Guest Opinion: Dr. Tim Ball
We were told in October, before 2014 was over, that it was heading toward being the warmest year on record (Figure 1). The visual link of Polar Bears underscored the message. In fact, 2014 was among the coldest 3 percent of years of the last 10,000, but that doesn’t suit the political agenda.
Figure 1
We know the headline referred to NOAA’s projection, but the public only remember “warmest year”. It is a routine of manipulation of headlines practiced by bureaucrats and supporters of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPPC), from the start. The claim was not surprising, because NOAA was pushing 2014 as warm beginning in January with this headline “NOAA: January 2014 fourth-warmest on record.” Various months were identified during the year, for example, “NOAA: August 2014 Was The Warmest On Record,” noting August was the warmest by a fraction. But they had already reported,
The summer of 2014 is officially the hottest since the modern instrumental record began more than 130 years ago, according to the latest state of the climate report from NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center.
By October they were summarizing the year.
“This makes the first ten months of 2014 the warmest January to October period on record and puts 2014 on track to be the warmest year recorded in the NOAA archive, which dates back to 1880.”
Bob Tisdale provided an excellent summary of the “Anticipation” for two surface records from GISS and NCDC. He was not surprised when these records appeared, showing 2014 was the warmest, according to them, by 0.02°C. Remember, this is from a record that is restricted by the historic record to measurements of 0.5°C. We also know the two satellite records, RSS and UAH, both show it was not the warmest year.
To counteract the headline you need something very dramatic, because there is nothing significant about the 2014 temperature as Tisdale plans to identify in an upcoming article titled, The Uptick in Global Surface Temperatures in 2014 Doesn’t Help the Growing Difference between Climate Models and Reality. He is interested in seeing how Gavin Schmidt, who replaced James Hansen at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), is carrying the torch. History shows that GISS readings are consistently higher than all other sources. It is just one indicator of the temperature adjustments made so the AGW hypothesis fits the political agenda.
Challenges and IPCC Fixes
How valid is the 2014 claim? In the 10,000 – year context, it is significant because it is among the 3 percent coldest years, which is far more significant than the 100-year warm alarmists proclaim. There are two major reasons: Highest readings occur in the most recent years of a rising temperature record. Every alteration, adjustment amendment and abridgment of the record so far, was done to create and emphasize increasingly higher temperatures.
1. The instrumental data is spatially and temporally inadequate. Surface weather data is virtually non-existent and unevenly distributed for 85 percent of the world’s surface. There are virtually none for 70 percent of the oceans. On the land, there is virtually no data for the 19 percent mountains, 20 percent desert, 20 percent boreal forest, 20 percent grasslands, and 6 percent tropical rain forest. In order to “fill-in”, the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS), made the ridiculous claim that a single station temperature was representative of a 1200 km radius region. Initial claims of AGW were based on land-based data. The data is completely inadequate as the basis for constructing the models.
2. Most surface stations are concentrated in eastern North America and Western Europe and became the early evidence for human induced global warming. IPCC advocates ignored, for a long time, the fact that these stations are most affected by the urban heat island effect (UHIE).
The UHIE was one of the first challenges to the claim of AGW evidenced in the instrumental record. Two graphs produced by Warwick Hughes were the most effective and appeared in 1991, shortly after the first IPCC Report in 1990. Figure 2 shows temperature at six major Australian cities.
Figure 2
A most likely explanation for the increasing UHIE, is expansion of the suburban area until it encompassed airport weather stations originally outside the city. The automobile made this possible. Figure 3 provides a comparison with 26 rural stations.
Figure 3
The difference is marked. What is equally interesting is that temperatures were higher in the first part of the record from 1880 and 1900.
3. There is a consistent revision of the record to lower historic readings. This increases the gradient of supposed warming. It is apparent in the New Zealand record(Figure 4).
Figure 4
A search of WUWT, using the term “Temperature adjustments”, yields a plethora of evidence. Every adjustment serves to change the gradient of the curve making today warmer than the past. Explanations, when given, usually provide little justification for the adjustment. The other tell tale sign is that virtually all adjustments occur before the UAH satellite temperature record began in 1991.
4. Policy anticipated that satellite data would replace the need for surface weather stations. As a result many weather stations were abandoned (Figure 5), or at least not included in the calculation of the global average.
“The figures below indicate
a the number of stations with record length at least N years as a function of N ,
b the number of reporting stations as a function of time,
c the percent of hemispheric area located within 1200km of a reporting station.”
The number of surface stations was inadequate in 1960, but was further reduced in 1990. Notice that only approximately 1000 stations cover 100 years.
But how accurate can the global temperature be when Antarctica is omitted. Consider the IPCC conclusion
Most of the observed increase in global average temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic GHG concentrations. It is likely that there has been significant anthropogenic warming over the past 50 years averaged over each continent (except Antarctic).
Antarctica is 14 million km2, an area almost equal to Russia, (17 million km2), the largest country on Earth.
Add to that the 14 million km2 of the Arctic Ocean, for which there is no data, as the Arctic Climate Impact Assessment (ACIA) Report notes (Figure 6).
Figure 6
Extent of these regions is one thing, their role in world climate is another, and arguably far more important than almost any other region.
6. Figure 6 shows that fewer stations are a contributing factor to higher temperatures.
Figure 6
Stations NOAA used from the Global Historical Climate Network (GHCN) in Canada illustrate the problem. (Figure 7).
Figure 7
There are 100 stations north of the Arctic Circle, but NOAA only uses Eureka, a known warm anomaly, to cover 1/3 of the second largest country on Earth. Even the 1200km measure doesn’t apply.
7. Alteration of the historic record includes the infamous hockey stick, in which a member of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) group is reported to have told Professor David Deming, “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period? That involved creating the handle of the hockey stick. The blade was formed from CRU Director Phil Jones’ data that showed an increase of 0.6°C in approximately 120 years. The problem was the error factor was ±0.2°C or ±33 percent.
8. 20th century temperature trends begin with warming from 1900 to 1940, cooling from 1940 to 1980, warming from 1980 to 1998 and a slight cooling trend to 2014. Alarmists attributed the cooling to human addition of sulphate, but that failed when temperatures began to rise, with no decline in sulphate levels.
9. If we accept overall warming from 1900, which is reasonable as the Earth emerges from the Little Ice Age (LIA), then the highest temperatures will occur in the most recent record (Figure 8).
Figure 8
Identifying that 2014 was fractionally warmer than any other in the record does not change the trend of the “pause”. It does not enhance the CO2 causation claim.
10. The claim is 2014 is 0.02°C warmer than any other year. It is reasonable to assume that the US temperature record is among the best. Anthony Watts showed that only 7.9 percent of US stations are accurate to < 1°C. (Figure 9)
Figure 9
A Counter Headline Must Provide Perspective
Some form of the title for this article could work. “2014: Among the 3 percent Coldest Years in 10,000 year.” Figure 10 shows the Northern Hemisphere temperature for the period variously called the Climatic Optimum, the Hypsithermal, and the Holocene Optimum.
The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years. As CO2Science noted from Dahl-Jensen (1998),
After the termination of the glacial period, temperatures increased steadily to a maximum of 2.5°C warmer than at present during the Climatic Optimum (4,000 to 7,000 years ago).
The key phrase in the 2014 claim is, “in the record”, but that only covers approximately 100 years. In the climatologically meaningful 10,000-year context, it is among the coldest.
The claim that 2014 was the warmest on record was politically important for proponents of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) story that human CO2 was causing global warming. Central to that argument was the need to prove late 20th century temperatures were the “warmest ever”. This is why the 2014 claim conveniently appeared before the Conference of the Parties (COP) meeting in Lima Peru, at which the false IPCC claim was desperately promoted. Political importance of the measure was accentuated by the continued, 18+ years lack of increase in global temperature.
Evidence keeps contradicting the major assumptions of the anthropogenic global warming (AGW) hypothesis. As T.H. Huxley (1825 – 1895) said,
The great tragedy of science – the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact.
The problem is the facts keep piling up and the AGW proponents keep ignoring, diverting, or stick-handling (hockey terminology), their way round them. We know the science is wrong because the IPCC projections are wrong. Normal science requires re-examination of the hypothesis and its assumptions. The IPCC removed this option when they set out to prove the hypothesis. It put them on a treadmill of fixing the results, especially the temperature record. As Chinese General Tao Kan said, “It is like riding on the back of a tiger and finding it hard to get off.”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I enjoyed your interview on the Corbett Report yesterday
Another wonderful post Dr. Ball. I really enjoyed it.
CO can contribute to global cooling. Place dry ice atop or upwind of the UHIs.
CO can contribute to global cooling. Place dry ice atop or upwind of the UHIs.
So why don’t they just use the satellite data? Perhaps it is like the Bureau of Labor Statistics. Why collect an exact number for new unemployment claims when you can just do a sample. Probably because it is much easier to fudge. It is getting to the point that you can’t trust anything that comes from the government.
Well, aside from all the whining and complaining, I believe this to be an excellent post pointing out that rarely quoted fact that we are in an interglacial warming period and it will hopefully continue for a while. Though it is comforting to see the confounding of the warmists with warming at a stop, it is also a little scarey, even should it only be something minor like the recent little ice age. Crops fail, disease takes over and wars occur when it gets cold.
Walt D. January 21, 2015 at 4:43 pm
“…..It is getting to the point that you can’t trust anything that comes from the government.”
Somewhere I read a quote that essentially said ‘Believe nothing until the Government issues a denial’
A couple of points about the Australian temperature readings shown above.
There was indeed a warm period in Australia between about the 1870s to 1900s. Several severe droughts occurred, similar to the dustbowl droughts in the US in the 1930s.
These high temperatures have been attributed to low rainfall at the time, e.g. by the CSIRO in the 1950s, and acknowledged by them then, before all the ‘adjustments’ began to be made. Australia actually cooled between about 1910-1940s and this was attributed to increases in rainfall during the time.
http://joannenova.com.au/2014/09/the-lost-climate-knowledge-of-deacon-1952-australian-summers-were-hotter-from-1880-1910/
These past temperatures have increasingly been ‘adjusted’ to suit an international agenda, to make Australian temperatures look more like the rest of the world, even though Australia’s climate doesn’t necessarily follow the rest of the world.
Australia’s temperatures are very sensitive to rainfall, and rainfall is very sensitive to shifting climate zones. Remarkably, the raw data shows between ~1870s to 1940s Australia temperature trends did NOT follow world trends, largely as a result of changes in rainfall. These are currently being ‘adjusted’ due to ideological agendas.
Based on my travel both developed and developing countries, I noted cold-island effect is under emphasized in the averaging of the global temperature with sparse network and over emphasized the .urban-heat-island effect is overemphasized in the averaging of global temperature. People started asking me case study. I used to quote the difference between Northern Hemisphere and Southern Hemisphere temperature differences. Now in the present report fig. 3 clearly show the trend of rural temperature, quite different from average temperature, Also, the other important aspect is network distribution with space and time. This is also seen from fig.7. These are the basic components that helped to show a rapid increasing in global temperature. If we counter this with homogenizing the space and time modules, we get negligible global warming component. This is in line with reality of greenhouse effect. But, people running after billions of dollars will never agree on this as they loose their bread & butter.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
.
1. Can you discuss the cold-island effect in more detail, please? I have not heard that term before.
2. I suspect a typo (error) at the end of the first sentence. Can you phrase the two more clearly?
Thank you RACook1978– The correct first sentence is as follows: “Based on my travel both developed and developing countries, I noted rural-cold-island effect is under emphasized in the averaging of the global temperature with the sparse met network; and over emphasized the .urban-heat-island effect with the dense met network in the averaging of global temperature. ”
Regarding the rural-cold-island” effect — which I coined and used in my publications including in my book “Climate Change: Myths & Realities” published in 2008, is exactly opposite of urban-heat-island effect. Luke Howard, an amateur meteorologist in England, first recorded the heat-island effect. This he wrote in his book “The Climate of London” in 1818. Metropolitan areas around the globe irrespective of developed or developing nations are growing at unprecedented rates, creating extensive urban landscapes; face the growing problems of urban sprawl, loss of natural vegetation and open spaces as well water bodies and converting these into concrete structures in both horizontal and vertical spectrum with roads. Thus the congestion with pollution created urban-heat-island effect at the surface and as well upto the level of skyscrapers through temperature inversions. Kenneth Chang presented a report in New YorkTimes, which was reproduced by San Jose Mercury News on August 22,200 “Urbanites feel the heat when cities replace trees and greenery with buildings and blacktop”. Similarly in rural areas the agriculture system changed to feed the growing population in to intensive irrigated agriculture with the construction of water bodies of different sizes. This reduces the temperature. This I termed it as rural-cold-island effect in rural areas. The met stations are mainly concentrated around towns and cities where the revenue officials have offices. In rural areas mainly rainfall started collecting to assess the agriculture. This lead uneven distribution of met stations in rural and urban areas. Though rural area covered more than two-thirds, the network is space while urban areas covered less than one-third has dense met-stations. This was a European legacy.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
“there’s no period in the historical record when CO2 levels have been as high as they are now”. If that is the case, where did all the carbon in the fossil fuels come from? (It not the same isotope as the carbon in the gas giants),
“Historical record”, ie human history. Not the entire time the planet has been in existence.
SHF says:
“Historical record”, ie human history.
You could not be more wrong. There are temperature records from ice cores going back almost a million years.
Atmospheric CO2 has been almost twenty times (20X) higher than now in the ‘historical record’, without causing runaway global warming or any other problems.
Now you’re going all Chicken Little over a change in CO2 from 3 parts in 10,000, to only 4 parts in 10,000 — over a century and a half.
Get a grip.
“Atmospheric CO2 has been almost twenty times (20X) higher than now”
…
Citation for your “assertion?”
Socrates,
I gave you the rules, you can either accept them or reject them:
I will post evidence showing that CO2 record. But first, you must acknowledge that you were wrong when you disputed it before.
Too many times when I’ve posted what you demanded, you just MovOn to something else, or you don’t acknowledge it, or you deflect to something unrelated.
I’m done with those games.
So yes, I have a citation. More than one, in fact.
You go first…
Otherwise, my ‘assertion’ stands unrefuted.
Quite right, CO2 has been much higher, although not within the historical record. You leave out a couple of important points – when CO2 was much higher, radiative forcing was much lower. Periods when the earth wasn’t warm correlate with periods of high CO2 – see Royer, 2006. “given the variety of factors that can influence global temperatures, it is striking that such a consistent pattern between CO 2 and temperature emerges for many intervals of the Phanerozoic.”
Besides that, it’s not the planet that we need to worry about, Earth will be fine, life on Earth will survive. BUt human civilization, carefully built to support 8 billion people in a relatively stable climate, would not survive a rise of 4C in less than 100 years.
The last time you made your “20x” assertion, I proved it was based on model output.
…
You need to do better this time.
..
Until you post a citation, your statement is nothing more than an assertion.
Socks,
You “proved” nothing. Baseless assertions like that are your stock in trade, as is psychological ‘projection’ — which you employ again here. I very much doubt that you have any formal education in anything related to science, like a lot of us do [yes, including me].
This is amusing. You are now in a very uncomfortable position: either you can agree that I’m right if I post a citation as you demand, showing that CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the past — or you can argue incessantly, using your baseless assertions.
This ia very amusing. A scientific skeptic would *love* to be presented with new knowledge, gratis. I would personally have no problem whatever admitting to you or anyone else that I had learned something new. I have learned a lot here, from people across the board.
But you? Your mind is made up and closed tight, and with your confirmation bias you cannot possibly allow yourself to be put in the position of learning anything new. Rather, you presume that you know it all, and no one — especially a skeptic! — can teach you anything new.
So while I larf out loud at your self-imposed predicament, my offer stands: I will post a citation showing that CO2 was much higher in the past. But first, you must agree that you learned something new — and you learned it from me. [BTW: I don’t know what your belief is regarding past CO2 levels. Maybe you believe they were about the same as now? Or, maybe you believe that current levels are the highest evah!! That wouldn’t suprise me].
Anyone interested in new knowledge would jump at the chance to learn something. It costs nothing in this case. Not a penny. You can learn. Just admit that I posted a citation.
But as I have pointed out for years now: the alarmist cult simply cannot admit that there are facts they don’t know. And especially, they cannot admit that scientific skeptics are more knowledgeable than they are — as is most often the case.
That applies to you, in spades.
Since you refuse to present a citation, I will do it for you.
The basis of your “20x” assertion comes from the GEOCARB III model
..
Here is the paper
..
http://earth.geology.yale.edu/~ajs/2001/Feb/qn020100182.pdf
…
Yes, your assertion is based on a “model.”
…
There is no method known to science that can determine CO2 levels in the atmosphere going back beyond the range of 20 million years.
See?….it’s easy to provide citations.
…
The reason you didn’t is because the truth of the matter is that your claim isn’t based on evidence, it is based on a “model”
So, because there is no evidence (other than what is projected/predicted from models) for ANY kind of anthropogenic global warming, then anthropogenic warming does not exist! That’s what we have been saying for several weeks now, and I’m glad you finally agree with dbstealey and the rest of us realists.
Mr RACookPE1978
….
Please re-read the comment thread.
I have made no mention of “anthropogenic global warming”
…
Please try to stay on topic.
Sir Harry Flashman.
..
The issue I’m concerned with is the claim that CO2 was 20x higher in the past. Even the data used in Royer 2006 shows (in figures B, C and D on page 5667 ref: http://openearthsystems.org/data/readings/Introductory%20Reading/Royer2006-CO2climatePhanerozoic.pdf ) that the CO2 levels never reached beyond 8000 ppm which is 20x present day levels. In fact if you examine those charts, you’ll notice CO2 levels never exceeded 6000 ppm. Also notice that the study also uses the GEOCARB model for analysis.
Socks, I don’t refuse anything. It is YOU who consistently refuses my kind offer. All it would cost is a simple acknowledgement that I was providing you with some knowledge. But in your particular case, that is much too expensive. So, as they say: take it or leave it. Because I have the links, and you need to learn. It’s up to you now.
Next, SHF says:
Quite right, CO2 has been much higher… Periods when the earth wasn’t warm correlate with periods of high CO2… but human civilization, carefully built to support 8 billion people in a relatively stable climate, would not survive a rise of 4C in less than 100 years.
Yes, SHF, CO2 has been *much* higher in the past — close to twenty times higher, in fact. Further, it is not “modeled” that it was that high. Rather, verifiable empirical evidence indicates that fact. There is really no dispute about that question among mainstream geologists, but only among the ignoratii.
I agree that a 4ºC swing in either direction would probably be catastrophic, if it occurred in less than a century. Also, a 4º cooling would be much more catastrophic than a 4º warming. Warming would cause sea levels to rise some, but that’s about all. But cooling of that magnitude would cause widespread, catastrophic famine. So you are right about that.
Right now there are people trying furiously to spin the Narrative away from the global warming scare, and turn it into the new global cooling scare. They should have done that first.
Too late, now. The internet remembers all their previous MMGW nonsense. So the alarmist crowd is stuck trying impotently to defend their original MMGW scare. That really sucks, if you’re one of them.
Finally, the more time that passes, the more the climate Null Hypothesis matters. There are no climate parameters today that have not been exceeded in the past, and exceeded to a large degree. As climatologist Roy Spencer has pointed out, “the Null Hypothesis has never been falsified.”
The follow-up to that is this: since the alarmist clique cannot falsify the Null Hypothesis, then the natural variability argument wins. There is simply no room for MMGW, as anyone who understands the Null Hypothesis knows.
Sorry Mr Dbstealey.
“close to twenty times higher, in fact. ”
…
Go check the Royer 2006 data……
Look on page 5667
10x might be a better “guess”….but your 20x is not supported by the data.
Soxie sez:
The basis of your “20x” assertion comes from the GEOCARB III model…
Wrong.
And:
Yes, your assertion is based on a “model.”
WRONG.
And:
The reason you didn’t is because the truth of the matter is that your claim isn’t based on evidence, it is based on a “model”
Wrong.
It is clear you do not know “the truth of the matter”. But your ignorance can be remedied by simply accepting my kind and generous offer to you.
[Hey, if I’m making anything up, you can run around telling folks I was winging it. But of course the reverse holds true, when I provide you with verifiable links. But there’s only one way to find out…]
It is becoming more clear by the comment that you are on a completely wrong track. Really, you don’t seem to have a clue.
And the ball is still in your court…
dbstealey – “Yes, SHF, CO2 has been *much* higher in the past — close to twenty times higher, in fact. Further, it is not “modeled” that it was that high. Rather, verifiable empirical evidence indicates that fact. There is really no dispute about that question among mainstream geologists, but only among the ignoratii.”
Why are you lecturing me on something we obviously agree on, since you said that in response to a comment where I acknowledged it? And since we also agree that a 4C swing in <100 years would be a wrecking ball to human society, the thing we actually disagree on is whether we're heading towards just that situation.
But my belief is supported by the overwhelming majority of climate scientists (I've already read the WUWT posts "disproving" the 97%, no need to link) and every major scientific body in the world. Yours is backed by a handful of scientists, some sincere, others (though not all) funded by the fossil fuel industry, and others mad as a Monckton.
But I hope you're right, Sincerely, not a word of sarcasm, I hope you are. But I have yet to be convinced.
Sir Harry Flashman
…
“Rather, verifiable empirical evidence indicates that fact”
…
Please help Mr Dbstealey out and post a citation that provides empirical evidence that CO2 was 20x higher in the past. He seems to be unable to provide me with a citation for that claim.
Lol, nah I’m gonna let this one go. Maybe 20x, probably more like 15 or 16x but either way my point is that higher CO2 concentrations don’t even come close to disproving the reality or the danger of AGW. The number is a bit of a sideshow.
Thank you Sir Harry, I guess I’ll have to wait on Mr Dbstealey posting a citation.
…
If he said 10x, I wouldn’t have had an issue with his statement. 15x is a stretch, but I’m interested in the 20x claim.
socks says:
If he said 10x, I wouldn’t have had an issue with his statement.
Oh, sure. Who would believe that?
You probably don’t recall my saying:
either you can agree that I’m right if I post a citation as you demand, showing that CO2 has been almost twenty times higher in the past…
I’ve mentioned that number with qualifiers all along. The point I was making, and which you will not face, is that CO2 was much higher at times in the past, without causing global warming, much less runaway global warming.
Keep amusing me with your posts, please. We both know that the only way you’re going to get my citation is as offered. Deflecting from that only provides more amusement.
Just post your citation and quit playing games.
No, soxie, I made an offer that you can take or leave. It won’t cost you a cent either way.
But either take it, or MovOn. You’re not getting it any other way.
[Snip. That link goes right back to this comment with no explanation. Always post some descriptive words with an explanation when posting links. Thanks. ~mod.]
Walt D.:
That is an alarmist illogical cherry pick. Alarmists love to only identify sparse areas of data so that they can use over the top specious claims.
Historical – record: Mankind’s actual recording of data and keeping the record. The alarmists then slip in various estimates of prehistory data as if that information was validly/verified/proved and honestly recorded.
Mankind’s literacy period of history is like a flash of light in Earth’s physical geological record lifespan. CO2 is both a geological and atmospheric process; whether in solution, bound in molecular form or drifting free in the air.
Of course it’s been both hotter and cooler in the past, depending on various forcings and natural cycles.The point is that what happened before the human era is irrelevant because there was no human civilization to be at risk. Indeed, what happened throughout most of human history isn’t relevant, because the human population is much larger, and its dependency on a stable environment much greater than it has ever been before. Therefore while we remain at the mercy of nature to some degree, we’d do well to try and not make things worse for ourselves.
Note use of facts and logic. This is not trolling. I am not part of a conspiracy and have no relationship or communication with any AGW proponents, beyond the occasional crossed comment. I have no interest in discrediting or disrupting this site for nefarious purposes; the regulars here seem to be doing a fine job of that all by themselves.
SHF says:
Of course it’s been both hotter and cooler in the past, depending on various forcings and natural cycles.
And that’s really all you needed to say.
The onus of proving that “this time it’s different” is entirely on the alarmist crowd.
But they have failed every step of the way. There is nothing either unusual or unprecedented happening now. That is the Null Hypothesis, which must be falsified in order to make the alarmists’ claims of man-made global warming credible.
But they have failed. Every step of the way.
Maybe SHF can do better.
Your poor hands. Really flash man, you just can’t help yourself, can you?
A warmer world is a better world. You seem to have swallowed the whole alarmist line
Some people have a need to be frightened. Is that you?
One graph of average temperatures vs. number of weather stations (Fig. 6 in Dr. Ball’s article) would suffice to debunk all CAGW claims. The essence of the alarmists’ nefarious scheme is right there, in our faces.
Besides the fact that CO2 is not causing global warming. Never has; never will.
One thing of note: This info about the Sir Harry Flashman in the book……
“Flashman was in the British Army, acclaimed as a great soldier, while remaining “a scoundrel, a liar, a cheat, a thief, a coward—and oh yes, a toady.”
That explains the posts here on WUWT
That observation has been made numerous times. You may do with it what you will.
Strange that you should cling to your pseudonym, knowing that.
Read the books – while Sir Harry is all those things described, he is a strangely engaging and in some (very few) ways an admirable character. Although I’m really just a fan, I could not hope to emulate him :).
“A liar, a thief, a cheat, a coward and a toady” and what other admirable qualities, flash man?
Here is what did Ball do with his so called grip-plot.
From here:
http://thecelestialconvergence.blogspot.ca/2013/04/ice-age-now-global-cooling-across-world_26.html
He got this:
http://i.imgur.com/hlvRLmL.png
And says:
“Figure 10 shows the Northern Hemisphere temperature for the period variously called the Climatic Optimum, the Hypsithermal, and the Holocene Optimum.”
Of course it is not. It is the gisp2 tempereature recontruction for Greenland (there goes the sparcity of measurments…). The one that ends in 1855. But this is with at twist. In this graph the last values are “modified” so that it ends with lower values to the end. A pure fabrication. Gisp2 as we all should know (including Ball) looks like this:
http://www.foresight.org/nanodot/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/histo3.png
One might ask, whatever happened to the warm 30-40ies? That did not happen i Greenland?
Then:
“The red line, added to the original diagram, imposes the approximate 20th century temperatures (right side) against those of the last 10,000 years. As CO2Science noted from Dahl-Jensen (1998)”
As Mike M noted. That is not the same reconstruction as gisp2. That is a borehole reconstruction. Not the same proxy. Here is that proxy from Dahl-Jensen:
http://i.imgur.com/oWituvO.png
The grip-borehole and the dye3 borehole. Notice the difference between those two. We can compare with Greenland isotopes:
http://i.imgur.com/9jgeWWm.png
From here:
http://www.pages-igbp.org/download/docs/newsletter/2011-1/Vinther_2011-1%2827%29.pdf
Well, well. Hockeystick. From isotopes that according to some here in this thread are the best proxies. For those who dare: compare the last values (up to about 1960 -1970) with MWP.
Vinther:
“The GRIP borehole inversion is therefore the only data set suggesting significantly higher temperatures during the MCA than during the 1950s, lending further support to the speculation that the quite low accumulation rate at the GRIP drill site did hamper the inversion of this recent short-lived climatic warming.”
So there we have it. Presentation of “modified” Gisp2 (some would call it something else) where the “modified” values are supposed to represent the present, mixing Gisp2 isotopes and Grip borehole, cherrypicking the proxy with lowest level to the end (the clearest outlier).
Fool me once etc.
We are presently in the coolest part of the Holocene because the trend has been a cooling trend, with slight fluctuations. Recent warming does not alter the fact that temperatures are stepping down into a new ice age. We need the benefits of more warming. So far, CO2 has let us down.
Are you too denying the warming in the first part of the 20th century in Greenland mpainter?
The long term cooling trend of the Holocene since the Climatic Optimum (aka the Holocene Optimum) was an established fact even before alarmist lame brains tried to hijack climate science and turn it into a cult. Rooter, with his incoherent pseudo-science is a perfect example of that type.
How does mpainter know we are in the coolest part of the Holocene?
By do a massive infilling from a “modified” proxy from Greenland?
And do mpainter deny the warming in Greenland in the 20th century?
mpainter will keep on avoiding that. Guaranteed.
Rooter
You choose not to believe ice core d18O paleoclimate data. It is by far the best and it is the only proxy that is verifiably connected to global temperature.
You need to get up to speed on the subject. You are making a nuisance out of yourself with your querulous ignorance.
mpainter:
From where do you get the impression that I do not believe d180 proxies. Have another new look at this:
http://i.imgur.com/9jgeWWm.png
Do you believe d180 proxies mpainter?
See d18O reconstructions for the Holocene. Read up on Climatic Optimum (aka Holocene Optimum).
Read up on principles of climate i. e., warmer means wetter (the Holocene Pluvial), check out the climate history of N. Africa, other deserts.
Study the temp. reconstructions of the Pleistocene; note the step down from the interstadials and interglacial. Everything points to a continuation of the cooling trend. Antarctic sea ice is growing, Arctic sea ice is rebounding, Greenland ice loss has reversed.
A warmer world is a better world
We are heading for another ice age and you alarmists with your bugaboos are a menace to society.
How long were the d180 proxies valid for mpainter?
Until he saw more updated d180 proxies. At than point he started denying their validity and existence.
Rooter, your comment above makes no sense. You are incoherent.
Takes two to tango.
Thank you for putting this together, rooter. It is nice to see someone relying on data, rather than merely making vague assertions, as mpainter does.
Mike M.
Please be kind enough to point out for me my vague assertions so that I can remedy them. If your have any difficulty in understanding or questions or need any clarification, why do you not ask?
Or you might study up on the topics which I have presented in my comment above. That should help your understanding of climate issues. Assuming you want to understand, of course.
Thank you Dr Ball for an excellent post. another to add to my bookmarks.
Why not check out Ball’s number 6 where he says:
“Figure 6 shows that fewer stations are a contributing factor to higher temperatures.”
Why not check what happens with increase the number of stations? From here:
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/
.. we can see what happens. First number of stations compared to GHCN M:
http://i.imgur.com/hOqKNsi.gif
Well. That was really something. Many more stations. Gridbox coverage increases too:
http://i.imgur.com/4XO4whq.gif
And the result for a gridded temperature series:
http://i.imgur.com/Snmh9Xf.gif
Wellwell. The effect of just adding stations and coverage is higher temperatures after 1990. Exactly the opposite of Ball’s claim. The effect of this increased number of coverage would of course be smaller with proper infilling.
Anyone who believes Ball will change his mind because of this?
Dr. Ball’s link on figure 6 leads to complete information on sources of the data, specifically. Your link leads to no revelant information.
Rooter, you fall far below Dr. Ball in the rigor and reliability of your science.
Also needs to be pointed out that ice core d18O temperature reconstructions are valid as a global proxy. This is because the isotope ratios depend on SST in large part.
One day mpainter might learn what this is:
http://www.surfacetemperatures.org/
He might even learn to follow links.
That was a waste of time for me. No information that I could see. Neither do I visit SKS, another waste of time, nor HotWhopper.
It is not a question of learning to follow links, but rather being able to recognize a dead end.
mpainter discovered his dead end.
mpainter now thinks d180 are valid global proxies. Because of SST. Of course we all know that change in SST is the same all over the world. No difference between the South Pacific and the North Atlantic for example.
And of course, why then does Ball use a cherrypicked borehole proxy?
And if the d180 are global, mpainter should of course explain the differences between those proxies. Even from Greenland.
The big question is urban island effect. Do you have bar chart of the number weather station per year to correspond to this graph ? It is deceptive to say that 2014 was the warmest year as the interval is within standard error. To me this is all inconclusive and fails to provide evidence to control CO2. As for suspended particulates, SOX and NOx, that is an entirely different manner.
I don’t think the climate argument will ever be resolved with graphs and their alleged quality or lack thereof.
For the public weather is more about perception and unfortunately for our AGW adherents the weather just doesn’t seem to be cooperating right now.
Where are those mild winters and those long brutally hot summers from a few years ago?
If I were in the AGW camp I would be advising the president to schedule more of his talks under the noonday sun where there’s a good probabilty that sweat will form and there will be a better chance for taking off your jacket, rolling up your sleeves, brow mopping and so forth.
Yes, must be mindful of proper propaganda techniques. Very foolish of them to squawk about the “warmist evah” in the midst of a January blizzard.
If you live anywhere other than the northern part of the North American continent, your experience is very likely quite different. The United States is not the world.
No such claim was made, flash man.
Wring your hands to your heart’s delight, fine. But you never have any other sort of comment, never make any contribution to understanding.
No handwringing here, mp. My first sentence was purely factual, the second a reasonably commentary based on my first observation – ie that the poster was referring to North America but implying that the situation reflected the whole world. If you disagree with my statement on global vs North American temperatures, explain why. If you don’t, your comment is pointless. I’m starting to think you’re the troll here.
No handwringing? Big improvement.
Now let’s work on the quality of your comments, shall we?
Sorry ladies andgents but please, please stop feeding the trolls. What possible purpose does it serve? you will not change their minds, they post anonymously and they are really not worth the time you see to waste on them.
They seem to have some notification that stick them in as first commenter on each posting and I guarantee if we stop responding to them they will eventally sod off.
David Harrington
You say of the trolls
Well, I “guarantee” they won’t.
Their purpose is to disrupt and to spread disinformation. Allowing their disinformation to remain unchallenged encourages them.
Trolls cannot learn because they choose not to learn, but onlookers can be informed. Nobody refutes a troll in hope that the troll will learn. The disinformation from trolls is refuted for the benefit of onlookers.
Richard
Richard, I second your comments. Ignoring the trolls only encourages them
Fair enough, see your point
If the anomaly at the poles is 3 C, which IIRC is the generally accepted IPCC figure with polar amplification over the past 60 years (since 1950?) and the area of the earth poleward from the 60 latitudes constitutes~;13.5% of the globe, then this area is responsible for 0.135 x 3.0= 0.4C degrees contributed to global temperature anomaly. This suggests that the rest of the world is not warming much at all (Willis’s look at Argo data and his “governor” theory of climate suggests that equatorial temps haven’t warmed significantlyl.) Perhaps if we took 50 lats, the warming may virtually all have taken place in these larger polar “caps”.
A simple engine model (nothing new here but simplification) with the firebox in, say, 20S to 20N and the exhaust 50-60Lat and poleward effected by air and water circulation (return circulation of cold for re- heating). Energy added at the firebox over time = work done by the kinetic energy of moving wind and water + heat at the exhaust end (amplification of heat at polar areas) plus heat radiated out to space. This simplified model suggests that even the IPCC is not expecting a significant warming where most people live, but rather a warming where it is cold by a few degrees. The average temperatures poleward of 60Lats then are still going to be cool and the rest of the world is not going to warm by much.
If more heat energy comes into the firebox, the engine speeds up increasing work done by kinetic energy and an increase in polar areas warming and in radiation of heat out to space. If less energy comes in, the governor will try to maintain the energy flux into the system (Willis’s retarding the appearance of clouds) but once all stops have been pulled out (the sky is clear morning to night), then the engine slows down – slower air and water currents, less addition of heat to the polar areas, dissipation of what heat has accumulated by radiation into space and return cold water not getting the heating it formerly did. I think we can monitor the engine’s performance with a few good thermometers ringing the polar areas and around the equatorial band. Probably monitor changes in air and water flows and it would be pretty complete for forecasting where we seem to be headed.
and when you take the Vostok ice core we’re in one of the 3% of the coldest years of…. the coldest interstadial… Anyone that reads a bit more in-depth in paleoclimatology knows that….
the Emian interstadial was ways warmer then now (up to 6°C) To my knowledge the polar bears survived that too….
i really wonder what we would say if we had 10000 years of reliable data i bet nothing special.
as reminder from wikipedia the epica and vostoc chart
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interglacial#mediaviewer/File:Ice_Age_Temperature.png
The temperature-record adjustments will only serve to discredit the AGW extremists. They will have to live with the conditions of lower temperatures then and higher temperatures now. That makes it harder to show any increase in temperatures. They have about wrung the rag dry.
Your graph in figure 10 shows a positive slope, but your graph shows a negative slope.
What’s up with that ? I do agree that the warmest year is baloney and a statistical fraud.
Where can I find the source data for Figure 10? Warmists don’t like links to WUWT or CO2Science…
google GRIP ice core data choose NCDC option…
Thanks for serving ! (Old SSN crew myself )
If Tim is correct, which I firmly believe he is, then could not the proponents of AGW be guilty of “Crimes Against Humanity” ? These false claims could cause the demise of the world’s economy and as a result death and disease in the Third World.
On what data do you base your premise that moving to a low carbon civilization would destroy the global economy?
When everyone freezes to death, it is bad for the economy. GNP goes way down.
Greenland ice loss has reversed. Arctic sea ice is rebounding. Antarctic ice has been expanding for years.
The Holocene is approaching its termination. CO2 is not working like it is supposed to, flash man. Do something
Wring your hands.
Sorry, brother, everything you’ve said about the climate cooling is nonsense unsupported by fact. Show me otherwise, and not another link to this blog.
SHF says:
On what data do you base your premise that moving to a low carbon civilization would destroy the global economy?
He didn’t say “destroy”, that’s just your spin.
And, you don’t need data for that. I certainly don’t, any more than I need data to know the sun will rise in the east.
All you need is common sense. For the minority who use common sense, very little data is necessary to know that a “low carbon” economy is far less efficient than an economy run on fossil fuel energy [coal, preferably, because it is the least expensive power].
“Carbon” has been demonized by the alarmist cult. But why? There is not one credible bit of evidence that CO2 is a problem. There is no ‘data’ showing that. More CO2 [“carbon”] is beneficial for the biosphere, and there is zero evidence showing that a little more of that beneficial trace gas is harmful in any way.
SHF, you are the victim of alarmist nonsense, plus your own credulity. If you like the way it sounds, you will buy into it. You crave demonizing ‘carbon’, so you buy into that nonsense. Why can’t you think for yourself?
Look at your fingers. YOu see those plastic keys you are pounding on? They are made from oil.
David Socrates my apologies for not responding sooner.
My ability to interpret the graph easily and correctly has nothing to do with my flying experience. My, unstated, point was that even a moronic lunkhead such as an airline pilot could instantly and easily understand the graph; it doesn’t take a genius ‘climate scientist’ to do so.
The graph is labeled
Temp Anomalies. rel to base 1979-2000, 1 year to Dec 2011
so clearly it refers to the twelve months starting Jan 2011 and ending Dec 2011. Therefore it is obvious that each interval between the ticks is one month, so the bold ticks refer to end of Mar, Jun and Sept sequentially from left to right. Clearly the information refers to Average Anomaly for each month so it is not a continuous variable and would perhaps be better plotted as points rather than a continuous curve.
I believe that an average twelve year old child could understand the graph.
Hope this helps.
colima just blew its top so warmers have a built-in excuse for 2015.
they really need to tighten up the models to measure the effects of this volcanism thingy….