Global Warming is real and is definitely caused by human-produced carbon . . . pencil lead, that is.
Guest essay by Ralph Park
Global Warming Theory –
An impressive collection of climate scientists and media / public figures are convinced that global warming is a very real threat. The theory originates in sophisticated climate models that demonstrate rising temperatures driven by rising concentrations of CO2. This theory has been confirmed in observational data from instrumental sources which is presented as “anomaly” data for adjusted surface temperatures. The sudden emergence of an unusual pattern of warming is alarming and coincides with the rapid growth of greenhouse gas concentrations, especially CO2, from fossil fuel burning human activities. This is considered as confirmation that humans are causing global warming.
Figure 1 – Comparison of raw and adjusted Tmax Variations
.
Figure 1 reproduces the global warming effect from adjusted Tmax data from the US Historical Climatology Network (US HCN). Adjusted Tmax data can be compared directly with raw (unadjusted) field measurement data. While a distinct warming effect is clearly evident after 1975, no such trend is present in the raw field data. In fact, the variation pattern in raw Tmax is unremarkable, featuring irregular minor variations about the zero temperature change axis.
As Figure 1 makes clear, adjustments are the dominant factor in the global warming trend. Adjustments are easily separated by calculating the difference between the adjusted and raw datasets:
{Adj(Stn,Yr)} = {Tmax(Stn,Yr)_adj} – {Tmax(Stn,Yr)_raw} (**)
Stn refers to station ID and
Yr refers to the year
Figure 2 illustrates the average adjustment bias incorporated into the data. The warming pattern is clearly evident in the pattern of adjustments..
Figure 2 – Adjustment Bias to US HCN Tmax Data
The adjustments constitute a cooling bias applied to past temperatures. The adjustments are then slowly removed, starting in the 1970s. The obvious intent of adjustments is to create the illusion of a dramatic global warming signal in recent times. The sudden warming coincides with the public alarm over rising CO2 levels. Figure 2 displays the net effect of the adjustment process which is sculpt measurement data to conform with global warming alarm. Statistical profiles for the 1930s and 1990s, Figure 3, demonstrate that the net bias is the result of a sophisticated algorithm designed to disguise systematic bias as a natural phenomena. The net effect is a non-random sculpting of temperatures to show a strong global warming trend.
Figure 3 – Sample Adjustment Statistical patterns.
The “Pause” Dilemma
Those of us in the skeptic / non-official science community always thought the adjustments were misguided and scientifically inappropriate. But we never suspected a purposeful effort to manufacture global warming by adroit use of adjustment algorithms. Nevertheless, we now know that global warming is, indeed, human caused by carbon based pencil lead – figuratively speaking, of course. It is based on sophisticated algorithms that artfully sculpt the datasets to fit the theory. As demonstrated, now, global warming confirmation in US HCN data is purely an artifact of the adjustment algorithms.
This, of course, is not proof that all other official data sources are so flagrantly falsified. However, the US HCN sufficiently extensive and credible enough to demonstrate that global warming is not in evidence for the US continent. It would be difficult to sustain a valid scientific argument for global warming when one of the major continents shows no sign of it.
The problem with the adjustment trick is that a real global warming trend might not happen. That means the removal of the artificial adjustments leads to a future dilemma. If raw Tmax data continues to be unremarkably flat, then discontinuing the biasing results in a global warming pause. Continuing the biasing, on the other hand, would lead to a widening gap over reality that risks penetrating into public awareness.
Pause Theory
So, the best fit “pause” theory is that climate science has temporarily exhausted adjustment rationales. Given the past success in convincing the public, it is quite possible that the official science will simply continue the adjustment process.
__________________________
(**) {Adj(Stn,Yr)} data includes only matching records in both datasets. It does not include “ghost” records that are not in the raw dataset.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
should be rare not rear in my previous post.
All this ignores the fact that current temps should be adjusted massively down for UHI. They’re adjusting the past of dirt roads down – why? Oz country downs set all their records before streets were tarred – why? We’re debating tiny differences in a thermometer going from Mercury to electronic, when the surrounds have been heated up to 50C in summer by putting in concrete. (City of Melbourne measured roads at about 84C)
If mesosite changes during the study period, it will affect trend. But if it is constant throughout, the trend is not significantly affected.
But poor microsite will significantly affect trends even if it is constant throughout the study period. That is where we dispute NOAA. To emphasize this point, if we find that a station’s microsite rating (as defined by Leroy, 2010) has changed during our study period, we drop the station.
It would be very useful if someone familiar with the thermometer records (eg., Zeke or Mosher) would provide data on the number of stations used and in which countries each station was situated say for each of the decades that go to make up the GLOBAL thermometer record. Eg:
1880 to 1889
1890 to 1899
1900 to 1909
1910 to 119
1920 to 1929
etc etc. for each decade through to 2010 to 2014.
So for example, if in the deecade 1880 to 1889 there were 3,000 stations, list where these 3000 were situated, eg. 1000 in the US, 400 UK, 250 Germany, 200 France, 4 Finland, 1 Nigeria, 5 Kenya etc
Let’s see exactly what is said to be GLOBAL coverage.
Let’s see how the coverage for the 1880 data compares to the coverage today.
We can then form a view as to how significant the US land thermometer record is in relation to the GLOBAL record..
What’s really funny is how it apparently took the global land mass until after the ‘Great Pacific Climate Shift of 1976/77’ before it realised that it’s supposed to warm (and cool) at about twice the rate of the global ocean due to its much lower heat capacity:
http://woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3gl/from:1900/compress:6/plot/crutem4vgl/from:1900/offset:0.03/compress:6
Does it make any sense at all that CRUTEM4gl and HadSST3gl should track each other as tightly as this all the way up to the mid 70s, and only then start warming at different rates?
Of course not.
AND if you look at the satellite data, one sees another temperature shift resulting from the !998 Super El Nino.
Temperatures are not rising steadily in some straight line linear fit. If the data is correct, temperatures are sising in steps, and those steps do not appear to be driven vy CO2 but rather due to natural oceanic phenomena.
Yes. (But CO2 does appear to have a lukewarming effect.)
Judith Curry doesn’t think the adjustments are odd. How can the position be rationalized?
They aren’t — until one considers the microsite issue. But once that intrudes, all bets are off. Not even the raw data is correct. The error is systematic.
In science proper if you demonstrate examples of where a methodology fails, you get sent back to the drawing board. In the dark art of global temperature reconstruction you get to hand wave all the problems. As a bonus, you can lecture the ‘ignorant’ by trotting out the usual carefully selected talking points.
I am well trained in deconstruction and dialectical materialism. I fight with knives in both hands. But I am an apostate. I place my blades where they are most unwelcome, and at the service of the anathema. They made me, but they cannot unmake me.
While you were gone
These spaces filled with darkness
The obvious was hidden
With nothing to believe in
The compass always points to Terrapin
Sullen wings of fortune beat like rain
You’re back in Terrapin for good or ill again
For good or ill again
Why is there never a mention of the ridiculously small (about 13 PPM) size of man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. This trace amount is not significant enough to cause anything let alone a warming of the Globe. It would appear to make all of this other argument superfluous.
…Because it is false, that’s why. The anthropogenic contribution from the burning of fossil fuels has been something like 200 ppm. Because not all of it remains in the atmosphere, but rather gets rapidly partitioned into the upper ocean and biosphere, the resulting rise in CO2 has “only” been about 120 ppm… bring ingus more than 40% above the pre-industrial baseline of ~280 ppm.
Agreed. CO2 output is split between the atmospheric, soils/biomass, and oceanic sinks. Atmospheric CO2 is up 40% from 1880.
squeeze it hard enough and maybe they’ll get diamonds…. from the graphite.
The 200PPM of anthropogenic contribution of CO2 also does not appear to be significant enough to be the reason for global warming. The recorded periodic increase and pause in global temperature since1880 does not appear to have a connection to a continuing increase of CO2 in the atmosphere.
My recent readings on this website have resulted in my finding information that states that Man has contributed 3.225 percent of the 400 PPM of CO2 in the atmosphere. By my math, 3.225 percent of 400 PPM is 13 PPM.. Where am I wrong and why is it so difficult for the average, non-scientist to obtain a clear statement of the size of Man’s contribution of CO2 to the atmosphere. It would appear to me that this question is one of the first that should be asked and answered in a debate over any role of Man in global warming but I, for one, have had a devil of a time finding an answer to that question. Based on what I have found I can clearly see why the proponents of Man-made global warming don’t want it displayed but you have to wonder about the intellectual honesty of our media. Not really, they have made their shortcoming obvious on many subjects.