all people should know that correction for baseline should be made, having been caught out on this in the past on this subject (e.g. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/02/28/a-look-at-4-globaltemperature-anomalies/).
Unfortunately, he has chosen to spend his time on making a personal attack on Steve Mosher when the latter has pointed this error out.
NOt WUWT’s finest hour.
Well the lot of you beating up Dr. Ball for the work done by Paul Homewood, should read the work done by Paul Homewood. No the baselines were not adjusted, but the comparison is valid. Read Mr. Homewood’s work before you shoot off your mouth!
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/23/global-temperature-updates-2012/
Usually if your going to criticize you make sure you know what you are criticizing and if the work or table is referenced to someone else’s work you should review that work before making a bunch of silly statements!
v/r,
David Riser
@David Riser, I share your concern, there is an element of tribalism on this post.
Mosher has become a person to ignore, his posts have become quite strange and pointless.
The high level of snark directed at Dr Ball, for his perceived failure to discriminate between the anomalies, is mooted by the link, to Paul Homewood directly under the posted numbers.
Attack the man, never mind the message?
The focus on Russian warm anomalies: did we not learn that Soviet-Russian allocated oil/heating supplies based on expected and experienced winter temperatures, so that temperatures were always estimated/fudged DOWN? When the Union and its systems fell down, there was no incentive to cool things, so temperature readings popped up to match reality. So a comparison of today’s temps vs 30-year old temps will always show today to be warmer?
For a while we read on WUWT of the disagreement between local governmental records, like those of Iceland, with the GISS records. Did that disconnect ever go away or, in the way of all Big Lies, just disappear from the public awareness?
David Riser and john robertson
I’m sorry, but WHAT? From the linked post by Mr. Homewood
“[Remember all four sets are based on different base periods, so the absolute numbers are not directly comparable]”
So Paul Homewood himself said you shouldn’t directly compare the different sets, which is what We’ve been complaining that Dr. Ball has done.
“Usually if your going to criticize you make sure you know what you are criticizing ” Indeed.
@schitzree,I’m sorry but What?
Anomalies are unfit for the purpose.
The example offered by Dr Ball, is directly linked to Paul Homewood’s work.
Every reader is capable of clicking on said link and drawing their own conclusions.
That these imaginary variations have such different “bases” and return diverging value,while pretending to measure the same thing, is the point .
Never mind that the trend is either less than the inherent noise in the measurements over the longer term (1850-2012), or lacks sufficient duration to have much meaning(1979-present).
Given the thrust of this post, I felt that Dr Balls use of this example, fit perfectly, with the way the IPCC, misrepresents the available information.
TB
“Well it would be enormous – as there is 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS!”
Actually there may be 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS but not when calculating the base lines of these two series. Both contain 30 years data although the periods only overlap by 20 years. Also the average “anomaly” derived by Dr. Ball compares the same 10 year period (2002-11), not longer term periods, for both series. Hence reference to GISS’s extra 27 years of data is spurious.
If the two series, which both measure the increase of temperature, are compatible it would appear that, using elementary group theory (probably so elementary as to be incorrect), the period 1981-1990 was 0.08C warmer than the period 1951-60. Hence an increase of .027C per decade which would equate to 0.267C per century. Or 0.37C over 140 years, which does not fit in well with either Dr. Ball’s reference to the IPCC’s 0.6C or to TB’s estimated 0.8C.
But, of course, it is nonsense to extract a long term trend over any period as short as thirty years let alone ten years. The hockey playing climate scientists may “discover” this in another 13 years, if current global temperatures do not warm up soon.
schitzree,
Dr. Ball and Mr. Homewood were not talking about a straight comparison of absolute numbers, the table compares monthly difference, trend and annual variation, all based on the same data supposedly and all different, which you would understand if you read the article and actually looked at what is in the table!
v/r,
David Riser
Solomon Green says:
December 29, 2013 at 11:47 am
TB
“Well it would be enormous – as there is 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS!”
Actually there may be 27 years of data missing from the UAH when compared with GISS but not when calculating the base lines of these two series. Both contain 30 years data although the periods only overlap by 20 years. Also the average “anomaly” derived by Dr. Ball compares the same 10 year period (2002-11), not longer term periods, for both series. Hence reference to GISS’s extra 27 years of data is spurious.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>Solomon:
With the above then all I can say is you don’t understand statistical technique.
The point is, if you don’t align all data for comparison at the same start date then you end up calculating a slope on the trend line that is not comparable.
As there is variability in the data, where a trend line is drawn from/to makes a large difference to it’s slope.
The data Mr Ball drew comparison from were not drawn starting at 2002. They were drawn from their start dates. Ie GISS=1951, Hadcrut 1961, UAH 1978, RSS 1979.
I chose to base them at 1981.
Try it for yourself in the way I outlined in the OP.
Also from Mr Homewood himself:
“Just to confirm John Peter’s point, each of the four datasets use different baselines, against which they calculate their anomalies, so it is not the absolute numbers which are comparable but the change in them over time.”
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“If the two series, which both measure the increase of temperature, are compatible it would appear that, using elementary group theory (probably so elementary as to be incorrect), the period 1981-1990 was 0.08C warmer than the period 1951-60. Hence an increase of .027C per decade which would equate to 0.267C per century. Or 0.37C over 140 years, which does not fit in well with either Dr. Ball’s reference to the IPCC’s 0.6C or to TB’s estimated 0.8C.”
Look at the graph I link and place a transparent ruler on it to do a simple division of area and you will find ~0.8C.
It is also the accepted rise according to the IPCC.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
“But, of course, it is nonsense to extract a long term trend over any period as short as thirty years let alone ten years. The hockey playing climate scientists may “discover” this in another 13 years, if current global temperatures do not warm up soon.”
No, 30 years is OK – that should allow natural climate cycles such as ENSO/PDO to play out.
Which is the major reason we have a “pause” currently. However some find it convenient to omit the oceans in this equation. Convenient, as it contains >90% of the climates heat energy.
Ocean temps are rising – very, v, slowly yes, but due the enormous heat capacity of them, a 0.06C rise (as is measured in the deep ocean) would translate to a 60C rise in the atmosphere (1000x the mass). This is of course only hypothetical as it would be impossible. While ever ocean temps are rising then the atmosphere’s rising temp cannot be coming from the oceans (unless we have sea/floor heating on an enormous scale) as the oceans would cool by passing on stored energy into the atmosphere.
BTW: the pause has not lasted 17 years. The last big El Nino was 1998 (which would make 15 years BTW), but on the GISS data base 2005 was warmer – that makes 8 years.
TB says:
December 29, 2013 at 2:20 pm
No, 30 years is OK – that should allow natural climate cycles such as ENSO/PDO to play out.
ENSO will play out but PDO, NAO and a few others have cycles of 60-80 years. That is what may have influenced the leveling/cooling 1945-1975, the warming 1976-2000 and the current stall. Probably not by coincidence on the rythm of the PDO…
MikeB says: @ur momisugly December 29, 2013 at 1:57 am
Gail Combs…
Rather than cutting and pasting what you don’t understand, it may raise the level of discussion if you were more selective
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
If I do not give links and quotes. _Jim jumps down my throat every single time so take your complains up with him.
………
To me it is obvious what John Kehr was talking about, the in-balance between hemispheres.
As far as temperature goes it is an rotten method for measuring energy in the first place. Also anomalies to two decimal points is deceptive since the actual sample size is ONE and the readings are often truncated (not even rounded) to the whole number. That is just the tip of the iceberg when it come to the surface temperature dataset(s) and it’s problems.
In other words the data is junk!
john robertson says:
Yes, and what many of us have concluded is that Dr. Ball was wrong to make the comparison, just as Mr. Homewood said.
I hope that’s not the point, because it’s wrong. They don’t measure the same thing, pretend or otherwise. HADCRUT4 and GISS measure surface temperature, while UAH and RSS measure lower troposphere. while they both are part of the atmosphere they are very diferent things.
So the choice of a Base Period is arbitrary. That doesn’t mean you can just ignore it. The choice of useing Fahrenheit or Celcius is arbitrary too, but you can’t just compare temperatures in one to the other.
I REALLY hope I’m misreading that last sentance, becouse it SOUNDS like you’r saying since the IPCC and alarmists lie and misrepresent, so can we.
David Riser says:
Alright, first I’ve obviously already read the article and looked at the table, So every time you make a snide comment to do so you just end up looking like an ass.
Second, While Mr. Homewood isn’t makeing a straight comparison of absolute numbers, Dr. Ball clearly is.
Dr. Ball
And no, Dr. Ball linking to an article that says you shouldn’t do what he just did doesn’t make it alright. And I have no idea where you get that GISS and UAH is based on the same data. one’s weather station data and the other is satellite. They use different methods to measure different things. You can’t just compare one to the other, as Mr. Homewood said in the quote I posted above.
Many times I replaced emails with Professor Jaworowski.
To the last moment of his life, Professor Jaworowski claimed that ice cores do not tell of truth about past concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere (especially the interpretation of research results is incorrect). Comments – analyses Ferdinand Engelbeen – according to Professor Jaworowski , are mainly the result of a misunderstanding of Professor Jaworowski arguments.
I (at the beginning) also recall yet another process (not mentioned here), which may have effect on the CO2 content of the “geological” air in the bubbles in ice cores.
Raymond, (2008), (http://www.springerlink.com/index/lk62448r21983n06.pdf):
“Here we describe such a protein from one of the Vostok ice core …”
“Triple junctions, where the boundaries of three ice crystal grains meet, are considered especially important as microbial refugia because of their greater liquid volume and tendency to accumulate ions and nutrients excluded from the ice …”
Ferdinand Engelbeen, should also to compare these graphs:
(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/images/romanovsky_fig3.gif),
(http://www.arctic.noaa.gov/detect/detection-images/land-permafrost-siberia-sml.jpg),
(http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/Pelejero-et-al-2005-small.gif),
(http://www.co2science.org/articles/V12/N22/Wei-et-al-2009-small.gif),
and … (http://www.biomind.de/realCO2/bilder/CO2back1826-1960eorevk.jpg).
Please look at the years c. 1940 to 1960 – very interesting similarities, is not it?
It looks significantly otherwise (at the time – c. 1940 to 1960) than here (http://cmi.princeton.edu/images/annual_reports/2010/figure-22.jpg) when we have to use (mainly – among others) data from ice cores: for estimation of natural – terrestrial sources of CO2.
Conclusion: natural sources (their rise in the XX-th century) have a significant (perhaps even decisive) contribution to present unbalanced carbon in the atmosphere – not anthropogenic CO2.
Need to once again to analyze data from ice cores, because it on them (mainly) based on the theory of AGW.
P.S. I also recommend: (http://noconsensus.wordpress.com/2010/03/06/historic-variations-in-co2-measurements/#comment-43813) – this discussion is still valid.
On the other hand, especially for Ferdinand Engelbeen, I recommend this sequence of this citations:
Siani et al., 2013. (http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/131108/ncomms3758/full/ncomms3758.html): “These results, along with records of foraminifera benthic–planktic 14C age and δ13C difference, provide evidence for three periods of enhanced upwelling in the Southern Ocean during the last deglaciation, supporting the hypothesis that Southern Ocean upwelling contributed to the deglacial rise in atmospheric CO2.”
Basak et al., 2010. (http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n11/full/ngeo987.html): “During the last deglaciation, atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations rose at the same time that the Δ14C of that CO2 fell.”
Commenting on their work: Wind-Driven Upwelling in the Southern Ocean and the Deglacial Rise in Atmospheric CO2, (http://www.sciencemag.org/content/323/5920/1443.abstract)Anderson et al. 2009.,( http://www.earth.columbia.edu/articles/view/2397) the authors write:
“The faster the ocean turns over, the more deep water rises to the surface to release CO2,” said lead author Robert Anderson, a geochemist at Lamont-Doherty. “It’s this rate of overturning that regulates CO2 in the atmosphere.” In the last 40 years, the winds have shifted south much as they did 17,000 years ago [!], said Anderson.”
Mayr et al., 2013. (http://geology.gsapubs.org/content/41/8/831.abstract): “… phenomenon with CO2 release from the deep ocean.” “This is in agreement with an increase in zonal wind strength extending to the southern mid-latitudes …”
Varma et al., 2011. (http://www.clim-past.net/7/339/2011/cp-7-339-2011.html):
‘Variations in their intensity and latitudinal position have been suggested to exert a strong influence on the CO2 budget in the Southern Ocean, thus making them a potential factor affecting the global climate.” “Taken together, the proxy and model results suggest that centennial-scale periods of lower (higher) solar activity caused equatorward (southward) shifts of the annual mean SWW.”
Varma et al. 2012. (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2012GL053403/abstract): “The SWW shift is more intense and robust for the simulation with varying stratospheric ozone, suggesting an important influence of solar-induced stratospheric ozone variations on mid-latitude troposphere dynamics.”
Jiao et al., 2013., Why productive upwelling areas are often sources rather than sinks of CO2 ? (http://www.biogeosciences-discuss.net/10/13399/2013/bgd-10-13399-2013-print.pdf): “Marine upwelling regions are known to be productive in carbon fixation and thus thought to be sinks of CO2, whereas many upwelling areas in the ocean are actually sources rather than sinks of CO2.” “On top of that, microbial respiration could be stimulated and accelerated …”
To this I will add terrestrial source – Zimov, 2005. (http://forms.mbl.edu/sjp/pdf/readings/zimov_permafrost2005.pdf): “The 13C/12C isotope ratio of the permafrost reservoir is similar to that of soil, vegetation, and marine biota. Unlike these reservoirs, however, permafrost carbon is depleted in radiocarbon (14C).” “About 4 m of yedoma-like soils accumulated across 3 million km2 in the steppe-tundra ecosystems of Europe and south of West Siberia toward the end of the glacial age and thawed …” “… it would have released about 500 Gt of permafrost carbon …” (latest research claim that it may be up to two times more). So, as in the twentieth century: (http://www.skepticalscience.com/pics/1_Fig.2loss-of-permafrost.png – SKS-J.C., are not happy when I quote – in this context, their graph).
TB
I see the last row of Dr. Ball’s table as being averages not trends. Each shows the average anomaly over a period of ten years from a baseline which has been calculated over a period of thirty years. These baselines are not trends but are themselves averages. Incidentally, they are not points, nor are they affected in any way by the measurements outside the thirty year period over which each has been produced. If the baselines were identical the anomalies should be identical. As you have pointed out the baselines are not identical because they cover different thirty year periods. But on the assumption that they measure the same quantity, the data upon which each baseline is calculated should be identical for twenty years and the only differences should arise from the difference between the first ten and the last ten of the total forty year period.
Since the average temperature over the ten year period 2002-2011 must be identical (or should be, if the measuring systems were trustworthy – which, of course, they are not) then the fact that the anomalies differ can only be due to differences in the baselines. But since 20 years of each baseline overlaps, the only difference in the anomalies must lie in the difference between the average temperatures over the periods 1951-1960 and 1981-1990. Again that assumes that the two measuring systems are producing identical or near identical results (which we are entitled to assume although we know that they do not).
Hence, tongue in cheek, the difference that Dr. Ball has arrived at of 0.08C in the two measurements must be due to an increase in average temperature of that amount as between the periods 1951-1960 and 1981-1990. But, since the two series produce different raw data and are probably adjusted using different techniques, all the above shows is that until the five major sources can agree on the data and the manner in which they adjust that data they are not really fit for purpose.
I stand corrected as to the period for which no statistical warming has been seen. I have taken my period starting in 1997 and not 1998 and ending in 2013. That makes seventeen years but starting in 1998 and ending in 2012 does make fifteen years hence the difference between us.
As for thirty years sufficing, try looking at HADCRUT 4 data for the period 1880 -2009. I think that you will agree that based on those thirty years the twentieth century was heading towards a mini ice-age. Indeed that is what climate scientists were still telling us in the 1970s, based on the immediate previous thirty year period. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling]
PS I gave up statistics after my master’s in math, because I became convinced that there was too much concentration on technique and too little on the derivation and analysis of the raw data before processing began, so you are absolutely correct in stating that “you don’t understand statistical technique”.
We may beg to differ but I wish you and yours a happy new year and I hope that you are correct in your prognosis that the earth will continue to warm a little, it is freezing here.
Ferdinand Engelbeen says:
December 29, 2013 at 3:56 pm
TB says:
December 29, 2013 at 2:20 pm
No, 30 years is OK – that should allow natural climate cycles such as ENSO/PDO to play out.
ENSO will play out but PDO, NAO and a few others have cycles of 60-80 years. That is what may have influenced the leveling/cooling 1945-1975, the warming 1976-2000 and the current stall. Probably not by coincidence on the rythm of the PDO…
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Ferdinand – we are both wrong to a degree…
PDO…
From:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_decadal_oscillation
“The Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO) is a pattern of change in the Pacific Ocean’s climate. The PDO is detected as warm or cool surface waters in the Pacific Ocean, north of 20° N. During a “warm”, or “positive”, phase, the west Pacific becomes cool and part of the eastern ocean warms; during a “cool” or “negative” phase, the opposite pattern occurs. It shifts phases on at least inter-decadal time scale, usually about 20 to 30 years.”
NAO is the quantification of the pressure differential in the N Atlantic. Determined between the Azores and Iceland. Most of the time it is +ve ( LP in N Atlantic). When –ve LP is to the S and HP in the Iceland region. It’s not a cycle but an index.
However there is one cycle that is longer then 30 years – the AMO (Atlantic Multidecade Oscillation)
From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantic_multidecadal_oscillation
“There is no demonstrated predictability for when the AMO will switch, in any deterministic sense. >snip<……
Assuming that the AMO continues with its quasi-cycle of roughly 70 years, the peak of the current warm phase would be expected in c. 2020 or based on its 50–90 year quasi-cycle, between 2000 and 2040 (after peaks in c. 1880 and c. 1950)
I don’t know of any other (internal) cycles that are beyond 30 years however.
Solar yes.
Solomon Green says:
December 31, 2013 at 11:47 am
“As for thirty years sufficing, try looking at HADCRUT 4 data for the period 1880 -2009. I think that you will agree that based on those thirty years the twentieth century was heading towards a mini ice-age. Indeed that is what climate scientists were still telling us in the 1970s, based on the immediate previous thirty year period. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling]”
Please don’t mistake media hype for consensus science. (it makes a good news story – I remember it well)
From: http://journals.ametsoc.org/doi/pdf/10.1175/2008BAMS2370.1
“The survey identified only seven articles indicating cooling compared to 42 indicating
warming. Those seven cooling articles garnered just 12% of the citations.”
As to the variation seen in the Hadcrut4 data – I see a steady rise from the early 1900’s interrupted only during the “Global Dimming” period spanning the 1960’s to 80’s exacerbated by Pinatubo.
“Global dimming is the gradual reduction in the amount of global direct irradiance at the Earth’s surface that was observed for several decades after the start of systematic measurements in the 1950s. The effect varies by location, but worldwide it has been estimated to be of the order of a 4% reduction over the three decades from 1960–1990. However, after discounting an anomaly caused by the eruption of Mount Pinatubo in 1991, a very slight reversal in the overall trend has been observed.
Variable aerosol concentration is not a cycle, rather a chaotic response to human, and occasionally natural occurrences. Via increased albedo.
And the Milankovitch cycles tell us we were not “heading for an IA”…
http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/insolation-at-65-north.jpg
Insolation at 65 deg N is increasing and the SH is receiving ~8% more than the NH