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 That earlier post included “raw” unadjusted data based on an outdated version of the NOAA GHCN dataset.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.
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.