Guest Post by Bob Tisdale
This is an update of the post published a week ago here (WattsUpWithThat cross post is here). That earlier post included “raw” unadjusted data based on an outdated version of the NOAA GHCN dataset. This updated post includes annual land surface air temperature data through 2015 and uses the current version of the “raw” GHCN data…supplied by Zeke Hausfather. Thank you, Zeke. Most of the text is the same. I’ve updated the discussions of the trends and the source of the “raw” data.
I’ve also added a curiosity at the end.
# # #
Quick Answer to the Title Question: Over the long term, the answer is yes, the adjustments to land surface temperature data increase the reported global warming rate, and the differences between datasets are noticeable. Over shorter terms, the answer depends on the dataset.
INTRODUCTION
This is the second in a 3-part series of blog posts. We examined the impacts of the adjustments to global sea surface temperature data in the post here. Where the adjustments to sea surface temperature data decreased the reported long-term warming rate, the adjustments to the land surface temperature data increase the long-term trend.
But, as you’ll see, the adjustments to land surface temperatures have different impacts over shorter time periods.
PRELIMINARY NOTE
If you’re expecting the adjustments to the land surface temperature data to be something similar to those presented by Steve Goddard at RealScience, you’re going to be disappointed. Steve Goddard often compares older presentations of global land+ocean data to new presentations so that we see the change in data from a decade or two ago to now. Example here from the April 8, 2016 post here. But, in this post, we’re comparing recent “raw” land surface temperature data to the current “adjusted” data, which is another topic entirely.
“ADJUSTED” DATA
There are 4 adjusted datasets presented in the post:
Berkeley Earth – This is the recently created near-land surface air temperature data from the team headed by Richard Muller. The Berkeley Earth data are adjusted for numerous biases and they are infilled. Data here.
NASA GISS – This is the land surface air temperature portion of the Land-Ocean Temperature Index (LOTI) from the NASA Goddard Institute of Space Studies (GISS). GISS does not publish their land-only portion of the LOTI data in easy-to-use form (See note below), so I used the ocean-masking feature at the KNMI Climate Explorer to capture the land-only portion of the GISS data. The GISS land surface air temperature data are adjusted for biases and infilled with 1200km smoothing. The 1200km smoothing does not infill continental land masses completely. This is especially true in the early portions of the data, when sampling is poor.
Note: This is NOT the land-only temperature data from GISS (referred to as their Meteorological Station Data, dTs data) where they exclude sea surface temperature data and extend land surface temperature data out over the oceans for 1200km. [End note.]
NOAA NCEI – The land surface air temperature portion of the NOAA global land+ocean surface temperature data is available from the NOAA webpage here. NOAA adjusts the data for biases. I am unsure if the land surface temperature data NOAA supplies on that webpage have been infilled. The reason: The land surface temperature anomaly map here from the NOAA/NCEI Global Temperature and Precipitation Maps webpage does not appear to be infilled, while the corresponding map here of their combined land+ocean data shows infilling.
UK Met Office – The UKMO uses the CRUTEM4 land surface air temperature data for their combined land+ocean data. The CRUTEM4 data are adjusted for biases but they are not infilled. That is, if a land surface grid is without data in a given month, that grid remains blank. Annual CRUTEM4 data are available here, in this format.
“RAW” DATA
As far as I know, NOAA has not presented their unadjusted GHCN land surface air temperature data as a global dataset in easy-to-use form. However, a number of independent researchers have prepared comparison graphs of the unadjusted and adjusted global land surface air temperature data.
The earlier post included “raw” unadjusted data based on an outdated version of the NOAA GHCN dataset. In response to the earlier post, Zeke Hausfather (now a member of the Berkeley Earth team) has graciously updated his monthly unadjusted global GHCN land surface temperature data through March 2016, using the current version of the GHCN data. (Thank you, Zeke.) See Zeke’s comment here on the cross post at WattsUpWithThat of the original post. The link to that current version of the “raw” data is here.
The differences are minute between the current version of the “raw” unadjusted data and the outdated version (data here) used in the earlier post. You’re more than welcome to download them both and compare them.
GENERAL
Base Years: The first 4 series of graphs are referenced to the WMO-preferred base years of 1981-2010.
IMPORTANT NOTE: This post compares land surface temperature data only. As a result, it does not include any additional warming present in the GISS Land-Ocean Temperature data associated with their masking sea surface temperature data in the polar oceans (anywhere sea ice has existed) and replacing that sea surface temperature data with land surface temperature data extended out over the polar oceans.
LONG-TERM TREND COMPARISON
Figure 1 includes the four “adjusted” land surface air temperature anomaly datasets compared to the “raw” GHCN data. The adjustments to the GISS and NCEI data add about 0.02 deg C/decade to the “raw” data for the period of 1880 to 2015, and the adjustments add about 0.025 deg C/decade in the case of the Berkeley Earth data. The adjustments to the UKMO CRUTEM4 data only add about 0.013 deg C/decade to the reported land surface air warming over the long term.
Figure 1
TREND COMPARISONS FOR 1950 TO 2015
For the period of 1950 to 2015, trends are the same for the “raw” GHCN data and for the “adjusted” Berkeley Earth and UKMO CRUTEM4 data. See Figure 2. The adjustments to the GISS data create a slightly higher trend, roughly 0.01 deg C/decade. Not too surprisingly, the adjustments to the NOAA/NCEI land surface temperature data show the greatest change in reported warming rates from 1950 to 2015, over 0.02 deg C/decade.
Figure 2
NOTE: Keep in mind that NOAA failed to correct for the 1945 discontinuity and trailing biases in their new “pause-buster” ERSST.v4 sea surface temperature data. That failure on NOAA’s part drastically increases the warming rate of that dataset since 1950 compared to the sea surface temperature dataset that has been adjusted for the discontinuity and trailing biases, the HADSST3 data. See the discussion of Figure 2 in the post here and the post Busting (or not) the mid-20th century global-warming hiatus, which was also cross posted at Judith Curry’s ClimateEtc here and at WattsUpWithThat here. It appears as though NOAA is trying to minimize the mid-20th Century slowdown in global warming with land surface temperature data as well (every little bit helps), so they can claim global warming was continuous since 1950. [End note.]
TREND COMPARISONS FOR 1975 TO 2015
1975 is a commonly used breakpoint between the mid-20th Century slowdown and the recent warming period in global land+ocean data. So we’ll use that as the start of our next period for the “raw” versus “adjusted” land surface air temperature comparisons. See Figure 3. The warming rates of the “raw” GHCN data and all four of the “adjusted” datasets are basically the same for the period of 1975 to 2015. Curiously, all but the NOAA data show very slight decreases in reported trends with the adjustments over this period.
Figure 3
TREND COMPARISONS FOR 1998 TO 2015
1998 is commonly used as the start year for the slowdown in global warming. Figure 4 compares the “raw” and “adjusted” global land surface air temperature trends during this short-term period of 1998 to 2015. The UKMO CRUTEM4 data shows basically the same warming rate as the “raw” data. The adjustments to the GISS data created only a minor increase, about 0.01 deg C/decade. The Berkeley Earth and the NOAA data show the adjustments added about 0.02 deg C/decade to the reported warming rate.
Figure 4
The real curiosity is that the adjustments suppressed the El Niño-related upticks in 2015…well, not so much for the NOAA data as shown in the next graph.
LONG-TERM DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE “RAW” AND “ADJUSTED” DATA
For those interested, Figure 5 presents the differences between the “raw” GHCN data and the “adjusted” data from Berkeley Earth, GISS, NOAA and UKMO. For this presentation, the data were referenced to the base years of 1880-1909 before the “raw” data were subtracted from the “adjusted” data. The early base years were used to provide a clearer illustration of the extent of the adjustments to the long-term data. The top graph includes the annual differences, and the bottom graph shows the annual differences smoothed with 5-year running-mean filters to reduce the annual volatility.
Figure 5
IMPACTS OF ADJUSTMENTS ON REPORTED LONG-TERM GLOBAL WARMING
It has recently become fashionable for alarmists to shift the data so that they can show how much global warming has occurred since “preindustrial” times. Unfortunately, most land surface air temperature datasets start well after “preindustrial” times, which, logically, are said to exist prior to the industrial revolution starting in the mid-1700s. So the best we can do is shift the data so that their linear trends align with zero at 1880. This also allows us to compare the “raw” and “adjusted” increases in global land surface air temperatures based on the linear trends. See Figure 6.
Figure 6
At the bottom of the illustration, I’ve listed the linear-trend-based changes in global land surface air temperatures from 1880 to 2015. The adjustments to the Berkeley Earth added about 0.35 deg C to the reported warming. For the GISS and NOAA/NCEI data, the adjustments increased the warming by roughly 0.3 deg C. The adjustments to the UKMO CRUTEM4 data only increased the reported warming since 1880 about 0.18 deg C.
As a reminder, we illustrated the decreases in long-term global warming that resulted from the adjustments to sea surface temperature data in the post here. In Figure 7, I’ve shifted the “raw” ICOADS sea surface temperature data and the sea surface temperature data used in the global land+ocean datasets so that their trend lines zero at 1880. Because the ocean surfaces on Earth cover more than twice the land surfaces (roughly 70% ocean versus 30% land), the upward trend adjustments to the land-based surface temperature data only offset a portion of the downward trend adjustments to the ocean surface temperature data.
Figure 7
Curiously, the trends of the “raw” sea surface temperature (Figure 7) and land surface air temperature (Figure 6) data are basically the same for the period of 1880 to 2015.
ONE MORE CURIOSITY
We mentioned above how the industrial revolution began in the mid-1700s. It just so happens that the Berkeley Earth land surface temperature data extend back to 1753. See Figure 8.
Important: the “global” land surface temperature data before 1880 have to be taken with a larger dose of salt than the data after 1880. To put that into perspective, the “global” land surface air temperature data in 1753 basically only include Europe, the eastern United States and eastern Canada. See the map here. Then again, Berkeley Earth presents it as “global”. With that in mind…
Like Figure 6, I’ve shifted the data so that the trend line equals zero at the first year of the data…in this case 1753. Based on the linear trends, the change in “global” land surface temperatures from 1753 to 2015 is less than the change in global land surface temperatures from 1880 to 2015.
Figure 8
Just a curiosity. The lack of data throughout the rest of the continental land masses in the early part of the data, and the resulting uncertainties, prevent us from knowing what land surface air temperatures were globally. Also, if you’re wondering, the ICOADS sea surface temperature data do not extend back that far, and, if memory serves, the very early ICOADS data are limited to parts of the North Atlantic.
CLOSING
The title question of the post was Do the Adjustments to Land Surface Temperature Data Increase the Reported Global Warming Rate?
As illustrated and discussed in this post, the answer is yes for the long-term land surface air temperature data.
For shorter-term periods (starting in 1950, 1975 and 1998), whether or not the adjustments have noticeable impacts land surface air temperature trends depends on the dataset and time period. Then again, as shown in the post here, the adjustments to the sea surface temperature data over those shorter timespans can increase the warming rates noticeably.
Again, many thanks to Zeke Hausfather for supplying the update for the unadjusted global GHCN land surface air temperature anomaly data.
For the next post, we’re going to compare the “raw” versus “adjusted” land+ocean surface temperature data for the NOAA, GISS and UKMO data. In other words, we’re going to merge the results from parts 1 and 2 of this series.
Off Topic,
Hamburg Germany Sunday 24 April 1120 -1157 Heavy warming ( snow ) 7c-3c
Snowing in Wyoming right now!
Hello!!! We need to be seeing the forest through the trees here. Look at all those charts. They all show least square regression LINES All these “adjustments are to make temperature MORE LINEAR with a more POSITIVE SLOPE That isn’t how CO2 impacts temperature. The impact of CO2 on temperature is curvilinear, not linear. The level of CO2 isn’t important, the amount of energy absorption is.
Here is the curvilinear chart of CO2 energy absorption, it is the relevant chart. The bottom chart is the CO2 level in the atmosphere. It is irrelevant. The “adjusters” should be making the top chart fit temperature in a true model, but in fact they are trying to make the bottom chart fit temperature. That is the wrong model. CO2’s impact on temperature ISN’T LINEAR
http://clivebest.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/radiative-forcing.png
http://alanbetts.com/image/1/1200/0/uploads/co2_data_mlo-1274143728.jpg
True, true, all true.
BUT:
Steve Goddard has shown that the data are adjusted to {linear} CO2, not {log} CO2.
And the complete post is here:
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2014/08/02/proof-that-us-warming-is-mann-made/
For me, this was a bombshell find, if real.
They are correcting {adjusting, really} for CO2 explicitly, and using the wrong mathematics of the effect.
We have all been waiting for this to come around and bite them ever since, as we know it must.
On the other hand, it seems somebody in ClimateScience! is always rewriting physics anyway, so maybe it is no big deal.
Great Post, Bob T.
That is my point, in my field of finance that is 100% evidence of a crime and the SEC would have me behind bars dining with Madoff. That is a smoking gun, it proves premeditation of the crime. It proves they know that they are doing, what they are doing it wrong, but it proves that the manipulation is intentional. Malice is a forethought. This is why I keep promoting the idea of an oversight body similar to the SEC/FTC/FDA/FBI to catch this stuff. The boys over at the SEC and FBI would be able to sniff this out in a second.
Goddard is wrong.
He is fitting to USCHN.
That 1000 stations of the 20K in the US
also
WE DONT USE USHCN!!!
Steven Mosher
April 24, 2016 at 10:38 am
Goddard is wrong.
He is fitting to USCHN.
That 1000 stations of the 20K in the US
also
WE DONT USE USHCN!!!
__________________________________
Yet the adjustments map to CO2 growth, that’s the point here, so somebody is doing something wrong with data if the results constantly drag temp in line with CO2 growth.
Why would someone bother doing such a thing anyway, if the data is not used, I might wonder?
“Yet the adjustments map to CO2 growth, that’s the point here, so somebody is doing something wrong with data if the results constantly drag temp in line with CO2 growth.
Why would someone bother doing such a thing anyway, if the data is not used, I might wonder?”
1. “the adjustments” are only a sample of the world wide data series.
2. It’s not at all clear that Goddard has even done his calculation correctly. That is, he typically does not
correct for spatial sampling.
3. TSince the adjustments were made some time ago, you’d have to believe they could predict where c02 would grow to.
4. Nobody would bother to do such a thing.
A) you can look at the code and see that it has NOTHING to do with C02
B) you can create your own adjustment approach independently and get the same answer ( we did)
Pretty simple. The problem with accusing people of being in a conspiracy is twofold
1. Those people ( like me ) know exactly what we did and why we did it. We know there is no conspiracy.
No emails from obama to me, no mails from NOAA, no money ( oh ya the Koch brothers paid )
So as someone who actually started out as a critic I have first hand irrefutable knowledge that I’m
not part of a conspiracy. When you claim or insinuate otherwise, you remove yourself as an intelligent
partner in reasoning together.
2. When you accuse or insinuate that people are part of a hoax or conspiracy you can never back down.
No amount of evidence can convince you. That’s the nature of conspiratorial thinking. You recognize
at once that if you accuse people of being part of a fraud and then have to retract that, that nobody will
take your seriously.
The simple fact is that you take Goddards work at face value. You dont practice skepticism with regards to his claims. But you do practice it with regards to claims you dont like. That selective skepticism also makes it hard for people to engage you seriously.
What an incredibly inventive man, Mr Goddard is. He found a data set for which the adjustments of NOAA show a nearly perfect alignment with CO2. Given the chance of the adjustments all being positive in the first place is 1 in over 1 BILLION. The fact they align the curve almost precisely to the CO2 curve is probably another 1 in a BILLION. Of course that may be because Mr Goddard was so lucky to find a dataset that had this characteristic. He must have a lot of spare time.
I have a new drug that cures cancer in 10% of people. All cancers. I use the drug on people and I keep adjusting the results to match my expected results. By selectively adjusting the data I prove to myself he drug works. This was done ALL this time by well meaning scientists for decades which is why we now require double blind tests for all drugs.
Recent studies of scientific papers in numerous sciences finds that scientists constantly seem to have found the data to support their conclusions and that as many as half of ALL science papers may have significant errors in their conclusions or results because of unknown reasons except that the results are irreproducable.
What a scientist wants to find they will find. In one of the most celebrated cases in physics a scientist tried to find gravity waves about 40 years ago. He setup elaborate experiments and produced results showing gravity waves. When people questioned his work he assiduously modified his results with adjustments that kept fixing the “errors.” Finally it was pointed out after dozens of adjustments there should be a bimodal distribution of the data with a peak every 12 hours instead of 24 and he went back and FOUND the missing peak. Then they realized the data should have 4 peaks. He found them. When it was discovered there should be 2 peaks he was finally disgraced. Even today the result of finding Gravity waves which came out just a couple months ago is being questioned and the result being put on hold. Physics holds stuff to high standards and even they admit mistakes. Climate Scientists, 31 adjustments to the data ALL producing a higher temperature adjustment which happens to match CO2 growth astonishingly but irrelevantly to some extent and the climate scientists all scream everything is fine. There is no wizard behind the curtain.
The pristine nature of climate science how it is settled and 97% agree on everything ever written by James Hansen is truly a wonder to behold. It is actually quite obvious what is going on now. I have written a series of blogs on the topic. Hansen in 80s predicted that temperatures would climb dramatically based on CO2 based on records from the ice ages which the only explanation was that cO2 had somehow been magnified to produce 80% of the ice age temperature change even though it theoretically could not account by itself for more than 10-20%. Computer models with fabricated but plausible sounding axioms were created and data fed into them with adjustments made until they got something that both modeled previous temperatures fairly well and showed a high magnification of CO2 effect. Thus climate science was born. The strength of the claim largely rests on the assumption that nothing can explain what happened in the ice ages except CO2 and then subsequent “multiplicative” feedbacks. Therefore they argue with vigor that even if models are wrong and whatever that in the end temperatures must rise dramatically.
Only one problem. They made a couple assumptions about the ocean, sun and other things which were not reasonable. Time has unraveled those assumptions. We now can guess that CO2 was NOT the main cause of the ice age temperature variations. Recent research has pointed to gravitational effects during the Milankovitch cycles combined with cyclic melting and freezing of the polar caps producing deformations in the crust and causing underwater vents to crack open periodically. Such effect has been proven quite significantly recently by looking at data on undersea volcanoes and gravitational effects of the moon and orbit of the earth being the main culptit of current undersea volcanism. You can read all about it at logiclogiclogic.wordpress.com looking at the category climate policy.
The ability to explain the majority of the variation in ice age temperatures without resorting to unproven feedbacks means the effect of co2 is somewhere between 1/2 to 1/5 the climate model results. This also happens to conform much better to the unadjusted temperature record without the need to constantly play with the data, adjust things and to keep explaining why the heat from the last 20 years went into the ocean etc. that has been embarrassing for the theory.
One might consider the mistakes of the scientists as “typical” and “well-meaning” except they did manage to extort billions from the population to fund their research. I consider the most egregious aspects to be around the prediction of negative effects which are the poorest science in the entire pot of half-baked theories.
A recent editorial in the Guardian pointed out that the “pleasant” weather of the last 40 years from the moderate climate temperature warming has made it hard for people to get worked up. For some of us who realized early on that something was foul in this science and figured out we weren’t getting the massive changes the theory predicted there had to be something else going on. We knew the effects would be positive of any warming so the guardians editorial is simply pointing out another of the gross errors and falsities of the theory. Warming temperatures are 20 times better for life than cooler temperatures. So, even if there was warming it was benign.
That is exactly why I’ve been making the case for an oversight agency that applies double blind testing to validate findings of tax payer funded research. Open source would also help.
but for all practical uses, the forcing is linear at range 400ppm ± 30 %
Don’t know if I agree with that. Looking down from 100 m, the impact of changing CO2 by +/- 30% is immeasurable. In other words the impact of CO2 in the lower 100 m, the level where most glaciers and all ground and sea temperature gauges are, is a constant, a constant zero. Changing CO2 from 280 to 400ppm will also have a much larger increase in energy absorption than changing from 400 to 520. Additionally, the charts in the graph go way back into the early 1700s. CO2 is assumed to have been around 280. Changing CO2 from 280 to 300(the level before man really cranked up CO2 post WWII) took over 200 years, going from 300 to 400 took 70 years. All those factors would result in the impact of CO2 as measured in a time series being non- linear. Anyway, that data is measured in the lowest 100m of the atmosphere. CO2’s impact on the lowest 100m is immeasurable over the relevant range. Simply plug it into MODTRAN.
Assumption: Pre-Industrial CO2 level was 280, and ending in about 1880.
https://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/FoS%20Pre-industrial%20CO2.pdf
CO2 looking down from 70km at 280ppm = 290.952 W/m2 from 100m = 419.818 W/m2 Year 1880
CO2 looking down from 70km at 300ppm = 290.638 W/m2 from 100m = 419.818 W/m2 Year 1945
CO2 looking down from 70km at 400ppm = 289.288 W/m2 from 100m = 419.818 W/m2 Year 2016
CO2 looking down from 70km at 520ppm = 288.064 W/m2 from 100m = 419.818 W/m2 Year ????
There is nothing linear about CO2, especially when put into contest with time and level of the atmosphere. If there is anything linear about CO2 it would be the most miraculous coincidence ever discovered in science. Simply put, linear relationships don’t exist in climate science, if they did, weathermen would be the most accurate people on the face of the earth.
More fun with numbers:
Changing CO2 from 280 to 300 altered the energy balance of the lower 70km by 0.11%.
Changing CO2 from 300 to 400 altered the energy balance of the lower 70km by 0.47%
Basically the impact of changing CO2 over the past 70 years is over 4x greater than over the previous 165 years. If CO2 is significant, one would think that changing it by a factor of 4 you wouldn’t need to make “adjustments” to make your case.
Changing CO2 from 400 to 520 ppm only alters the energy balance by 0.43%, changing it from 280 to 400 changed it by 0.58%.
Increasing CO2 all the way up to 7000ppm only changes the energy balance by 5.8%, but for the lowest 100 m it only changes it by 0.08%. Basically the climate change impact of CO2 on the lower 100 m is immeasurable, even at levels as high as 7000 ppm. Either MODTRAN is wrong or the entire field of climate “science” is corrupt, incompetent and dishonest on an epic scale rarely if ever seen before in history.
Take a look at the analysis and illustrations by Ole Humlum concerning the continuous global temperature reinterpretations by GISS and NCDC:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#GISS%20MaturityDiagram
particularly his analysis of the continuous changes in the GISS “data” in the second figure below the one that the link lands you, should raise serious questions about the methodology behind the adjustments.
Here a direct link to the inconvenient figure provided by Humlum:
http://www.climate4you.com/GlobalTemperatures.htm#GISS Aug1935 and Aug2006
The changes in GISS are due to two things
A) Changes in their algorithms
B) changes in the data set they ingest
These relate to what we would call structural uncertainty.
If you do the same thing for RSS and UAH ( look at their past records) you will see LARGER changes.
These changes relate to the METHODS used and the DATA used.
So. start with all the raw data. That is zekes curve.
Thats the raw data compile from daily unadjusted data.
Next. understand that every series maker then has to make choices
A) what subset of this data do i use?
B) what adjustments need to be made
C) what adjustment method do I use.
Those choices drive all the difference between raw and adjusted.
As you can see the difference between raw and adjusted is mousenuts. recall that the land is only 30% of the global surface..
Steven Mosher writes: “So. start with all the raw data.”
Wish we had some real raw data, instead of that “raw” data we have now.
You conveniently missed the point in Humlums analysis. Do you have an explanation for the fact that the distant past (1910 in Humlums analyisis) keep on getting colder and the more recent past (2008 in Humlums analysis) keeps getting warmer with each “update” to the methodology? Coincidence?
Thank you Bob,
What is their rationale for decreasing the temperatures through adjustments in your top set of graphs (LONG-TERM TREND COMPARISON), which tends to minimize the natural cooling period that occurred from about 1940-1975?
What was their alleged reason for these adjustments?
Regards, Allan
Allan MacRae, hopefully someone else will be able to answer your question. I can’t comment on the reason or reasons.
Really, the main questions should center around the reasons for the radical upward spikes in the “American” (Berkley, NOAA & NASA) adjustments in the late 1930’s to early 1940’s and late 1960’s to early 1970’s. Bob, are you aware of anyone ever asking such questions from the sources? BTW, your work is sterling, as ever.
Dave Fair
Silly americans tried to use all volunteers.
So you have many changes in operation.
worse, the were constantly moving stations and not correcting metadata.
David Fair, I believe the adjustments pre-1940 were strongly downward, not upward.
This tends to exaggerate total 20th Century warming and minimizes the global cooling from ~1940-1975.
I agree that these adjustments appear anything but random.
Allan, I was referring the rapid ramp-up in the magnitude of the changes to recorded temperatures from the very late 1930’s to the very early 1940’s and from the late 1960’s to the early 1970’s (eyeballed) in the chart of adjustments provided by Bob Tisdale for BEST, NOAA and NASA datasets. It seems the Brits hide their “ramping” adjustments over time much better.
Mr. Mosher’s detailed descriptions of the adjustments (I assume his are factual “wanderings in the weeds”) does not appear to account for such across-the-board rapid increases in temperature adjustments. While I expect no comprehensible answer, this exercise satisfies my engineer predilections and may needle Mr. Mosher’s seemingly smarmy soul. IMO, nothing will change in the data gatekeepers’ habits since silence and inaction is an indication of their political and economic power.
Dave Fair
..Like this ??
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-12-18-12-36-03.png
Allan MacRae on April 24, 2016 at 5:29 am
Thank you Bob,
What is their rationale for decreasing the temperatures through adjustments in your top set of graphs (LONG-TERM TREND COMPARISON), which tends to minimize the natural cooling period that occurred from about 1940-1975?
What was their alleged reason for these adjustments.
____________________
d’accord with you, Allan, and BT’s answere.
____________________
Ever thought of non science political aim?
Johann said: Ever thought of non science political aim?
Allan again:
Yes of course Johann, but I want to know their technical rationale (their excuse) for these particular adjustments. I suggest these adjustment are not technically credible, but there is a strong political motivation for warmists to minimize the global cooling that occurred from ~1940 to 1975.
I wrote this newspaper article (included below) in 2002, and draw your attention to this excerpt:
“Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing?”
This ~35 year natural cooling period from ~1940 to 1975, which occurred as fossil fuel combustion greatly accelerated circa 1940, tends to disprove the CAGW hypothesis and so is a major conundrum for global warming alarmists and their climate models. It is in fact one of the warmists key “fatal flaws”.
Warmist climate modellers are especially challenged by this conundrum, and so concocted the following falsehood to “solve” their problem. The modellers fabricated false aerosol data to force their climate models to hindcast the global cooling that occurred from 1940 to 1975, and used this falsehood to greatly inflate their model input values for climate sensitivity to atmospheric CO2 (ECS). These inflated values of ECS are why the IPCC’s climate models greatly over-predict manmade global warming.
For the evidence, see
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/02/24/new-paper-shows-global-warming-hiatus-real-after-all/comment-page-1/#comment-2152998
I suggest we got most of the facts correct as early as this 2002 article. We rejected wind and solar power, but perhaps should have said more about the most critical problem (in addition to high cost), which is intermittency of supply. Also, I am now even more negative about corn ethanol and most food-for-fuel schemes that I was in 2002.
Finally, when I wrote that society was “wasting billions on the fatally flawed Kyoto Accord”, I greatly underestimated the true cost of false global warming alarmism. Society has now squandered many trillions of dollars on the global warming scam – in dollar terms, it is one of the greatest frauds in human history.
Best regards, Allan
__________________________________________
KYOTO HOT AIR CAN’T REPLACE FOSSIL FUELS
Allan M.R. MacRae
Calgary Herald
September 1, 2002
The Kyoto Accord on climate change is probably the most poorly crafted piece of legislative incompetence in recent times.
First, the science of climate change, the treaty’s fundamental foundation, is not even remotely settled. There is even strong evidence that human activity is not causing serious global warming.
The world has been a lot warmer and cooler in the past, long before we ever started burning fossil fuels. From about 900 to 1300 AD, during the Medieval Warm Period or Medieval Optimum, the Earth was warmer than it is today.
Temperatures are now recovering from the Little Ice Age that occurred from about 1300 to 1900, when the world was significantly cooler. Cold temperatures are known to have caused great misery — crop failures and starvation were common.
Also, Kyoto activists’ wild claims of more extreme weather events in response to global warming are simply unsupported by science. Contrary to pro-Kyoto rhetoric, history confirms that human society does far better in warm periods than in cooler times.
Over the past one thousand years, global temperatures exhibited strong correlation with variations in the sun’s activity. This warming and cooling was certainly not caused by manmade variations in atmospheric CO2, because fossil fuel use was insignificant until the 20th century.
Temperatures in the 20th century also correlate poorly with atmospheric CO2 levels, which increased throughout the century. However, much of the observed warming in the 20th century occurred before 1940, there was cooling from 1940 to 1975 and more warming after 1975. Since 80 per cent of manmade CO2 was produced after 1940, why did much of the warming occur before that time? Also, why did the cooling occur between 1940 and 1975 while CO2 levels were increasing? Again, these warming and cooling trends correlate well with variations in solar activity.
Only since 1975 does warming correlate with increased CO2, but solar activity also increased during this period. This warming has only been measured at the earth’s surface, and satellites have measured little or no warming at altitudes of 1.5 to eight kilometres. This pattern is inconsistent with CO2 being the primary driver for warming.
If solar activity is the main driver of surface temperature rather than CO2, we should begin the next cooling period by 2020 to 2030.
The last big Ice Age, when Canada was covered by a one-kilometre-thick ice sheet, ended only about 10,000 years ago, and another big one could start at any time in the next 5,000 years. Mankind clearly didn’t cause the rise and fall of the last big Ice Age, and we may not have any ability to control the next big one either.
It appears that increased CO2 is only a minor contributor to global warming. Even knowing this is true, some Kyoto advocates have tried to stifle the scientific debate by deliberate misinformation and bullying tactics. They claim to be environmentalists — why do they suppress the truth about environmental science?
Some environmental groups supporting Kyoto also lack transparency in their funding sources and have serious conflicts of interest. Perhaps they are more interested in extorting funds from a frightened public than they are in revealing the truth.
Do they not know or care that Kyoto will actually hurt the global environment by causing energy-intensive industries to move to developing countries, which are exempt from Kyoto emission limits and do not control even the most harmful forms of pollution?
The Canadian government wants to meet its Kyoto targets by paying billions of dollars a year for CO2 credits to the former Soviet Union. For decades, the former Soviet Union has been the world’s greatest waster of energy. Yet it will receive billions in free CO2 credits because of the flawed structure of Kyoto. No possible good can come to the environment by this massive transfer of wealth from Canadians to the former Soviet Union.
Kyoto would be ineffective even if the pro-Kyoto science was correct, reducing projected warming by a mere 0.06 degrees Celsius over the next half-century. Consequently, we would need at least 10 Kyoto’s to stop alleged global warming. This would require a virtual elimination of fossil fuels from our energy system. Environment Canada knows this but doesn’t really want to tell you all the economic bad news just yet.
What would the economic impact of 10 Kyoto’s be? Think in terms of 10 times the devastating impact of the oil crisis of the 1970s (remember high unemployment, stagflation and 20 per cent mortgage rates) or 10 times the impact of Canada’s destructive and wasteful National Energy Program. Be prepared for some huge and unpleasant changes in the way you live.
Fossil fuels (oil, natural gas and coal) account for 87 per cent of the world’s primary energy consumption, with 13 per cent coming from nuclear and hydroelectricity. Is it possible to replace such an enormous quantity of fossil fuels?
Hydrogen is not an answer — it is a clean secondary energy currency like electricity, but it is made from primary energy such as fossil fuels, nuclear or hydro.
Kyoto advocates want expanded renewable energy such as geothermal, wind, and solar power and biomass to provide our future needs. Is this possible?
In 2001, there was a total global installed capacity of eight gigawatts (GW) of geothermal power and 25 GW of wind power. Even assuming the wind blows all the time, this equals only one quarter of one per cent of worldwide primary energy consumption. The contribution of solar electrical power generation is so small as to be inconsequential. To replace fossil fuels, we would need to increase all these renewables by a staggering 33,000 per cent.
Of course, wind doesn’t blow all the time — wind power works best as a small part of an electrical distribution system, where other sources provide the base and peak power. Although wind power has made recent gains, it will probably remain a small contributor to our overall energy needs. A 1,000-megawatt wind farm would cover a land area of 1,036 square kilometres, while the same-size surface coal mine and power plant complex covers about 36 square kilometres. Wind farms cover a much bigger area, are visible for miles due to the height of the towers and kill large numbers of birds.
What about solar? The electricity generated by a photovoltaic solar cell in its entire lifetime does not add up to the energy used to manufacture it, not to mention the requirement for vast areas for solar farms. These solar cells make sense only in limited special applications or in remote locations.
Hydroelectric power is another renewable, but environmental activists don’t want more hydro because it dams rivers.
What about biomass solutions such as ethanol? Canada, the United States and a few other countries may have available crop land for ethanol to partially meet our local needs, but it is clearly not a global solution.
Many developing countries will reject renewable energy due to higher costs, since renewables usually require subsidies to compete with fossil fuels.
Conventional nuclear fission or, someday, fusion are the only two prospects that could conceivably replace fossil fuels. But Kyoto activists hate nuclear.
Conservation is a good solution, but Canada has been improving its energy efficiency for decades, in response to rising energy prices. Significant improvements have been achieved in heating and insulation of homes, automotive mileage and industrial energy efficiency. However, Canadians live in a cold climate and our country is vast. There are practical limits to what we can achieve through energy conservation.
So where will all the energy come from if we eliminate oil, natural gas and coal? Kyoto supporters have provided no practical answers, they just want to ratify this flawed treaty. It would be nice if our energy supply solutions were simple, but they’re not. In the long run, if we implement Kyoto we will have only two choices — destroy our economy and suffer massive job losses and power blackouts, or break the terms of Kyoto, which will be international law.
Instead of Kyoto, a new global anti-pollution initiative should be drafted by people who have a much better understanding of science, industry and the environment. It should focus, not on global warming and CO2, but on real atmospheric pollutants such as SO2, NOx and particulates as well as pollutants in the water and soil — and no country should be exempt.
Then there might be a chance to actually improve the environment, rather than making it worse and wasting billions on the fatally flawed Kyoto Accord.
_________________________________________________
“Ever thought of non science political aim?”
Ever thought of trying to find out? Actually read the papers they write, for example?
For berkeley it’s simple.
1. The first adjustment made is to fix station metadata. I will give you an example.
‘ A station has a ID. say its FTR34567. Over the course of its history that station
is moved from a mountain top to a valley. In the metadata people kept the station
ID the SAME. But clearly as folks like Willis pointed out, this is really a new station!
The same thing happens when you swap instruments. To adjust for this, we do
what should have been done in the original records. We give it a new station ID
Thats it!. So, when the station changes ( new location, new instrument, new time of
observation) we just give it a new ID! This is great because we dont ASSUME as
other methods do, that these changes will NECESSARILY change the time series.
we just correct the metadata. This station underwent a material change in metadata
( where, when and how temperature is recorded) so we treat it for what it is, A new station.
here is an example
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/35832
I pick this example for a reason
https://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2016/03/25/what-happens-when-you-build-a-parking-lot-around-a-thermometer/
This is really funny.
A) goddard spots the jump and associates it with a parking lot.
B) there is actually a station move associated at that time.
C) we correct the trend in the raw data from 2C down to .88C
About 50% of all the adjustments are down to just correcting the metadata. When the station
changes its place.. its a new station. Change in time of observation.. dont adjust just give it a new
ID. when the instrument changes.. its a new station. Other folks try to adjust for this or splice stations
together.
2. The next adjustment is purely statistical. Take the stations in an area. For that area
compute the expected changes using all the data. Next look at all the individual stations
within that region. Do a statistical test. Does that station have a break from what we expect.
What does this do?
Lets suppose the station changed instruments and you have no record?. But the data shows a jump.
if the data shows a statistically significant jump, then create a new ID for that station.
You dont adjust the data, you just say “Hey, maybe something caused a 2C jump this
month.. none of the neighboring stations showed a jump! there is a jump here.
Again, you dont adjust you just make a note. This station has a material change. give it a new ID.
These are called emprical breaks. If you want you can change the stats around empirical breaks.
you can look for small jumps, bigger jumps, only huge jumps. We did a ton of testing around this.
About 50% of the adjustments are down to emprical breaks.
3. The last step is to due the actual adjustment. steps one and two give you raw series. raw series sliced into segments. Each segment is a station. that last over a period of time. If the segment is too short
say less than three years ( as I recall) we drop it. ( you can use these for testing later )
For the actual adjustment we dont actually adjust the station data. Say what? Nope, there is no adjusting of the data. here is what we do. You start by taking a time and space. Lets say you have a collection of neighbor stations during the period 1900- 1923. all these stations are complete in that period and they are close together. For that time-region you calculate the EXPECTED REGIONAL TEMPERATURE.
the next step is weighting. lets suppose that one station shows 4C warming during this period and its
neighbors close by show cooling. Well, now you have an error. using the neigbors you would have predicted cooling.. so there is an error of prediction using the cool stations to predict the warming one.
to address this, you give weights to the stations. Think of this as a quality weight. So you weight the stations
and then you re compute everything and look at your prediction errors again. Then change the weights again and iterate until you MINIMIZE the error of prediction. Thats the new regional expectation.
You dont adjust the data. you adjust the weights given to the raw data such that the error of prediction
( using neigbors to predict neighbors) is minimized.
For the global record, you integrate these regional expectations. there is no adjusting of the data series.
there is
1. Correcting metadata.
2. Assigning weights.
When you are done, then you can CREATE an adjusted series after the fact.
That is, you can create a series that represents what the series would have looked like had the changes to the station not occured.
So take Reno for example. the UHI there has been well documented at WUWT
here is what happens. as UHI infects that station it starts to diverge from its neigbors.
IF you use the neighbors to predict the temperature at the airport that prediction SUCKS
why? because the airport is warming faster because of UHI. when we see that we say
“dont trust this airport data, give it a smaller weight). then we predict again.. it still sucks
so we adjust the weight down even more.. rinse and repeat.. so this UHI infected
station gets its weight in the final average screwed down to virtually nothing.
Now, you can go back and ask the question.
What would the airport look like if it acted like its neigbors? if UHI didnt happen?
Thats an adjusted series
http://berkeleyearth.lbl.gov/stations/173102
Raw monthly anomalies 1.85
After quality control 1.83
After breakpoint alignment 0.70
Regional expectation during same months 0.75 ± 0.20
So raw data shows 1.85C per century
After we align breakpoints and apply weighs the station is .7C century
Fascinating. Those adjustments would apply to numerous individual stations, presumably randomly. Taken in the aggregate, how do they account for the datasets’ large upward step adjustments to land surface temperatures over short time periods in the late 1930’s to early 1940’s and late 1960’s to early 1970’s?
Dave Fair
Steven Mosher
A question.
I worked in component test for thirty plus years. When upgrading software and hardware we changed either or never both and we ran parallel operations with both comparing anomalies before switching to the new.
Why is there never any parallel running of temperature sensor and locations when upgrading?
Why can’t we make accurate thermometers?
It would not matter. The earth is no more than a bunch of micro climates, the average of which is meaningless.
Its true average temperature is meaningless.
Opps, there was was no little ice age.
IF area averages of temperature are meaningless we cannot say
1. the LIA was cooler than today
2. the MWP was cooler than today.
Simple fact is that area predictions of global temperature are not averages.
they may USE averaging as a method, but you are not averaging temperatures.
you are PREDICTING the temperature at unmeasured locations, using the data at measured locations.
we call it global average, but technically, its a prediction.
Steven Mosher April 24, 2016 at 11:44 am
I agree, “its true average temperature is meaningless”
OK.
So why use it to call it a proof of “climate change”?
Just call it what it is: “global warming” from data measured at some locations.
No?
Am I wrong?
“Steven Mosher April 24, 2016 at 11:44 am
I agree, “its true average temperature is meaningless”
OK.
So why use it to call it a proof of “climate change”?
###################################################
1. you deny that the climate has changed?
2. there is no proof in science.
This is pretty simple. In 1896 before greenpeace science predicted that if we added c02 temperatures would increase. We added c02. Did temperatures increase? Yup.
How do you know? well you take the only data you have and you compare temperatures in 1896 with
what they are today in the same locations.
Just call it what it is: “global warming” from data measured at some locations.
No?
Am I wrong?
You can do that. But that leaves Information on the table.
The data at KNOWN locations can be used to infer temperature at unmeasured locations.
Thats science. we make predictions.
Later, as we digitize more old data we can test those predictions..
Bonus.. we just found a few hundred old arctic stations.. now we can test the predictions we made.
Science. its cool. Predict that temperature at location X will be Z… then later WOW.. you find
old data for location X. make a prediction then test. cool. what do we call that?
Actually, Mr. Mosher, I do deny that the global climate has changed. Other than the possibility of slightly topping off a heat wave, there are no credible attribution of climate impacts due to the slight 20th century warming, human CO2 driven or not, that I am aware of. I defer to you on teasing out a story from a mass (mess?) of temperature data. Your statement about someone’s past prediction of warming future temperatures based on additional CO2, however, is hogwash. It may have warmed, but empirical evidence and even the models themselves show natural processes (even though unknown to me personally) play a significant role.
At some future point I will post a summary of my background and how I go about making decisions. Suffice it to say, I have dealt with number-crunchers such as yourself and find they tend to get lost in the weeds and sometimes develop smarmy habits.
Dave Fair
“This is pretty simple. In 1896 before greenpeace science predicted that if we added c02 temperatures would increase. We added c02. Did temperatures increase? Yup.”
And in 1965 they predicted temps would warm. Did they warm? Yup. Did they warm 7 degrees by the year 2000 as predicted? Nope. Did the seas rise by 26 feet by 2016 as predicted? Nope.
Especially at the surface!
When you show the 1930s and 1940s well below current temperatures I am not going to believe even your raw sources.
Yup, saw that and am still wondering how they can publish without being slammed head first into the pavement. So, what am I missing?
If I take my performance numbers from the 1930s and 1940s and adjust them down, and take my performance numbers from the 2000s and 2010s and “adjust” them upward, the SEC shows up and I do a perp walk in front of the cameras. That is what is needed in the field of climate “science.” We need to sick the SEC boys on them. They are all too familiar with these kinds of “adjustments.”
http://www.chuckgallagher.com/wp-content/uploads/madoff-monster.jpg
http://detectiveclub.info/perp%20walk%2022.jpg
raw sources are daily data. un adjusted.
if you like you can go compare them to paper records.
i spent two weeks doing that and nearly went blind.
really small error rate.
Shouldn’t the question be- Do estimates of Land Surface Temperature Data Increase the Reported Global Warming Rate?
WMO 2013-
“Because the data with respect to in-situ surface air temperature across Africa is sparse, a one year regional assessment for Africa could not be based on any of the three standard global surface air temperature data sets from NOAANCDC, NASA-GISS or HadCRUT4 Instead, the combination of the Global Historical Climatology
Network and the Climate Anomaly Monitoring System (CAMS GHCN) by NOAA’s Earth System Research Laboratory was used to estimate surface air temperature patterns”
ya, NOAA NASA and HADCRUT dont use all the data that is available for Africa
That will change going forward .
also more data recovery of old records has been filling in gaps.
Millions of paper records to be digitized
yep, you hit the nail on the head,.The WMO flag up that Africa needs 9000 automatic temp stations, no one has a clue what the temps are in Africa, one fifth of the world’s land mass, as the records are a basket case of sitting in drawers, cabinets, on the floor, thrown in bins, Always good to know that with estimations you can measure to hundredths of a degree in Africa- it’s a miracle.
Good to know that the very few temp stations that could be used are based at airports in cites or side of the road. Yep, that gives a great account of African temps.
you misunderstand.
Uh no , I don’t, I read the wmo pApers on the problems in Africa.
No, no misunderstanding, the WMO flag up the problems in an easily digestible way in their papers.
If anything i haven’t even touched the surface of problems in Africa. We should look at wars in the different countries over the last 60 years, the poverty, the corruption and it comes as no surprise there is limited or no temp data from vast areas of Africa,
Good to know that you can estimate temps to hundredths of a degree from no data.
Of course. Why else would they do it?
Thanks Bob. To add another curiosity to your Fig. 8, we may note the peculiar rattle snake tail at the end. Do you see the drop of variance? That variance depends on the station number, which decreased dramatically in the late twentieth century. So we should expect increasing variance. The only way to get decreasing variance is the removal of outliers.
I forgot to say that in skewed distributions (like all temperature data have) mean and variance are dependent.
“Do you see the drop of variance? That variance depends on the station number, which decreased dramatically in the late twentieth century. ”
err station numbers are stable in hadcrut. in others they drop.. in berkeley earth its stable.
So there is no dramatic drop in the number of stations across all series.
I see, in 1775 as many stations as in 1975. Where does the decreasing variance come from?
““Do you see the drop of variance? That variance depends on the station number, which decreased dramatically in the late twentieth century. ”
from 1775 to 1975 there is an increase in stations and a drop in variance
when you wrote “on the station number, which decreased dramatically in the late twentieth century.”
I assumed the relative clause refered to number of stations dropping in the late 2oth.
My guess is that someone will claim that the ‘enhanced’ CO2 forced warming is linear, even when the direct is log.
Just my .02. Thanks, Bob, for the great post.
Yep, that is a near certainty. They have to keep with the lie, their paychecks and freedom depend upon it. Problem is the “why.” Why would it be linear? You have to have a theory to explain it. Once again, this is all so predictable. “The Guilty Flee When No One Pursues.” The actions of guilty people are predictable.
http://www.chuckgallagher.com/wp-content/uploads/madoff-monster.jpg
The emphasis on analysing adjusted temperature sets seems somewhat misguided to me. Maybe it’s just my distrust of all of the adjusting organizations, their probable collaboration and the methodologies that always seem to produce results that go in the direction of warming trends.
If there is or has been global warming, and I’m not yet convinced at all, then there would have to be a large proportion of real untouched unadjusted temperature records around the world that show an increasing trend. It should be reasonably straightforward on a volunteer/crowd-funded basis for large numbers of contributors in all of the countries with good publicly available actual-reported temperature records to analyse, record and report results showing which are the countries and locations within those countries that actual reported maximum and minimum temperatures are and have been showing a warming trend over an extended period. Analysis should be on actual temperatures in C or F, not on some confusing anomaly concept based on moving baselines. I suspect a lot of this kind of analysis has already been and is being done, but is just not being reported and made available in the appropriate forum.
If there are continents or large numbers of countries that do indeed show a real measured increasing temperature trend, then maybe the world is genuinely deonstrating “global warming”. On the other hand, if there is not a large proportion of land areas around the world where an increasing real measured temperature trend is seen, how can we the world’s climate real “global warming”? Perhaps if there is warming, it’s only regional not global.
If there’s not a real genuinely demonstrated global warming trend, why is trillions of dollars being spent by government and other bodies worldwide on a non-existant problem? And why then would there be any concern about carbon dioxide etc?
Could something like this be organized through collaboration between the most significant websites such as WUWT, JoNova, a UK or European one?
“Maybe it’s just my distrust of all of the adjusting organizations, their probable collaboration and the methodologies that always seem to produce results that go in the direction of warming trends.”
Huh. We didnt collaborate with GISS or NOAA or HADCRUT.
In fact some objected to the whole idea that we would redo the record from scratch
OH ya, we dont use anomalies.. real temps instead.
Bottom line. the raw data shows warming.
as predicted in 1896
we dont use anomalies.. real temps instead
You use the SLOPEs, d(temp)/d(time) which are much closer to anomalies than they are “real” temps.
You break the records into absurdly short segments so you can generate whatever slope you want.
Has BEST ever published a population distribution by station length after application of the scalpel?
Here’s mine from a a Dec. 2013 comment
Has BEST ever published distributions of the relative temperature differences of the two trend lines ending and beginning points created at the scalpel breakpoints?
“You use the SLOPEs, d(temp)/d(time) which are much closer to anomalies than they are “real” temps.
HUH? No, we calculate everything in temperature. Sorry.
You break the records into absurdly short segments so you can generate whatever slope you want.
Err Nope.
1. We actually tested ( a massive sensitivity test ) about what happens as you change the “empirical”
break point approach. Does not really do what you claim. Sorry. There is no tuning of
slopes. There is an weighting of stations to minimize the error of prediction.
2. We tested the algorithm in a double blind fashion. It passed.
3. Over slicing has zero effect. basically you can see this by getting the code and testing it,
That is why we provide code. So you can actually demonstrate how our assumptions work.
4. In theory
“Has BEST ever published a population distribution by station length after application of the scalpel?”
In the original implementation stations are split on average at about 4 locations. One thing that confuses people is that the data for really short segments is posted, but never actually used in the process. I’ve got some work in progress looking at an entire database of all the segments.. Finding the sites where we correct out the UHI has been really fun.
If you want a distrubution like that, you have two choices.
A) go to the online station files ( not the file you downloaded) and collate it.
B) run the code and output it.
We post the code and data so that smart people who want to find problems ( there are tons) and fix them
can help. There are over 100K graphs, I can go look through SVN and see if your particular request
( I love homework) is already there. or you can log onto SVN.. we do give you free SVN access.
why?
So you can go get the code and do the test that will destroy every claim we make. We give you the tools
to demonstrate the flaws.. Thats cool, beausse then we can fix them.
Unlike Phil Jones, I give you the code and data so that YOU can find something wrong with it.
You know, back when McIntyre and I were asking Hansen for code, People said
“Mosher you just want to pester hansen and keep him from working”
I made a promise. If hansen freed his code, I would NEVER bother him with a question.
Any question whatsover.
I would say thank you ( Gavin spiked my thank you comment) and I would dig into hansens
code and prove him wrong.
Opps. I failed.
here was the point. The code is the best decription. If he gave me that, I dont care how he describes
what he had done. I can go see. And whats better is that I dont have to pester him with homework.
“hey Hansen, Im not convinced unless you do X for me” nope. Just give me the code and I will
find the problem. I will change it, improve it, you know do science.
So, go get the code. Change the break point code in any way you want.
get the code, tweak it to out put the exact table you want of series
or download the station data ( adjusted series with the break point flags) and do a histogram.
What a joke. It didn’t warm in the manner nor the rate predicted by those who used the naive equations, even when they applied supercomputer lipstick.
Stephen Rasey,
I have asked for similar information 10 times now.
Steven Mosher, we do not want your faulty code, we want the Raw temperature data as recorded by the stations.
The Berkeley code basically chops the station records into tiny bits (whenever there is down-dip in the station while leaving all the up-ticks in place so that the general temperature trend is up. That is what the code was designed to do.
Theoretically, the breakpoints should be randomly distributed through time – just as many down-ticks removed as up-ticks in 1920, 1935 etc.
Nope, the changes have a systematic bias over time (and we know that is true because Mosher and Zeke refuse to show this clearly required analysis).
The simple fact remains that there are many ways the data has been adjusted upwards and I am yet to find any example of it being adjusted downward. It is also true that the data misses whole areas of the globe and fails to take account of “rural heating” which is strongest in the areas where you would typically site these stations (easy to get to rural areas near large centres of population – which saw the highest change in the 20th century)
As far as I know none of these datasets comply even with basic quality assurance standards like ISO9000 and they are run by people who are obsessed to demonstrate there has been some kind of warming.
So, in terms of credibility – almost zero.
27% of world temp stations are in Urban areas.
The WMO give these stations a zero for quality.
Analysis of real measured temperatures would need to ignore all stations that are located in urban areas or at airports etc. Primarily they should only be stations in rural locations that have been in existence for an extended period with no significant changes. This to enable UHI and similar spurious influences to be absent from temperature trends.
It’s a simple fact of life that meteorological stations designed to produce forecasts for people will tend to be located in rural areas with a very distinct climate and global warming trend and it is highly dishonest to suggest that these areas are in any way typical of the globe.
However, it is all too convenient if your intention was to create a network that “proved” global warming.
Yet……
“We observe the opposite of an urban heating effect over the
period 1950 to 2010, with a slope of -0.10 ± 0.24°C/100yr (2σ error) in
the Berkeley Earth global land temperature average. The confidence
interval is consistent with a zero urban heating effect, and at most
a small urban heating effect (less than 0.14°C/100yr, with 95%
confidence) on the scale of the observed warming (1.9 ± 0.1°C/100 yr
since 1950 in the land average from Figure 5A).
http://www.scitechnol.com/influence-urban-heating-global-temperature-land-average-using-rural-sites-identified-from-modis-classifications-vwBQ.pdf
“Analysis of real measured temperatures would need to ignore all stations that are located in urban areas or at airports etc. Primarily they should only be stations in rural locations that have been in existence for an extended period with no significant changes. This to enable UHI and similar spurious influences to be absent from temperature trends.”
1. Did that study
2. Created thousands of temperature series using THOUSANDS of definitions of rural stations
A) rural means low population
B) rural means no pavement
C) rural means no night lights
D) rural means no airports
E rural means no people, no pavement, no airports, no nightlights
Did thousands of runs changing the threshhold values for population, nightlights, land cover,
3. Answer??? RAW RURAL STATIONS by ANY DEFINITION OF RURAL showed similar warming
as Non urban — the difference was in the noise..
4. Conclusion: yes it has been warming. There was an LIA. It is warmer now than it was in the LIA
There was an LIA. It is warmer now than it was in the LIA
All that work, for something that was alreday known by mainstream geologists?
“All that work, for something that was alreday known by mainstream geologists?”
db. Dont look at me. It was skeptics who argued that all the warming in the record was a hoax
Funny on one hand they said there was an LIA, and on the other hand they said modern warming wasnt real? too funny
27% of world temp stations are in Urban areas.???
Gosh, it depends on HOW YOU DEFINE urban
Some cases are easy. Hong kong, LA, NYC.
But even in cities we know there are cool locations.. yup, areas that are COOLER than rural sites.
Still the question remains what is rural what is urban?
So, a while back I took a look at that
here are the criteria we looked at
1. The population: at 1km resolution and 5 minute (8-10km) resolution.
We then did sensitivities. That means we classified stations as urban or rural based on a rule
that we changed ( if population less than (LT) 1 people per km, its rural, then LT 5,10, 15, 20, etc)
so since there is no well defined cut off you look at ALL cutoffs
2. Urban extent measures. Is the site within the administrative boundary. basically city limits type
metric
3. Land class metric: Did a satellite say it was a city?
4, Nightlights? Are there lights on at night? here too wee have to do a sensitivity.. 0 lights to just a few
5. Impervious surface. Did the DSMP satellite think there was asphalt there.. How much? here we
do a sensitivity.
6. Modis land cover? did the modis sensor see any asphalt? within 5km of the site? 10 km? 20 km?
how much?
7. Airports. was the site close to an airport?
in short. I didnt just make an arbitrary decision 5000 people is urban.
I didnt do what hansen does ( nightlights below 15 is rural )
Nope.
I created a process for testing THOUSANDS of definitions of rural and urban
What if I define rural as less than 10000? 5000? 4000? 3000, 2000, 1000, 500, 250, 100, 50, 10, 5, 0
What if I define rural as less than 20 nightlights, 18, 15, 12, 9, 5, 3,0?
What if I define rural as 20% ISA, 19% 18% etc
What if I combine all these filters? no people, no asphalt, no airports.
That “classifer” then gets used to divide the stations into two piles.
urban and rural.
Oh ya,, then there is the three pile version… rural urban and cant decide.
Oh ya, then there was the version where a rural % was created from 0 to 100%
Anyway, you end up with thousands of ways to divide the stations into various test piles
And then you test one pile versus the other.
Try to find a UHI signal in global data. Its really hard.
Try doing it thousands of times varying the definition of rural.
Still hard to find.
when you finish doing that people will still say.. I cant believe you didnt find it.
Hypothesis: If you just look at rural stations the warming will disappear.
Tested that.
Opps, its still is warming. about as much as the ocean which has no UHI?
Hypothesis busted.
next comes the moving of goal posts.
Yes, the planet is still warming. It has been warming within the same parameters since the 1800’s:
And in the U.S., the 1930’s were by far the warmest decade:
And during the 1940’s, global cooling dominated, thus deconstructing the ‘CO2=AGW’ narrative.
Despite all the hand-waving, temperatures have not been unusual or unprecedented:
Once again: there is nothing either unprecedented, or unusual happening:
Finally, the public is losing interest, because ‘climate’ scare predictions never come true:
http://s27.postimg.org/68cs7z8wj/Hadcrut4_Kelvin_1850_to_2013.png
@Steven Mosher at 1:40 pm
. Dont look at me. It was skeptics who argued that all the warming in the record was a hoax
An example of why I cannot take anything you write seriously.
No skeptic has argued that “all the warming” was a hoax.
Skeptics have argued that through biased adjustments, questionable processing procedures, selective data, and argumentation from authority, that data showing warming has been accentuated and data showing cooling has been depreciated,….
…. so that politicians can purport a hoax on the public.
Steven Mosher wrote:
It was skeptics who argued that all the warming in the record was a hoax
‘All’ the warming was a hoax? Who said that? Names, please.
(For the record, I’ve never said that, or anything like it. Global warming is real… and natural.)
“The simple fact remains that there are many ways the data has been adjusted upwards and I am yet to find any example of it being adjusted downward. ”
SST is adjusted downward.
70% of the record is adjusted down
30% adjusted up.
Holy crap its a conspiracy to cool the record!!!
just out of curiosity….
translate that into degrees
70% of the record is adjusted down….how many degrees down was that?
30% adjusted up…how many degrees up was that?
….just curious
are you talking about the historical past record…70% adjusted down
…to show a greater increase in the rate of warming..the slope
Please see my above comment about number-crunchers and smarmy.
MET – “In truth, there is a distinctive microclimate for every type of environment on the Earth’s surface.
As far as the UK is concerned they include the following:
• Upland regions
• Coastal regions
• Forest
• Urban regions
example – ” Upland areas have a specific type of climate that is notably different from the surrounding lower levels.
Temperature usually falls with height at a rate of between 5 and 10 °C per 1,000 metres, depending on
the humidity of the air. This means that even quite modest upland regions, such as The Cotswolds, can
be significantly colder on average than somewhere like the nearby Severn Valley in Gloucestershire”
If we compare the climate statistics for three locations in Devon, one upland and the other two coastal,
namely Princetown, Plymouth and Teignmouth, each only 20 miles apart, you would think that the climate
of these three locations would be very similar. However, looking at the statistics below, you can see that their
climates are quite different.”
It’s wonderful to know that GISS estimate up to 1200 kilometers from temp stations to give us record breaking temps measured to hundredths of a degree.
You can actually test the ability to predict station temperatures out to 1200km.
It works pretty good.
What you do is this.
GISS uses 7K stations, in recent times, fewer stations.
You go to the raw datasets and you pull out the THOUSANDS of stations they didnt use.
You then test whether their extrapolation ( its really a prediction) is accurate or not.
It is.
Sorry.
Skeptical hypothesis: You cannot extrapolate ( predict) from one station to those within 1200km.
Test that.
Opps you can. Thats the whole key behind geo spatial statistics.
For Berkeley we did this type of out of sample testing ..Build map of the world using 5K stations..
then test the out of sample stations.
rise and repeat..
Just basic
So basic that there are COOKBOOK versions. very standard stuff.
http://artax.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/r-help/library/geoR/html/xvalid.html
Its funny. Skeptics on Climate audit said “krigging krigging krigging” use STANDARD statistics.
used for decades!!
So we did.
Got the same answer as GISS funky homebrewed stats
Mosher: Skeptical hypothesis: You cannot extrapolate ( predict) from one station to those within 1200km.
Test that.
GHCN’s Dodgy Adjustments In Iceland — Paul Homewood, Oct. 2012
A story in which six stations on Iceland, which mutually agreed with each other, were adjusted by pairwise homogenization.
GHCN’s Dodgy Adjustments In Iceland
Link to ref above fixed.
“You can actually test the ability to predict station temperatures out to 1200km.
It works pretty good’
I told you all, we only need one temp station in the UK, the MET’S comments about micro climate and changes in temps are irrelevant. You can have a temps station at sea level and funnily enough it can accurately measure the temps in mountains a 100, 200, 300, or more kilometers away- and to hundredths of a degree!!!
“You go to the raw datasets and you pull out the THOUSANDS of stations they didnt use”
In Africa, one fifth of the world’s land mass- really- LOL !
a thought – we only need one temp station in the UK.
We only need one for most of the globe – a satellite.
Can you imagine what it would have been like if the surface data was showing cooling and the satellites were showing warming. How we sceptics would be attacked for not using the “most modern and global temperature set”.
ah no. the satellites have huge structural uncertainty.
basically, their agreement with other measures tells you a little,
their disagreement tells you almost nothing.
Mr. Mosher, there are balloons.
Yeah, if it’s good out to 1200 miles, you’re good with one!
i’m thinking somewhere in Leicester-
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=map+of+the+UK&tbm=isch&imgil=uBurEXCgnTf_nM%253A%253BandazhGpE1UzRM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fgwydir.demon.co.uk%25252Fjo%25252Fmaps%25252Fuktowns.htm&source=iu&pf=m&fir=uBurEXCgnTf_nM%253A%252CandazhGpE1UzRM%252C_&usg=__Tm2xyRDVYNe4l1fpNZTw5yp_eLA%3D&biw=998&bih=674&ved=0ahUKEwjH_Ia8wKfMAhVHqxoKHU7JDDoQyjcILg&ei=qdocV4eEEsfWas6Ss9AD#imgrc=uBurEXCgnTf_nM%3A
I would suggest that Bob Tisdale adds a fourth analysis to his series with land/ocean RAW with uncertainties are compared with the “adjusted” sets also with uncertainties at say 95% or what is appropriate. All the singular lines seem to indicate that there is not to be found any deviation from that center line. The +/- uncertainties would certainly add to the understanding. I firmly believe that this “hocus pocus” will only end if the USA elects a Republican President and he maintains control of Congress. I think that Trump as President and Cruz/Inhofe/Smith as “activists” in Congress with presidential support would sort out the mess in a matter of months.
“I firmly believe that this “hocus pocus” will only end if the USA elects a Republican President and he maintains control of Congress. I think that Trump as President and Cruz/Inhofe/Smith as “activists” in Congress with presidential support would sort out the mess in a matter of months.”
Err no.
If Trump commissioned folks to redo the record, they would get the same results.
And then you would argue that he was a democrat in disguise.
Imagine if the Koch Brothers funded people to redo the series……
Opps they did.
That was Berkeley Earth
Funded with Skeptic dollars
Of course, now they are part of the conspiracy.
Here is the deal
The raw SST combined with the raw air temps gives you a WARMER earth.
You want raw data? good. you just made the 2oth century warmer than the MWP
Mixing water and air just gives you foam.
If you were to go basic to science 101 , research methods and define what accuracy , range and coverage would be needed to give this number scientific validity , how well would what is the currently the situation match that definition ?
The answer is probable the same as most answer in this area, is in fact that the data is used not because it does met the requirements of this definition , but because it is in effect ‘better than nothing ‘
Amazing to think that the standards acceptable for making decisions costing trillions , and ones that have implications for billions of people, and which are claimed to unquestionable settle science , are below those acceptable for a manufactory making tin cans .
“If you were to go basic to science 101 , research methods and define what accuracy , range and coverage would be needed to give this number scientific validity , how well would what is the currently the situation match that definition ?”
err no. You would go back to geo spatial statistics 101.
The question would be
1. GIVEN the data you have at locations n1,n2,n3,n4……
2. What is your PREDICTION for the measures at all the unsampled locations?
4. Compute the error of prediction or uncertainty.
5. verify your prediction.
co2islife:
In several of the above postings, I think you are using “immeasurably” incorrectly in phrases such as “Basically the climate change impact of CO2 on the lower 100 m is immeasurable, even at levels as high as 7000 ppm.” The word “immeasurable” generally is used in reference to a parameter is extremely large or limitless. I suspect you probably meant “inconsequential” or “irrelevant” or “infinitesimal”.
Good discussion. I do wonder just how dodgy the “rest of the world” data bases are to show the 1930’s as colder than present when that did not happen in the US and western Europe (the best data bases?).
The US data is the worst.
Volunteers. no standards.
I think that among many other things the main problem in establishing the temp trend in accordance of a warming (or cooling) in the climate term, is the very problem of the definition of the “climate” or the employing assumption of that definition in constructions of such trends.
It seems at first as “innocent” enough and .acceptable but……..climate is not the long term weather…….which actually is the base line for the way the temp anomalies are actually used as in constructing trends of temps in climate terms.
The way it is done, to me it seems that the warming trend is not an actual representation of a trend in climatic term….it happens not to be challenged MUCH because for a long enough period, by coincidence is not different from the reality of the climatic condition of warming, up to I would say the year 2000, for ~150 years up to then. (same way (similar) as the GCMs projections, a coincidence in a 50% chance).
The main point about the temps trends, when constructed through the temps anomalies, is that it represents only the trend of the temps anomalies over a long period of time nothing else in essence…..meaning that for as long as the anomalies increase there is plenty of room to propagate that as a warming, regardless that this is not a given by default……but you see the basic assumed definition of climate allows it……..Climate is weather in long term…….And as far as I can tell this is another “trick” used to keep pushing for a continuing warming, where there actually may not be any more continuing in the warming.
Temp anomalies may keep increasing, and the climate may be in a cooling trend actually, but a 150 years of “positive” temp anomalies would not allow for the increase in the “negative” anomalies to surface and be counted correctly, especially when the climate definition is the way it is and the authority deciding about such as, is trusted with the Gavins/Joneses and company……
As I have tried to say before, even when the anomalies keep growing, the method and the “metric” used to analyze and process the data can not be the same for a warming versus a cooling period, especially in the very turning period from one to the other, more so when the ppm(s) still going up.
The point made here is simple, we can’t actually accurately quantify a warming (in a climatic term) and propagating that as a continuing of the warming by relying in the temps anomalies trends indefinitely and blindly when actually have not clearly and satisfactory enough established that climate is still in the same trend for the period in question and not shifting.to a different one.
That will be something like a backward estimation…..of the climate and its trend.
A temp trend of temp anomalies could be good as it is up to a point, for a climatic trend estimation, but is not by default a correct representation of a climatic trend by default, not for all given situations, as it is only a trend of temp anomalies only, where without the required care to analyze, process and interpret the data the error bars could be as such as at a given point the climatic trend in reality could be the opposite of that of the temps anomalies, in given periods of time.
There could be a drop of temps for a long enough period, but still relying in anomalies and the way of processing of such as, could still result in a warming trend, contrary to the reality…………if the evaluation and the analyzes fail to establish first if there is or not a climatic trend shift, or such a possibility.
The hiatus should have knocked that home by now, but all depends on whom is trusted with the authority in such matters.
I always do consider that somewhere some how I could be wrong or very wrong, please if that seem the case as per above, I will appreciate it if told and informed,,,,,,,, only trying to further my learning in this subject……
cheers
“The main point about the temps trends, when constructed through the temps anomalies, ”
berkeley earth doesnt use anomalies.
We get the same answer as those who do.
Hypothesis: Dont use anomalies and you will get a better answer
OK dr Feynman, we did that test
got the same answer
Dr. feynman. I guess the hypothesis about anomalies is wrong!
yup.
Psst.. I thought it would make a difference.. long ago I hated anomalies.. so I stopped using them
opps.. I get the same answer using them or not using them
So much for that theory
If you try to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear … it doesn’t matter what technique you use, you’ll never make a silk purse. So, the argument “we do it a different way” is just nonsense.
All anyone can reasonably do with a sow’s ear – is to admit it is a sow’s ear and then those paying you for your work will know that either they keep funding something that is fundamentally a waste of time or they spend a lot more money on something fit for purpose.
“If you try to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear … it doesn’t matter what technique you use, you’ll never make a silk purse. So, the argument “we do it a different way” is just nonsense.
All anyone can reasonably do with a sow’s ear – is to admit it is a sow’s ear and then those paying you for your work will know that either they keep funding something that is fundamentally a waste of time or they spend a lot more money on something fit for purpose.”
The hyypothesis under test was this: USE TEMPERAURES not anomalies.
we did that test.
Skeptic hypothesis was wrong.
“”If you try to make a silk purse out of a sow’s ear … it doesn’t matter what technique you use, you’ll never make a silk purse. So, the argument “we do it a different way” is just nonsense.”
1. Then tell the people who demanded we use temperatures that the request was nonsense.
2. Changing METHODS is the only way you can estimate structural uncertainty.
3. Asserting that things are sows ears requires due diligence. I would expect a skeptic to avoid
argument by assertion
“All anyone can reasonably do with a sow’s ear – is to admit it is a sow’s ear and then those paying you for your work will know that either they keep funding something that is fundamentally a waste of time or they spend a lot more money on something fit for purpose.”
1. No first as good skeptics we have to test the assertion that its a sows ear. We can actually do that
with CRN now. The gold standard WUWT approved CRN stations– match the sows ear exactly
over the last 10-15 years. A good skeptic would doubt his assertion that the ears belong to a pig.
Some might. out of 40K stations there are probably thousands of pigs ears.
2. The uncertainty bars are pretty clear. pigs ears? i dunno I dont do subjective evaluations.
3. Fit for purpose? Lets see. It was predicted in 1896 that if we added more c02 the planet would warm.
wanna test that? cool. Look at the temperature.. A pigs ear says yes. Now if the pigs ear said NO
you can bet it would be the best pigs ear in your mind.
4.Fit for purpose? Lets see. Folks thought that the LIA was cooler than today. Lots of paintings of snow.
wanna test that? cool. Look at the temperature.. A pigs ear says yes, it was cooler in the LIA. Works for that purpose.
5.Fit for purpose? Lets see. suppose you are Nic Lewis and Judith Curry and you want to estimate ECS
Look at the temperature.. A pigs ear says yes, ECS is lower than CAGW alarmist thought.
Works for that purpose.
6.Fit for purpose? Lets see. Folks have these GCMs.. they try to simulate the temperature.
wanna test that? cool. Look at the temperature.. A pigs ear says NO.. the models dont match reality.
The pigs ear thrashes the models.. Pigs ear works for that.
7.Fit for purpose? Lets see. Folks want to predict the weather. So they need weather observations.
They ingest the pigs ear ( and some really ugly data really crappy ) thats right.. they use the same
sources we do.. and they produce a forecast. Do I need an umbrella today? or a jacket? Nope
thanks to the pigs ear.
8.Fit for purpose? Lets see. One of my clients wanted a weather driven sales forecast. He was losing sales
and had screwed up inventory. Simple. Ingest the pigs ear, do some basic averaging and modelling.
and… yup.. fit for purpose.
9.Fit for purpose? Lets see. A politician wants to know whether to raise taxes on carbon. For this he looks at a lot of different things. Pigs ears, models, donors deep pockets, what voters think, all sorts of stuff.
Is it fit for the purpose of making sausage? otherwise known as law? You BET. bigs ears are great for policy. definiately fit for purpose.
Steven Mosher
April 24, 2016 at 12:13 pm
——
Hello Mosher…..even as I can not tell much about your reply to me when it comes to the point made, I still can tell you that none of the data in temps adjustments and other processing methods of these data can by default represent the climatic trend.
Now, I did rely in the point of the anomalies trend to clearly clarify how misguided an assessment could be when trying to asses the climatic trend BY SUCH AS……..especially when climate considered as a long term weather, wrongly.
The fallacy of the “long term weather”, as a term, is in par with the fallacy of ” small(or little or minor)supper power”….or that of a “major (or huge overwhelming) minority” same BS.
Which ever way you look at the data, especially when adjusted or further processed for a better “reading”, in my view and in my understanding, show clearly enough that the climate is already in a cooling trend, and depending in how much such adjustments or further processes are biased towards a upper end warming simply will effect the assessment in the degree of establishing the resolution and the sharpness of that trend. The adjustment and the other processes involved can not change the reality Mosher, only can increase the clarity and the resolution of our perception of it and suddenly enough for the AGWers, still a biased approach will only increase further that and not be able to change it. It will show it much clearly if you look in the right “places” and with the right approach.
You see Mosher, from my point of view, there is a big contradiction in the data, especially the anomalies one…………especially the adjusted and further model processed.
There could not be any warming trend or even a hiatus if the same data shows a so much “certain” and claimed” warming in short term (like in year to year bases…. by the claim of so many record warming years in succession……..the eveh warmer year) when actually the same data show a hiatus in a longer term trend. These condition can be only if climate has turned in a cooling trend from a prior warming trend, because if it was in the same warming trend as prior or even in a real hiatus the short and long term evaluation of the data will show results complementing and supporting each other and not actually contradicting each other as the case seem to be.
To further explain my point let me use a kind of a thought experiment.
Trying to estimate a climatic trend by short term temp measurements either as in anomalies or otherwise, will be like trying to estimate the direction of an airplane (up or down or whatever) by analyzing and processing the data about the trail the plane leaves behind……
That trail only it could reveal the direction, if all considered carefully, but does not change or effect the actual path of the plane, regardless of the plane been in autopilot or under a human-anthropogenic control.
Adjusting and further processing of that data simply make it much clear what direction the plane is heading.
If the short term data of the trail shows high…. and in the same time the long trend of the same data shows much much lower then according to it the orientation of the axis of the plane (the actual climatic trend in the case of climate) means that it is heading down instead of going up…..
Smoke and mirrors can hide for a time even an elephant but can not erase it from the reality and existence.
IPCC, recognizing the hiatus and in the same time ignoring and dismissing the relevance of the record of successive record warming years lately, is same as the dismissing and ignoring of the hiatus by the “eveh warmer year” club…….Both clubs aimed and orientated toward smoke and mirrors rather than the actual scientific method…..claimed so much and so feverishly by both………
And scientific institutions like NASA and NOAA when actually fueling such fanfares of the “evah warmer year” still at the same time care to have a safety net by assigning to such claims in the “small print” a very low certainty………
Anyway just tried to further my explaining of my point by this given angle…..just in case….hopefully my point is more clear…….
The main of this clarification is that, from my view there could not be such a condition with the temp data and still we be claiming a warming trend in climate….even a hiatus is not a given in the prospect of such a relation of short term and long term of the same data…..
To me the fanfare of the “evah warmer year” and a record in such as, is simply a “harakiri” act (Seppuku) performed by the warmistas….blindly I would say.
“Karlization” is the last latest desperate act to save the day,,,,,,but that already seems to be a disgraceful failure……
cheers
Your first paragraph says “IMO, the main problem is the definition of climate.”
I can’t tell what the rest of it says. Can you?
Mr. Mosher, you keep mixing up your pigs ears with CO2. I have no problem with your pigs ears, except maybe a small concern about steep stepwise warming adjustments in the late 1930’s and again in the late 1960’s. You keep slipping in little CO2 non sequiturs when making your understandable statements about your field of work. Establishing a link between any temperatures at different parts of the globe and CO2 concentrations seems to be outside your specialty.
Also, think weeds and smarmy.
Dave Fair
Sleepalot
April 24, 2016 at 12:33 pm
Your first paragraph says “IMO, the main problem is the definition of climate.”
I can’t tell what the rest of it says. Can you?
————————-
Yes…..if climate considered as long term weather it implies (wrongly) that the trend of the temp anomalies by default represents accurately the climatic trend,,,,,,,, so, wrongly it implies that a warming trend or whatever in the temp anomalies trend is the climatic trend……..but a trend of temp anomalies is just that nothing more or less…….with the right, careful and scientific approach it could tell and reveal the climatic trend even in the case of the claimed biased adjustments…..but it must not be considered as a climatic trend by default…..as it is a case of misguiding and confusion….where without no question you will accept blindly some thing for what it is not………
Maybe my last reply to Mosher clarifies my point made clearly…..especially in the “thought” experiment, The plane’s trail simply could reveal the direction but can not actually direct the plane or by default represent at any given moment the actual direction……it requires further and more analyzing and evaluation of its data……without dismissing and hand waving some in favor of some else, as per the pleasure of one or the other
Hopefully this clarifies it…….
cheers
I don’t get it.
Adjustments are supposed to be done beacuse something has happened near the station meassuring the temperature that affects it.
As far as I know the urban heat island effect ias real and should increase as our population and cities grows. The curves presented shows no adjustment at all for urban heat island effect. If adjustments for urban heating is done then there is an equal part of adjustment for urban/siting cooling. What can cuase such cooling on the stations?
With all the comments about B.E.S.T., I’m reminded of this graph, from another article posted here on WUWT:
Shenanigans, always shenanigans…
In fact, none of the past temperature records are reliable to the tenth- and hundredth- of a degree claimed. At the very best, older records are reliable to ±1ºC. Yet all climate alarmism is based on those inaccurate records.
The central problem here: they never admit that past records are inaccurate and unreliable, but they assert things that can’t possibly be based on fractional degree accuracy.
“Shenanigans, always shenanigans…
too funny!! they grabbed data from woods for trees.
Thats too funny! woods for trees grabbed the wrong berkeley earth data
here is a clue
Always use this rule whether the data shows what you like to see or not.
1. Seek out the SOURCE DATA
2. Ask the chart maker for his code
3. See if you can REPRODUCE his artwork ( graphs are not science, they are advertisements for science)
Do this with everything you really care about
Recall how many times steve mcintyre could not reproduce Mann charts.
In the case of woods for trees I have written them to ask them to correct their mistake.
Now, if they were sea ice charts, people would be screaming about somebody posting bad data.
but, since folks like the “story” they never question why woodsfortrees has the wrong data
and why they have never fixed it.
maybe its a skeptics conspiracy
Mr. Mosher, like our esteemed leader, you seem to like straw men.
Mr. Mosher, with all your comments on ‘conspiracy theory’, here’s what you said in your book, ‘The Crutape Letters.’
The Real Crime in Climategate
“While some are checking the statute books regarding the different treatments of hackers versus whistleblowers, and others are checking conspiracy laws regarding damaging careers through perversion of the peer review process and suborning editors to exclude unpopular opinions, we would like to say what we think the real crime was in Climategate.”
“The criminals are not limited to The Team, the climate scientists and palaeoclimatologist whose emails and files were leaked to the public.”
“A section of politically active scientists, policy makers, politicians and NGOs in effect put on white coats and told us that our planet was gravely ill, and that we needed to follow their prescriptive advice to save ourselves fro a deadly disease. That’s really how they framed the discussion, and they classified everyone who disagreed as a denier, like a smoker dismissing his cough and waving away the x-rays.”
“That’s not a crime. But it’s pretty close to it to change the readouts on a patient’s condition to convince him to undergo expensive treatment, label other doctors as quacks is they disagree with the changed diagnosis, and to refuse to show the patient the data underlying the charts.”
“They may protest that the diagnosis is too technical for the patient to understand and that their actions are for the patient’s good. They may even believe it. But we call it quackery.”
“And the crime is malpractice. Deliberate and conscious malpractice. And since they arrogated the power unto themselves to diagnose the disease and prescribe a cure, they might also be charged with practicing medicine without a license.”
…..
“The idiots running the global warming campaign (and make no mistake, a bigger bunch of idiots would be hard to find) didn’t trust people to react to the truth. They thought you wouldn’t understand and if you understood, you wouldn’t care. So they lied to you, repeatedly and with a smile on their smarmy faces. Catastrophe! Dramatic sea level rises! Unbearable heatwaves every X months! Pick your own stupid pet trick.”
****
Mr. Mosher, basically, what you’ve done is spent your entire book discrediting the alarmism – which is really the only reason to act on anything – but then try to preserve the alarmism by kicking it down the road.
Here’s what you said: … ‘we believe global average temperatures will rise about 1.5 to 2 degrees Celsius. But it won’t be even, and it won’t happen smoothly over the rest of the century. It will hit some places like a ton of bricks, and leave others untouched. A slow motion tornado that picks and chooses.’
You see, Mr. Mosher, we understand there is some effect – the question is, how large and how damaging. I’m sorry, but suggesting that the world will change to some degree, some will benefit, some will suffer, some will be untouched, is exactly the situation we have always had, have today, and exactly the same situation we would have a hundred years hence, even if there was never a belch of human C02 in the atmosphere.
I still believe Lindzen said it best:
“Stated briefly, I will simply try to clarify what the debate over climate change is really about. It most certainly is not about whether climate is changing: it always is. It is not about whether CO2 is increasing: it clearly is. It is not about whether the increase in CO2, by itself, will lead to some warming: it should. The debate is simply over the matter of how much warming the increase in CO2 can lead to, and the connection of such warming to the innumerable claimed catastrophes. The evidence is that the increase in CO2 will lead to very little warming, and that the connection of this minimal warming (or even significant warming) to the purported catastrophes is also minimal. The arguments on which the catastrophic claims are made are extremely weak – and commonly acknowledged as such. They are sometimes overtly dishonest.”
Mr. Mosher – I respect you, and I believe you are an honest man, and I admire the fortitude you show in appearing on what for you is often a hostile forum, but you have to understand that (besides being an open invitation to overreach of government power and an existential threat to individual liberty) the Global Warming movement has empowered those who don’t believe humanity even has a place on this planet – certainly not one that would allow us to adapt our environment to our needs, and puts human health and life-style as extremely subservient to simply preserving the world as some sort of conservation project. And it doesn’t matter what you do – build a windmill and the same green activists that killed coal will shut it down. Build a dam? Ditto. And don’t even discuss nuclear – that’s a non-starter.
And for all your bleeding heart over the potential suffering of the poor a century or so down the line, those you have empowered would deny these same people the benefits of cheap, affordable power that could improve their lot – as Obama’s own science adviser said, it’s the single biggest factor that raises populations out of poverty.
Speaking of woodfortrees.org –
Here is a comparison of RSS with NH and SH from HadSST2
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/plot/hadsst2nh/from:1979/plot/hadsst2sh/from:1979
and again from HadSST3
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/plot/hadsst3sh/from:1979/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1979
They get swapped. I thought that the seasonal changes after 2003 were the result of infilling for the Arctic done poorly in HadSST3. Is this woodfortrees or problems with the original data?
While we are talking about this, while the SST are ‘calibrated’ with MSU, that they fit the RSS data well is no indicator of how precise the data is before 1979. Still, the correlation with the changes from month to month of mean global CO2 level (measured from the side of a volcano) are quite good even before 1979. There is 24 month smoothing but its also scaled by √24 and the SD is 0.16 for the difference between SH SST and the smoothed deriv. (10 year moving SD is from 0.11-0.18).
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadsst3sh/from:1959/plot/hadsst3nh/from:1959/plot/esrl-co2/mean:24/derivative/scale:4.9/offset:-0.4
Unless the correlation is a coincidence (and yes, the numbers don’t add up for the increase in CO2 levels to be due to increase in SST but its hardly a coincidence) it shows a very good correlation of CO2 levels with SST with SST being measured perfectly and CO2 levels measured to ±0.2ppm. The above plots suggest that without the MSU calibration, the mean SST wouldn’t be known close to the nearest 0.1°C for the year.
Amazing measurements, don’t you think, or should I seek out the original data?
I just have a hard time taking seriously the slight differences in two sets of bogus surface temperature data. All the charts in this article misrepresent reality.
The Climate Change Gurus said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, and then conspired together to change the charts so it appeared that the 1930’s was cooler than 1998. See the Climategate emails for confirmation. We should not accept this fraud, which is what this article appears to be doing.
Given those Climate Change Gurus *facts*, if a temperature chart does not show the 1930’s as being hotter than 1998, then that chart is bogus and fraudulent. Period. No amount of nuance is going to change that.
I notice the reference is always to “raw” data. That’s the proper way to describe it, that’s for sure. Bogus “raw” data.
Mosher, No skeptics I know dispute temp rise since coming out of LIA. The ones I know dispute manmade CO2 being the main driver of temp rises since the industrial revolution. They also rue the lost opportunity the billions of dollars focussing on precautionary principle when it could be directed towards the real and the now issues. Why forego a definite impact today on a maybe impact in a century. as a non CAGW example, many businesses I know do not run as efficiently as they would like long term because it is better to make short term compromises and stay operating than to be perfectly closed/shutdown. By staying in business until the medium term opens a new paradigm. about a century ago some people predicted the city streets would grow so much, so fast, they would fill with horse shit, but a paradigm shift with the combustion engine made that future problem irrelevant. so we can model climate to our hearts content, but its what we do with the prediction now that matters most.
Steven Mosher, you obviously have access to lots of temperature data sources, and I was wondering if you had access to the surface temperature data set that the Conspiratorial Climate Change Gurus were looking at when they decided they needed to conspire together to modify that data to make it appear the 1930;s was cooler than 1998. You wouldn’t happen to have that particular temperature data set would you?
I guess not.
Question for Mosher. You said upthread “In 1896 before greenpeace science predicted that if we added c02 temperatures would increase. We added c02. Did temperatures increase? Yup.”
*
As I understand it, CO2 follows temperature increase, not the other way around. Why are you so certain that CO2 is any kind of culprit? Wouldn’t it be better to consider all options including natural cycles and events?
MET – “NASA GISS assumes that temperature anomalies remain coherent out to distances of 1200km from a station”
assume
əˈsjuːm/
verb
3rd person present: assumes
1.
suppose to be the case, without proof.
“There is a growing need for meteorological observations conducted in urban areas. Urban populations continue to
expand, and Meteorological Services are increasingly required to supply meteorological data in support of detailed
forecasts for citizens, building and urban design, energy conservation, transportation and communications, air
quality and health, storm water and wind engineering, and insurance and emergency measures. At the same time,
Meteorological Services have difficulty in making urban observations that are not severely compromised. This is
because most developed sites make it impossible to conform to the standard guidelines for site selection and
instrument exposure given in Part I of this Guide owing to obstruction of air-flow and radiation exchange by
buildings and trees, unnatural surface cover and waste heat and water vapour from human activities”
Hmm, “severely compromised- make it impossible ” – amazing that we are given temps to hundredths of a degree accuracy.
According to Mosher, GISS estimating up to 1200 kilometers from a temp station is good enough.
I nver knew this-
“Surface temperature
Surface temperature is not commonly measured at urban stations, but it can be a very useful variable to use as
input in models to calculate fluxes. A representative surface temperature requires the averaging of an adequate
sample of the many surfaces, vertical as well as horizontal, that make up an urban area. This is possible only
using infrared remote sensing either from a scanner mounted on an aircraft or satellite, or a downwardfacing
pyrgeometer, or one or more radiation thermometers of which the combined field of view covers a representative
sample of the urban district”
today in south Belgium: snow and ice warmings and a nice winter landscape…..
it’s supposed to be spring…
Id just like to give S.Mosher some insane credits for all the answers. I’m Learning alot about stations and adjustments. It would be more fun if people appreciated his responses, as he actually works with datasets and has been in the same position as many of us (distrusting adjustments).
Kudos Mosher
I do not think Mr. Mosher has answered the question about datasets showing the 1930s as cooler than the present (ie, do they, and is it correct to do so), or the question about how long-ago temperatures can be calculated to 1/100ths of a degree, particular with problems that he seems to concede (big gaps in Africa; his own view that US stations had “no standards” and too many “volunteers”). I have no preconception on either issue. But I would be interested in his view on those topics. And if he has answered those, please accept my apologies — it’s quite a comment string!
I appreciate Steven Mosher’s responses, and they apply to his work with “current” temperature databases, but he is ignoring the elephant in the room which is that the 1930’s was hotter than the 1998 high temperature point benchmark. Steven just needs to get his endpoints properly set: one in the 1930’s and one in 1998. 🙂
“but he is ignoring the elephant in the room which is that the 1930’s was hotter than the 1998 high temperature point benchmark”
Really?
http://www.carbonbrief.org/media/48204/berkeley-1.jpg
…Reality before “adjustments” of the past temp records !
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Screenshot-2016-04-08-at-05.24.44-AM-down.png
..Let’s not forget…
http://realclimatescience.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/GISS_US_1999-2016.gif
Marcus:
What is the dataset?
What was the baseline?
Have anything that goes beyond 1975 (41 years ago)?
Oh, dear your typing finger seems to have slipped as that GIF is from Anthony’s favourite “scientist” Steven Goddard, err I mean Tony Heller…… (oh it’s sarc)
http://rankexploits.com/musings/2014/how-not-to-calculate-temperature/#comment-130003
“..Let’s not forget…”
Oh I don’t …. though it seems you do and all the rest of the uncritical denizen on here.
Why not post up the Alley graph as well?
You know the one that purports to end in 2000, when in fact it’s 1855.
Marcus,
Instead, what ‘Toneb’ believes is complete bogosity like this:
http://www.realclimate.org/images//Marcott.png
As if.
Steven Mosher
April 24, 2016 at 12:09 pm wrote:
“The US data is the worst.
Volunteers. no standards.”
You should read the history of the national weather service. It completely debunks your statement above.
The Climategate Emails give us all we need to create a true surface temperature chart. All that is required is to put the decade of the 1930’s, or at least one point in that time period, as being hotter than the 1998, temperature highpoint.
It doesn’t matter that the actual temperature numbers have been hidden or destroyed by the Climate Change Gurus, all we need to know is that these people, who had possession of the database, said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998. We have their emails to prove it.
Even if the 1930’s is only one-tenth of a degree higher, that is enough to give us a true picture of the surface temperature chart. The trend is down. All the adjustments in between those two 1930-1998 endpoints would be more or less irrelevant to the general temperature trend. Get the endpoints right, to get the true picture.
The Climategate emails confirm that the Climate Change Gurus said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998, and that’s all that is needed to establish which is the proper temperature trendline. The unadulterated data, showing the 1930’s as being hotter than 1998, as attested to by the Climate Change Gurus’ emails, shows a “longterm” downtrend. After this data was manipulated by the Climate Change Gurus, the temperature charts show a “longterm” uptrend, just what they conspired to produce. That is what we are forced to look at every day, and argue about.
The Climate Change Gurus bemoaned the 1930’s for blowing up their AGW theory, so they conspired to change the data and create a false temperature profile, for political and other purposes, but their own emails have exposed them for what they are: Climate Change Charlatans, trying to perpetrate a harmful fraud on the rest of mankind. We should not accept this fraud.
No disrepect meant to Bob Tisdale. He does a great job, considering the handicap of false data he has to work under.
“It doesn’t matter that the actual temperature numbers have been hidden or destroyed by the Climate Change Gurus, all we need to know is that these people, who had possession of the database, said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998. We have their emails to prove it.”
OK, prove it for us – don’t just hand-wave to the crowd.
Toneb,
All HCN stations:
And the recent natural warming episode is no different from other global warming episodes:
http://s6.postimg.org/uv8srv94h/id_AOo_E.gif
The planet is currently at the cold end of the temperature record. In the past it has been more than 10ºC hotter — with no ill effects:
And from the 1940’s through the 1970’s, global cooling was the scare du jour.
Next, the planet has been warming naturally, at the same rate and within the same parameters for a century and a half. There is no acceleration in global warming despite the large rise in CO2.
Therefore, your “CO2=AGW” conjecture is debunked. And no ‘hand waving’ was used. Planet Earth is falsifying your belief system, that’s all. You just can’t admit it. But everyone else sees it.
dbstealey:.png)
Now is your HCN graph for for the globe or for the US?
Oh, and another graph from Anthony’s favourite “scientist” Heller/Goddard. (sarc)
Discredited anyway.
The Globe:
Nope, not even close.
The US (which contrary to certain US citizen’s belief is NOT the globe).
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/Fig4_correction.gif
Nope.
THE CET Series:
Nope we see the familiar ~0.8C rise in temp.
Oh, and what’s with the short-term trend cherry-pick?
Next you’ll be saying that the “pause” happened as well. Oh you do! Sorry forgot that…. And the temps are now going up? Yep so your argument is specious.
“The planet is currently at the cold end of the temperature record. In the past it has been more than 10ºC hotter — with no ill effects:”
It may have been hotter but there was not ~7bn souls inhabiting the planet with massive population/infrastructure near sea-level. Having being naturally placed there because of climatic advantages.
“No ill effects”, err, obviously as we don’t care about the planet on the people on it, and when it was “more than 10ºC hotter — with no ill effects” there weren’t any.
“And from the 1940’s through the 1970’s, global cooling was the scare du jour.”
Nope you mix up media attention-grabbing headlines with scientific consensus.
Another myth…..
http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/11584/1/2008bams2370%252E1.pdf
“Therefore, your “CO2=AGW” conjecture is debunked. And no ‘hand waving’ was used. Planet Earth is falsifying your belief system, that’s all. You just can’t admit it. But everyone else sees it.”
I’ve told you before – a belief system does not require evidence.
I have the evidence.
You don’t.
Unless you want to consider the 3 options again….
1) the world’s “ology” experts are incompetent.
b) the world’s “ology” experts are in on a giant fraud.
c) They know more than you. NOT believe. Know.
That you do not come under c) says everything that the logical and non-ideologically driven person needs to know.
Oh, BTW my “OK, prove it for us – don’t just hand-wave to the crowd.”
referred to the bizarre statement that the “1930’s was hotter than 1998”
Fail
Coz it wasn’t.
Now is your HCN graph for for the globe or for the US?
Yes. So what? It’s data. Next:
Your ‘global’ link conveniently doesn’t work.
Next, compare your GISS link with this:
http://oi31.tinypic.com/2149sg0.jpg
See the “adjustments”? Notice how they always show increasingly scary temperatures? And you actually believe them??
They do this all the time:
And:
Next you’ll be saying that the “pause” happened as well.
Up until last year, most everyone on both sides of the debate agreed with the so-called “pause” or “hiatus”. There were more than sixty official explanations of why global warming had stopped. Then, the alarmist Narrative changed, and the new talking point became: “Global warming never stopped!”
In other words, the alarmist cult started lying through their teeth. They only had two choices at that point: admit that the hated skeptic were right all along — or sell their souls. They picked Door #2.
Next:
…there was not ~7bn souls inhabiting the planet…
That whole paragraph is a non sequitur fallacy; no need to respond to fallacies.
Next, when I posted data showing conclusively that the 1940’s and beyond were cooling, your response was:
Nope you mix up media attention-grabbing headlines with scientific consensus.
Could you be any more lame? I provided data that you don’t like, so your response is to make stupid assertions, ending with the oxymoron “scientific consernsus”. Emphasis on ‘moron’.
Next, you assert:
I have the evidence. You don’t.
More hand-waving. I’ve posted plenty of evidence-based links. All you’ve posted are your opinions. So in fact, you don’t have evidence; I do. All you have is your belief system; your eco-religion.
Next, re: your confused “1), b), c)”: They are just more baseless assertions. That’s all you’ve got. It is nothing but hand-waving.
You always forget the basics: skeptics have nothing to prove. The onus is on you to support your CO2=cAGW conjecture with verifiable, testable measurements. But you failed, because you can’t produce any such measurements. So far, no one has ever produced any measurements of AGW.
And once more for the slow learners: nothing currently observed in global temperatures is unusual. Nothing is unprecedented. It has all happened before, repeatedly, and to a much greater degree — and before CO2 emissions mattered. Since that is the basis of your entire climate scare, your arguments are demolished. All of them.
Finally, no climate alarmist is a scientific skeptic. Since all honest scientists are skeptics, first and foremost, you can draw your own conclusions.
Toneb, thank you for the global land/sea temperature graph from 1880 to 2010(?) you gave. I will assume it is an accurate accounting by a reputable source. Using my augmented Mk. 1 eyeballs, I discern:
From just before 1910 to just after 1940 (30-plus years) I see a little under about a 0.5 degrees C temperature rise.
From about late 1970’s to about 2010(?) (30-plus years) I see a little over about a 0.5 degrees C temperature rise.
Over similar time periods we have similar temperature rises (close enough for me). Why does AGW drive the latter and not the former? And given your apparent glee over pointing out the differences between global and U.S. temperatures to the unenlightened, why hasn’t your graph for the middle chunk of North America shown warming like the average temperatures of the rest of the globe? CO2 gas is well mixed. Could confusion concerning the differing properties of air and water have anything to do with that? AMO anyone? Other stuff?
I admit I did not do a full scientific study. Given, however, the uncertainties related to global temperature measurements and their adjustments, I will argue that my approximation is as good an estimate of what actually happened as anybody’s, and certainly good enough for what goes for “policy making.” I’ve made successful investments of millions based on analyses of similar accuracy. I was also involved in writing off about $1.5 billion of Federal government debt (think of something like a bigger Solyndra) that was based on “cast iron” studies. The real world, not the world of slavish number crunchers that can never be held accountable.
dogdaddyblog & (obliquely) dbstealey:
dbstealey knows that I wish to retain my sanity and so limited *conversation* is the order of the day with him. There are many denizens (dragon-slayers) on here – but he ranks up there in the top 3 by my measure.
It is always a self-fulfilling prophecy with that type that it is a waste of time and I care not a jot that they are unreachable. The idea that viewing climate science with such hubris, arrogance and ignorance combined, blows my mind – but we well aware what belief is capable of from certain parts of the world.
As I continually say.
Take the choice. Are you pumping for a), b), or c).
Above-ground it’s not in doubt.
The main handicap of course stems from the need for it to be ABCD (anything but CO2), anything will do, even to it not happening at all.
I ask for proof that the hand-waving statement that (paraphrase) Global temps in the 30’s were warmer than 1998. None comes (well except a graph with an unknown baseline that ends in 1975).
Self-fulfilling mythology. Because of the need to grab something, anything, that is ABCD.
This disregarding evidence in the Earth’s flora and fauna re advancement of onset of Spring, delay of Autumn/winter and the warming in the NH as life migrates north to cooler temps.
That CO2 in the atmosphere slows cooling is unarguable. Just as is any other empirical science (repeatedly tested and not found wanting – the science is not the GCM’s).
In order to appreciate this, one is required to view the science and it is NOT found here or through Goddard/Hellers fraudulent (according to Anthony) interpretation of things. Or anyother Blog with an agenda (an no SkS has links to the peer-reviewed science)…… cue shouts of “pal-review”. Well, Ok drag people of the streets to review the science shall we?
Try Google Scholar.
Go to a Library and read some text books.
And STOP thinking you know better than the experts, just becasue you belong to the echo-chamber of WUWT or any other Blog
10’s thousands of them in all the Earth “ologies” are all Trumped (pun intended).
Just because of your “tax dollars”.
Ah diddums.
And now to sanity: dogdaddy
Thank you for a response that does not come from deep inside the rabbit-hole.
“Over similar time periods we have similar temperature rises (close enough for me). Why does AGW drive the latter and not the former? And given your apparent glee over pointing out the differences between global and U.S. temperatures to the unenlightened, why hasn’t your graph for the middle chunk of North America shown warming like the average temperatures of the rest of the globe? CO2 gas is well mixed. Could confusion concerning the differing properties of air and water have anything to do with that? AMO anyone? Other stuff?”
If you split out any time period that is less than ~30 years you will not illuminate the background anthro CO2 driver. Nor will picking on a region that is less than 2% of the globe.
The period during WW2 and into the 1970’s had particularly “dirty” industry, and it is known from evaporation bath readings that that period had reduced TSI – “Global dimming” where cloud nuclei blocked more than before or since.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_dimming
Not glee, just staggering amazement that US *contrarians* think that what temps do in the US transfers to the whole Earth.
I am of no doubt that the reasons lie in the Equatorial pacific. A particularly warm phase of +ve PDO/ENSO…
http://climate.ncsu.edu/images/climate/enso/PDO_Phase.gif
You also have to factor in the geography of the US. The Rockies has an enormous influence on the movement/position of the Polar Jet. This is why the eastern half of the US has frequent cold winters. The Jet wants to flow south after clearing it. (just as a wind blowing any over an obstacle wants to flow into the lower pressure zone behind (think snowdrifts collecting behind and burying sheep FI).
And yes the AMO was +ve in the 30’s….
ALSO CO2 forcing did not overcome the -ve forcing of aerosol until post 1960….
dogdaddy,
I think Toneb needs to lay off the cooking sherry. What do you think?
He’s making about as much sense as usual. “Ah diddums”…
Toneb:
Thank you for your response. I accept that the earth has warmed overall in the 20th century and that it exhibits evidence of that warming in ice melt, SLR, growing seasons, species migration, etc. I see, however, little to no evidence that our overall climate has worsened in any detectable manner, to include the steady rise in SLR.
I am familiar with and accept the science behind the operation of CO2 (and other gasses) in our atmosphere. Given multidecadal variations in temperature trends and the disagreement between global models and observations (even in hindcasting), I’m not convinced it is the “control knob” as has been touted. CAGW has not by any means been proven (I await evidence) and is polluting any rational discussion of climate variability.
Recognizing your point about minimum intervals to detect climate variability, I picked two time periods represented by your global temperature graph, each exceeding thirty years in length. To address another of your points, the earlier period prior to WWII is not known to me for its industrial pollution that would reduce TSI. It is shown that that period exhibited warming of the same order of magnitude over a similar period as that of the 1970’s to early 21st century period. Clearly a problem for the “CO2 control knob” vs. particulates postulate.
I brought up the U.S. temperature record precisely for the reasons you stated. Like all land areas, its climate is affected by topography and worldwide ocean masses which are subject to energy reactions to unknown forces. [Do you know what any of those forces might be?] What caught my eye was even though your global and U.S. graphs each showed similarities in the timing of their variations, their relative differences over the approximately sixty years between the 1940’s peaks and the 21st century peaks was extreme.
Sixty years seems to me to be a long enough period for any significant natural cyclic energy fluctuations, primarily in the oceans, to have worked themselves out (ignoring solar influences, unfortunately). If CO2 was one of the primary drivers of worldwide temperatures, would not the relative magnitudes of such changes at different points on the globe be similar over long periods? I’m aware there are vast differences in the climate states of ocean and land and different latitudes. Warming is warming in my estimation, though.
Would you agree that certain phenomena, including AMO and PDO/ENSO, are not “forced” by CO2? If so, should not all multi-decadal and multi-annual effects be teased out of the climate data before attempting to discern the impacts of CO2? Especially ocean heat content?
Toneb, I hope the above does not relegate me to your “waste of time” category. I am simply a knowledge seeker coming from a fairly large knowledge base of mostly useless facts/opinions.
Dave Fair
Prove what Toneb? Do you doubt the Climate Change Gurus said the 1930’s was hotter than 1998?
Do you doubt that the Climate Change Gurus conspired to change the historic temperatue record to make the 1930’s appear cooler than 1998?
If you do doubt it, then I guess you never read the Climategate emails, where it is all laid out in black and white in the Climate Change Gurus’ own words. These are *your* guys saying this stuff, not *our* guys. *Your guys* indicted themselves with their emails.
Here you go, Steven:
THE BEGINNING OF THE NATIONAL WEATHER SERVICE:
THE SIGNAL YEARS (1870 – 1891) AS VIEWED BY EARLY WEATHER PIONEERS
http://www.nws.noaa.gov/pa/history/signal.php
One commenter below stated that climate scientists are constantly rewriting physics. The reason I’m making a general comment here instead of replying to him or her is that several more issues are apropos:
Physics and science cannot be rewritten without evidence. In addition, the science is constantly being scrutinized by other scientists. As is the evidence. Many of those posting here don’t seem to understand that science evolves because actual TRAINED, HIGHLY EDUCATED scientists– not ignorant laypersons– challenge the evidence and the process and a hypothesis with actual contravening evidence, not mere belief in doubt. It’s belief in Doubt itself that seems to have the upper hand here, not science.
Evidence means nothing in the hands of someone who doesn’t know exactly what to do with it. (Meaning most, if not all, evidently, posting here.) If any of you, including the original poster know enough science to do all the math and collect all the data and do all the adjustments correctly, prove it. Redo all the calculations and collect all the data. Then submit your paper to a relevant science journal for other scientists to review. Not to a popularity-driven website hit up constantly by low-IQ , “global warming isn’t real is my religion” commenters who think weather in their backyard proves global cooling (more on that below), and who constantly (and rather desperately) seek pseudoscientific validation for their fringe, anti-science beliefs.
Aside: For that matter, have you noticed this website’s slogan boasts it is NOT the most truthful or factual climate science website– which would be an obviously false–but merely the most popular one? Very telling.
What you’re doing is second-guessing proven and demonstrated science–but not using a real, full and pertinent science background. Not using appropriate science education. Using your so-called common sense, which often doesn’t work in science. And failing to use appropriate channels, because you won’t get any proper scientific attention posting to those who have no status or standing or ability to change things or contribute to the VAST, ESTABLISHED body of knowledge about global warming in the scientific community.
If you want to become a real climate scientist, STUDY the subject and get a doctorate degree. Then post when you are finished. When you KNOW something REAL and PERTINENT. Should be about 6~10 years for most posting here. Maybe 12 for those posting about how much snow your local area is getting–#EPICFAIL.
As to those commenting about today’s weather in their own backyard: As anyone who has done a fair amount of research (and comprehends basic science) on global warming knows, climate is NOT weather. Your local weather conditions have very little to do at this moment with global warming, it’s regional and global trends that matter. However, global warming can change long term weather trends in some local areas. For example, a long-term trend of strong heating in a lakes region will put more moisture in the atmosphere, creating more snowy and rainy conditions overall and over time.
It’s this crucial difference that seems difficult for those below a certain IQ (undetermined), with a concomitant disability in basic science, to comprehend.
Try Skepticalscience.org for a basic science primer on global warming. It also has a wonderful section debunking EVERY myth that pops up here again and again and again and again and again and again–and again, today!
Commenting about your weather makes you look foolish; reveals your obvious climate science ignorance.
Am I the only intelligent commenter here capable of seeing that? Is this website so driven by ignorance that smart people cannot call out the dupes??
[snip – try again – Anthony]
..Dang, I really got to make a list of “Bad Words” !! LOL
..I guess your not a fan of “Cream” ??
Agwisreal3000 wrote: “Am I the only intelligent commenter here capable of seeing that?”
You obviously *think* you are the only intelligent commenter here.
You remind me of Obama. Obama thinks he is the smartest person in the room, too. He’s not.
agwisreal3000 wrote: “What you’re doing is second-guessing proven and demonstrated science”
I don’t see anyone on this website second-guessing “proven and demonstrated” science. We probably have a different defintion of “proven and demonstrated”, than you, I’m guessing.
To condense one of my comments below: If you are so smart and so scientific and your data is so strong… Why aren’t you constantly submitting your work to global warming climate science journals?? After all, many if not most scientists are searching for new ways to understand the Earth and are glad to welcome REAL evidence that changes the way we think about things.
It’s conservatives, not scientists, who try to keep things the same. Science isn’t about constancy or protecting a certain status quo, the way conservatives do with religion for example. Science is about understanding, whether or not reality appears to change or stay the same. It’s the study of REALITY.
I respectully suggest your assertions assertions and evidence aren’t strong or valid, are full of holes and created and/or supported by suppositions and inferences and leaps of logic rather than actual science.
These leaps and inferences may appear valid at first, but under scrutiny of all the pertinent evidence they fall apart. And that is why you fear putting them before the scientists who can pick them apart with the scientific tools you yourself do not possess.
Beliefs in nonscientific or pseudoscientific global warming hoax conspiracy theories do not constitute evidence of wrongdoing or poor science by climate scientists.
It is patently impossible that a global warming hoax by thousands of scientists, colluding with Al Gore, are “in on it,” to “fool” the entire world into creating a sustainable green economy at the expense of the poor innocent billionaire capitalists who fund and are invested in the trillions of dollars into big oil and big coal.
Consider a wonderful quotation from author Scott Westerfeld:
“Plot idea: 97% of the world’s scientists contrive an environmental crisis, but are exposed by a plucky band of billionaires & oil companies.”
The profits from oil companies run into the trillions every year. The infrastructure and capital investments could be many times that amount. Is it really likely that there is some vast hoax perpetrated by selfish scientists to keep earning their $60-120k/year (only guessing at university and government salaries) at the expense of these impoverished, do-gooder billionaires and CEOs??? Seriously?!?
Who and what agencies or entities TRULY benefit and profit from continuing to pollute the Earth, destroying us and wildlife and flora, at an unprecedented rate?? And why, in the absence of the profit motive, would anyone do such willfully and obviously destructive things? The evidence of our massive destruction and the permanent changes upon the face of the earth and the oceans is proof enough that we need to reverse the impact of our activities in almost every way.
Why is it so difficult to believe that some people care for others and the environment almost as much as for themselves? This calls into question the very humanity and goodness and decency of many who doubt and question the global warming science community. If you doubt the idea that someone can work whole heartedly for an environmental organization, often for very little pay, that reveals a limitation in your own imagination. It reveals a self-centeredness and a sociopathology in YOU. It reveals a lack of compassion for other humans, let alone the environment (after all, merely a vague concept, not a vast, concrete collection of disparate entities, to most). It reveals your belief in the almighty dollar over belief in the value of humanity and the environment we DEPEND ON.
Obvious answer: Doubt in this area is mostly fueled by sociopaths hired by conservative agencies and groups with a vested interests in protecting the multi-trillion-dollar oil and coal and gas industries.
And this view is supported in the general public by those with a rather deranged “right-wing authoritarian syndrome”: They believe that what is now, and who rules currently, The Established Authority (capitalized intentionally), should continue to do so at the expense of everything else.
This is their thinking: It is “okay” or justified to break laws, ignore humanitarian needs, fail to recognize social needs for all, ignore the rights of those not in power to have a clean environment, and destroy any in the path of the rulers–simply because They are already the rulers, the established Authority. Any who go against the established Authority, no matter how obviously wrong or dangerous, deserve to be punished. The Rules, set by The Authority, must be followed, at all costs!
People who think this way are supporting people who are destroying us. They are throwbacks to evolution. They are killing Humanity. They must be stopped by progressives and liberals who are more intelligent and compassionate and can see the bigger picture.
agwisreal3000,
Utter rubbish, all of it. For example:
“People who think this way are supporting people who are destroying us. They are throwbacks to evolution. They are killing Humanity. They must be stopped by progressives and liberals who are more intelligent and compassionate and can see the bigger picture.”
That’s a good little parrot. No need to think for yourself, is there?
Who, exactly, is “destroying us”? Who in “humanity” is being killed? Give us some names. The fact is that fossil fuel companies wouldn’t even exist if the public didn’t demand their products. And there is nothing stopping you from buying shares in those companies, and cashing in on your share of the profits. Instead, you promote your conspiracy theory: those evil CEO’s are taking all of society’s money, and stashing it in their off-shore accounts, laughing like Snidely Whiplash. Could you be any more clueless?
Well, yes, you could:
“Beliefs in nonscientific or pseudoscientific global warming hoax conspiracy theories do not constitute evidence of wrongdoing or poor science by climate scientists.”
That’s pure psychological projection. The pseudo-science is entirely on the side of those claiming that human CO2 emissions are the ‘control knob’ of global temperatures. There is zero evidence to support that belief. But there is plenty of evidence (Climategate, etc.) that shows major fraud and other wrongdoing by the small, self-serving clique of ‘climate scientists’ that try to sell the ‘runaway global warming and climate catastrophe’ nonsense to anyone who will bite. And you? You’ve swallowed that bait hook, line, and sinker.
And such hypocrisy! You burn up your share of fossil fuels — but you want to bite the hand that feeds you. If you believe that fossil fuels are bad, then put your car in neutral, shut off the engine, get out, and push it about twenty miles down the road. Then tell us how we’re getting ripped off for paying a few dollars a gallon to do the same work.
It’s hard to believe that there are people around who actually believe the nonsense you emit. We can thank the government’s .edu factories for dumbing down the population. You’re a good example of what’s being produced: a bunch of young, ignorant mouth-breathers who don’t know science from Scientology.
Just like your silly screen name (let’s see you quantify ‘agw’ with some verifiable numbers), you’re just regurgitating the mindless claptrap that’s being taught to the handful of vacant-headed lemmings occasionally posting here, among the vast majority of commenters who are well educated in the hard sciences.
Finally, the ‘Authority’ you wring your hands about is actually Big Government itself. As you say, the rules set by The Authority must be followed, at all costs. Your mistake is in believing the government’s propaganda. But just try going against the government. You will be squashed in short order. And if you actually believe that you have more compassion, and are more intelligent than everyone else here, bear in mind, that is merely your assertion It’s baseless, because it simply isn’t true, and it’s amusing watching you try to keep your halo on straight.
You’ve wasted a lot of space showing everyone how effective the Media/Government propaganda has been on some folks. Wake me when you start to think for yourself.
..Thanks for a great rebuttal DB…unfortunately, if I say what I think of BlaBla3000, I will get SNIPPED !
I just don’t have your eloquent touch I guess ! LOL
Actually, db, agwisreal3000 scares the living cats out of me. The mischaracterizations and hatred he spews is pushed out by very powerful global forces. There are enough of the agwisreal3000 types out there that threats to nonbelievers are manifest.
Look at the U.S. Congressional types going after skeptical scientists. Look at POTUS demonizing those with whom he disagrees. Look at the U.S. Attorney General referring critical opinion to the FBI for investigation. Look at the U.S. Executive Departments that are zealously pushing the rhetoric, including the military! Look at the U.S. Attorneys General who are using the power of the State to silence critics. Look at the top-down push of the “Truth” across our society and institutions, especially education.
Look at the wording of agwisreal3000’s rant: Believers are more intelligent and compassionate than skeptics. Skeptical views should be repressed. The fate of the world depends on Believers taking action against skeptics. Reread that hateful screed and realize it calls on the end of your independent action, and that its contents are believed by a great number of people.
Wow. The whole thing looks like a pogrom to me. Without the blood.
Dave Fair
Dave Fair,
Scary, no? It brings to mind Voltaire’s words:
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities.
People like that are mentally psyching themselves to go out and kill… for Mother Earth. And it does look like a pogrom. But without the blood? That’s just temporary.
I believe we should watch the college campuses for the trending institutionalized intolerance toward skeptics, db. They are currently fine-tuning the organizations, processes and techniques for forcing compliance with “official” orthodoxy. Without bothering to look up the particulars this late in the evening, a far-left billionaire is committing significant millions of dollars to hype his anti-fossil fuel agenda at many colleges. Since it is also anti-capitalist (oddly for him) and supposedly pro-third world, it will generate a huge following. I’m hoping, though, that the recent college administrator and student antics will sour the general public on any messages coming from them.
Dave Fair
BTW, it would be nice to know his/her/it real name. A paid shill/troll?
If the crisis were real it ought to engender an obvious solution, like massive investment in nuclear technology. But Hansen was labeled a “denier” for such advocacy (by Oreskes). What difference does it make whether we recite the credo if there is no prescribed discipline? –AGF
agwisreal3000, please refer me to the website where you go to cut and paste this much propaganda wholesale. At SkS one needs to hop around a bit to aggregate that much BS. Smart sounding words are no substitute for hard facts: No CAGW in any record. Models don’t hindcast, much less forecast. Simple physics equations seem to get subsumed in a chaotic climate. A science degree (or any credential) does not guarantee impartiality.
Drats! I still can’t get bloviating scatology through.
And the two attempts were truly masterful rebuttals of agwistrue3000’s childish world outlook.
“True” “fact,” he won’t know the difference.
I have the urge to rebut every sentence of your post, but I couldn’t do it proper justice here, and it would be a waste of time anyway, as far as convincing you of anything. You already have your mind made up.
This is really not off thread, but I am in correspondence with the professor holding a symposium on literary criticism of skeptical writings. I will be getting all of the papers and whatnots from the event. I’ll get the info out as appropriate.
The BEST website shows graphs comparing BEST, NOAA and GISS and HadCRUT. Now that two of the four have been revised after Carl et al will BEST update those graphs to show the slight loss of agreement? –AGF
Best will simply “Adjust” their data to make everything look..the best !
agwisreal3000 wrote: “It’s conservatives, not scientists, who try to keep things the same. Science isn’t about constancy or protecting a certain status quo, the way conservatives do with religion for example. Science is about understanding, whether or not reality appears to change or stay the same. It’s the study of REALITY.”
The Right/Conservatives equals independent thinkers.
The Left/Liberals equals a “herd mentality”. Group Think. Go along, to get along. Submit. Out-of-control emotions, and their own internal demons, blind them to reality.
The Left definitely lives in a false reality concerning many aspects of the “real”. They don’t understand why we don’t see the world the same way they do.